The merits of a case sometimes extend beyond facts and figures.
Easy to say, when you have none. The merits of a case my extend beyond facts and figures; the merits will never run completely contrary to all of them. I don't remember a single instance of where anyone here has disputed your facts (how could we, we're not Norquist).
Whether or not you are Norquist has nothing to do with you inability, demonstrated for nigh 500 posts now, to post any exculpatory evidence on his behalf. Weren't you the one who was earlier accusing me of selectively posting facts? Selectively from what? From what larger set of of facts did I selectively post mine? You were bluffing all along. Okay, we're finally getting to the other side of the story. You don't like Norquist and Rove. Maybe you don't like them so much due to adversarial positions on Muslims, portions of the Patriot Act and immigration, that you may exaggerate certain facts, connect dots that can't fairly be connected and submit unsupportable conclusions in an attempt to destroy his reputation and end his ability to continue to voice those opinions that are at odds with your own.
Let's assume, hypothetically, that all of your foregoing bit of tinfoil is gospel. Why haven't you been able to demonstrate this? Why have I been able to post dozens of sources and links relevant to Norquist and Saffuri, all supporting what Gaffney has been saying, while you haven't been able to post anything to the contrary? And how, exactly, did I pull the wool over the eyes of Gaffney, Horowitz, and others, when I undertook my sinister vendetta against Grover Norquist? Case closed. Buh bye.
Well, I'm here, anytime you want to appeal the verdict.
|
