The initial topic is about Rick Santorum and his support for big government. It's right up there atop the thread.
You can't respond to any of the points, so you fight back by...saying there are a lot of points against him.
Fail.
“Interesting how you can’t defend Santorum in these points” Interesting how you attack SANTORUM for doing what Newt did, and give Newt a ‘get out of jail free card.’ Hey, if you’re going to call out Santorum for shovelling earmarks, you might want to give the emperor of earmarks some guff as well.
So which is it--sticking to the thread topic, or bashing Newt?
You couldn't answer a single point brought against Santorum, so you tried to change the subject to Newt--then criticized me for not sticking to the subject.
Fail 2.
As it is, it appears to me that you’re cutting and pasting attacks against Santorum. How compelling is this? I might as well be arguing with the person who came up with this stuff (Club for Growth btw), instead of you.
Your flop-sweat and desperation are very entertaining--why don't you just answer the charges, which are keeping with the thread subject?
I guess you went out and dug up all the facts on the candidates yourself--didn't rely on any newspapers or reporters online? That's amazing. With such resources, disproving all the facts I posted should have been easy. Instead, you blabbed on and on, trying to change the subject (while accusing me of what you are guilty of).
You can't, so you attack the messenger, an Alinsky tactic.
Fail the Third.
“2. You assume I support Newt, which I don’t, so it’s rather pointless.” Ahh. Paulbot. Hello sir!
Four fails in a row.
All of which could have been avoided if you simply answered the questions. You couldn't so you just tossed limp insults.
The End
So who do you support, Darkwolf?
Big government Newt? Do you really want me to go through his co-sponsored bills? All the pork that he shovelled out with the rest of the republican congress?