You know, that was actually one of the best debates this side--the side demanding accountability--has had, and should serve as a "guide" for everyone else.
An attorney friend of mine--this is a small place; everybody knows everybody else, and is a friend of everybody else--has been watching this unfold, and he has had a constant complaint about this side, the side demanding accountability.
He says we would make crummy attorneys.
His advice is that we stick with those three questions, keep hammering away at those three questions, and nothing else. The answers to those three questions tells the whole story.
He says that, as laymen, we get too distracted by bells-and-whistles, such as the real or fake checks, receipts, letters, forms, whatnot.....that have absolutely nothing to do with the three questions.
He was surprised that, during that one "show" on the other conservative web-site, that we even paid any attention; whether that "evidence" was real or fake, had nothing to do with answering the three questions. He said we should not have wasted our time reading or responding; that whether real or fake, it was just junk.
The good attorney suggests we carry on as those two did on the Mike Malloy debacle--hammer away at those three questions, asking no new questions, paying no attention to any other "proof" that proves something outside those three questions, and ignoring the illiterate name-calling and cursing.
Those two on the Mike Malloy debacle did just that; they did an excellent job.
Well, as for making for crummy attorneys--that's what we keep the ones like your friend around for!
I can see where we do get kinda bogged down--but gettig into the nitty-gritty of it got it noticed anyway! And it got everybody's passion up to actually act on their suspicions about all the receipts, fake checks, etc.
I guess you have already posted the "three questions" somewhere (I'm working from my ping-page, so I'd better go look, or you could tell me where they are. :o} Also, I must confess--I didn't read the entire Malloy debate yet. It's going to take a while.
The Malloy debate was very easy to understand, though, and should help in establishing accountability where it counts!
I hope the thread hasn't been pulled, as I'm slowly working my way through it, as time permits, but I agree that it was a very good and disciplined debate for our side, the accountability side.
What I've read of it so far.
AA and the other poster not letting spitfire and ben and the others take them off the main point.
Straight from the Dem playbook in my opinion...except these guys are all Dems!!!
I'm sorry Frank, I've gone through this a couple of times and perhaps I've missed it all. From the Malloy site ... are these the 3 questions?
1. When were you, Mr. Stephenson, first diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and can you prove it by providing a diagnosis signed and dated by your doctor?
2. Can you, Mr. Stephenson, provide proof, in the form of an official statement from Johns Hopkins, that your May 10th surgery was cancelled due to your cashiers' checks being lost in the Hopkins mailroom?
3. Are you, Mr. Stephenson, willing to provide documents proving how much money you raised, and will these documents correlate with the running totals your fundraisers publicly offered?
I don't know if it is unclear to others, but I thought I'd ask ... Thanks.