[hchutch]

You appeal to the "national security expertise" and of Gaffney and Trollstomper.

It's well-known you do not like Grover Norquist. It is well-known you don't like Karl Rove. I do not think it is beyond dispute that they are advocating immigration policies you oppose - and in fact are obstacles to the immigration policies you prefer. Seeing as they keep on trying to pursue those policies, you would not mind seeing one or both taken down a few pegs.

That's why there is such a fuss when nohing happened. It's all about settling some scores and a few personal pet peeves. Nothing more. Fine by me, I don't mind getting a few licks in, myself.

And why shouldn't I like Norquist and Rove - on most fronts, they have delivered considerable progress towards getting reasonable officials elected, reasonable policies pursued, and I am comfortable with their strategy. I'd like to see a lot of those policies continued. Certainly, I don't like people who want to undercut successful conservatives.

But then again, they are not "real" conservatives to some people, are they?

[Sabertooth]

You appeal to the "national security expertise" and of Gaffney and Trollstomper.

Incorrect, I've appealed to facts, with links, from a number of sources.

Facts you don't answer.

It's well-known you do not like Grover Norquist. It is well-known you don't like Karl Rove.

It's well known that you agree with them. This isn't, however, a matter of contending opinions, it's a matter of evidence vs. a breathtaking lack thereof.

If I'm making things up, if I'm being in anyway selective about the documents I've posted, then it should be a real turkey shoot for you to show that's the case.

Are you just lazy? Get to it.

That's why there is such a fuss when nohing happened. It's all about settling some scores and a few personal pet peeves. Nothing more. Fine by me, I don't mind getting a few licks in, myself.

No comment, this is for Mercuria, who's lurking.

That's why there is such a fuss when nohing happened. It's all about settling some scores and a few personal pet peeves. Nothing more. Fine by me, I don't mind getting a few licks in, myself.

No comment, this is for the lurkers.

And why shouldn't I like Norquist and Rove - on most fronts, they have delivered considerable progress towards getting reasonable officials elected, reasonable policies pursued, and I am comfortable with their strategy. I'd like to see a lot of those policies continued. Certainly, I don't like people who want to undercut successful conservatives.

Well, now at least we can see the objective basis for your position, being factually shortchanged and all.

[Trollstomper]

" And why shouldn't I like Norquist and Rove - on most fronts, they have delivered considerable progress towards getting reasonable officials elected, reasonable policies pursued, and I am comfortable with their strategy. I'd like to see a lot of those policies continued. Certainly, I don't like people who want to undercut successful conservatives. "

Yes, but let's see, they also helped engineer the highest increase in spending, non-defense primarily by the way, since LBJ? And that's not counting the new drug dollop and the aborning effort to subsidize another 12 million illegal aliens --- and the first term isn't even over yet!

Grover attempted to get elected Kamal Nawash to the VA state senate this year -- a radical Muslim lawyer, who , along with Stanley Cohen, the lawyer for Hamas, is representing Libya & AlQaeda-charged terrorist detainee (and Norquist seed donor; Saffuri mentor)A. Alamoudi. Grover held a fundrasier for Nawash at his house ti summer. Yep, just let's elect more radical Muslim terrorist lawyers to show we have a big tent.

Grover's Islamist-support efforts are serving to "undercut successful conservatives." Starting with George Bush, not to mention John Ashcroft and Frank Gaffney, et al.

May I ask how old you are?