Obama will not be our next President

Touchï¿½. Bravo. Good show, old chap. I'll go inch by inch on this one. "If the definition or meaning of the word *will* that I used in that sentence was in fact the definition or meaning that I was implying when I made the debate then you would be right. " --What? So you used the word "will," but meant something entirely different? OK. .. "It *will* rain tomorrow. I *will* see you tomorrow. Now can I prove either of these until tomorrow? I can not, but you are forgetting the complexity of the English Language. " --My level of familiarity with the English language is irrelevant, for you just admitted, after having gone to all this trouble, that you cannot prove either statement until it actually happens. Thank you for your extended, if fatally flawed, English lesson. I can see why you didn't post a link to the sites. I found your primary source to be hilarious, indeed. First you went here: . http://www.tiscali.co.uk... And then here, a site on grammar that proves itself unworthy of being cited because of IT'S OWN USE OF GRAMMAR, PUNCTUATION, AND FORM: . http://www.english-the-easy-way.com... There are no such things as "model verbs. " In case the reader doesn't feel like getting a good laugh from English the easy way by following the link, let me give some examples of the site's fine use of English: " The following model verbs *are used to with* the present tense: can, will, shall, ought to, must, need, may" "Will and shall can be used to *state predict* that an event or an action will take place or will *occur The* model verbs can used to make a prediction about an event or action about the future. " --Again, they are modal verbs, not model verbs, but the grammar site must not be too interested in grammar, as my examples prove. (A good slogan for them: English - so easy that it's wrong! ) "And a prediction does not have to be proved until the time of the action that is predicted. A prediction can be argued or debated about but does not have to be proved. " --That's nearing nonsense. You have already said that your job in this debate is to *prove* that Obama will not be the next President. And in the case of a "burden of *proof*" you do have to prove what you are saying. Even further, just so we're clear, you're expressing simple futurity in the third person, not *modal* futurity, in which case you would have said, "Obama shall not be our next President. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... Will denotes certainty, whereas might denotes possibility. I'm sorry that you went to all that trouble for nothing, and I apologize to the reader for this grammatical detour. "My little model was just a demonstration of the ignorance that not only effects the people I work with but also the millions of Democrats across the nation. " --1. Your "little model" was not a model at all. 2. Wait - didn't the "millions of Democrats across the nation" NOMINATE OBAMA IN THE FIRST PLACE? They did indeed. Moot point. "We are not debating ethics or morals in this debate. " --I never said we were. The Kicker: "You are again totally with me on this one. You may think that guys like me are knuckle dragging, beer swigging, country music listening hillbilly's. And you are correct. That is me in a nutshell. Even if you do not like it this is the makeup of the glorious country that we live in, GOD BLESS AMERICA! We like a guy who we know we could go to his house, crack open a cold beer and watch the Super Bowl and feel completely at home. Guys like Obama look like a glass of stale water to guys like me. Shoot, Hillary is more of a man's man's then Obama. This is not meant to be a slander against Obama, just a honest observation. " --Wow. Here you literally concede your own ignorance. Nice try, though, separating it from the other "ignorance" points I made. Is it not self-evident that drinking beer, watching the Super Bowl, and changing flat tires HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH BEING THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD? Don't you think the prerequisites should be set to a higher standard than what you want to find in a neighbor or drinking buddy? People loved Bush just for that reason, and look where we are. The man can't even say a complete sentence correctly, but he's been the most powerful person in the world for eight years. Also, I never thought you were any particular type of person, and certainly never implied your strawman/self-imposed ad hominem argument. And if any readers think that I was implying something by putting my words the way I did in my R1, understand that I am from Alabama as well. "Well, I did not say conservatives I said Republicans. Please do not twist my words like this, gentlemen do not behave in this manner. " --I was asking what you meant by "the Republican Party is extraordinarily One House," not twisting your words. I still don't know what you meant by that. I simply meant that, in general, Democrats are considered liberals and Republicans are considered conservatives, but that this is not the case when it comes to the current incarnation of the Republican Party. I'm certain that actual conservatives will agree with me. "Now I urge you to start giving some kind of argument for you to be the negative in this debate. " --I have given my arguments. They do not have to be contraries. I suggest you pay more attention to your resolutions in the future to avoid this kind of problem. You could have simply said, "No semantics, please" in your opening argument and this would have not happened (at least from me it wouldn't have. ) Otherwise, everything is on the table to be attacked, in any way I (or whoever your opponent may be) deem appropriate. "Obama will not be our next President. I know this statement probably enrages you and other Democrats. I do not think it has this effect on you because I am lying, you have already agreed me on y stance. I feel it makes you and to the point of sweating palms and racing heart beat. .. " --What? First, I am not a Democrat, but I do happen to be voting for Obama. Second, the rest of your statement makes no sense. "I urge you to drop the smug attitude and try to concentrate your arguments on why Obama will be our next President. " --Trust me, I am far from smug, although my tone may indicate otherwise. However, I urge you, and whoever else, to stop trying to elect your drinking buddy to the highest office in the world. You wanted a debate on the issues, but from your own testimony you don't even vote on the issues. "Obama lost his lead in the polls when a women was added to the Republican ticket. Let me guess, this has nothing to do with it. The goal of the Republican campaign is to elect there nominee. A woman as VP was a wise choice because of the boost in the polls. " --Actually, as of today, September 17/18, Obama and McCain are still basically tied, except that a small lead has again emerged for Obama, probably because of Palin the moronic albatross hanging from the neck that supports McCain's increasingly senile head. She was a last-minute choice to stir up controversy among women who felt slighted because Hillary isn't on the Democratic ticket. Her favorability ratings have been decreasing daily. You cannot tell me that she and McCain haven't made fumble after fumble. She doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is and thinks that victims of rape and incest should not be able to have abortions. McCain can't remember how many homes he owns and thinks that the economy is fundamentally sound. Sheesh. Readers, you don't even have to pay attention to my last paragraph if you think I am unfairly introducing new points in R3. Any way you slice it, the election will be close. Obama might not be our next President. Then again, he might be.