|
#518: They don't call it the stupid party for nothing.
Then there's no need to try and prove it by yourself.
#523: I have a problem with Norquist being called a traitor and having him accused of knowingly selling this country down the river.
You have a problem with repetitious straw men, and avoiding the actual arguement.
#528: C'mon. Another hit piece from FrontPage that has already proven a prepdisposition for disliking Norquist.
Again, nothing of substance from you. Attack the messenger. If it's unflattering of Norquist, it's a hit piece. If one publisher is working the story, they have "proven a prepdisposition for disliking Norquist." Not any attempt from you to discuss a fact. Well, handwaving is good cardio, I suppose.
#530: No one that I can see has been defending Norquist per se,
See the earlier: "Another hit piece from FrontPage that has already proven a prepdisposition for disliking Norquist," per se.
#530: we're just wondering why the focus on him when security breaches seem to have been the rule of the day and by much larger fish than him.
"Everyone lies about sex." "Grover-haters."
#539: You keep piling up all those articles as beakers crash around you.
Tell you what: you can throw them all night, I'll continue to post pertinent informartion, and you can continue to pretend otherwise. Fair enough?
#539: Look around 'tooth. I never thought you'd be duped so easily.
Did you make a grand sweep of your arm as you posted "look around?" If the duping was so easy, your debunking of it should be childsplay. Let me guess: you're toying with me.
|
