Replies

Fair enough. Here's the lense through which every one of your posts on this thread ought to be viewed:

"In short, Grover Norquist has been of enormous help to us in connecting us with other people and organizations that share our goals." -- Nick Danger

I have to wonder if this snip above is indicative of all your other posts on this issue. It has been made clear that the FRN is invited and does attend the Wed. meetings, ALONG WITH 120+ OTHER PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON DC.

Here are Nick's exact statements on this issue:

Allow me to answer that. Grover Norquist is one of several people who informally advises FRN on a number of issues. By 'informally' I mean that none of these people has any authority over anything we do; they just give us ideas or advice when we ask for it.

As you may know, Norquist's office is host every Wednesday to a meeting that is attended by representives from practically every conservative organization on the planet. The White House, Senator Frist's office, and Speaker Hastert's office also send representatives, and they tell us about the legislative agenda or other policy topics. Conservative candidates from around the country come there to introduce themselves. Virtually any group that has something going on can get a minute or two on the agenda, and I have done so numerous times to promote things the FRN was doing, such as the "Rally for America" events we did back in March. This is also how I was able to arrange for Angelwood to attend a speech given by President Bush. It is how we met Jeff Gannon of Talon News, who now hosts a program on Radio FR. In short, Grover Norquist has been of enormous help to us in connecting us with other people and organizations that share our goals.#283

And

I should probably also tell you that if Grover Norquist and I passed on the street, he might recognize me as someone he has seen around, but if he remembered my name, it would surprise me. That is the succinct description of where I am in the world of Grover Norquist. For me, this isn't really about Grover Norquist; nor is it about taking anybody's "side." I have a private business that has nothing to do with any of this. My whole involvement in politics is a very part-time volunteer deal. I'm a Freeper, not a Washington Creature. #367

and

Be careful here. I am not "defending Norquist" from things he actually did, if in fact they were wrong. I am not on some mission here to claim that he is pure in all of this. I don't claim to know. What I do know is that this document which has been presented to us as containing "documented facts" contains a whole bunch of documented facts that don't tell us anything, but are being presented as if they are some sort of damning indictment. HERE

Please stop implying that Nick's objections and arguments are on account of some "debt to Grover" because I might start to think this is your modus operandi, to take one statement out of context (which you just did) and attempt to make it appear nefarious. It isn't. No one is in a position to defend Grover, except Grover. You may not like that Nick is questioning this issue, but don't make this into some obligation to defend Grover. I can bet you that Grover Norquist doesn't know who "Nick Danger" is.

I have to wonder if this snip above is indicative of all your other posts on this issue.

Why wonder? Why not read the thread in it's entirety?
My post is indicative of an objection, on my part, after much patience, to the low crap that Nick Danger has been trying to pull on this thread, not the least his baseless charge of calling me a liar.

Please understand that if Nick Danger wants to play ad hominem fallacies based on dark speculations as to the motives of others, then turnabout is fair play.
Nick's not questioning the issue; he's questioning motives of messengers. He must feel that's all he's got.
I'm well aware of the need for Norquist to say something convincing in his own defense. By some striking coincidence, he also hasn't addressed the issues; he's attacked the messengers and questioned their motives.
Of Nick and the others on this thread who've chosen to go that route, repeatedly, I've repeatedly requested that they address the substance of the case.
Their inability or unwillingness to do so has been amply apparent.
You want context?
Here's what I said:
You want to play attack the messenger?
Fair enough. Here's the lense through which every one of your posts on this thread ought to be viewed:
"In short, Grover Norquist has been of enormous help to us in connecting us with other people and organizations that share our goals."
-- Nick Danger
Or, if you like, you can get in the real game, and post something of substance. #692

You want context? Then don't ignore mine.
I was giving Nick an option to to feel the near edge of his chosen ad hominem sword, or to rejoin the debate on substance.
The fact of the matter is that, thus far, Nick Danger and the other Norquist defenders on this thread have had their heads handed to them. They're short on facts and long at grasping at straws.
If they want to be taken seriously, then they need to be serious.
Their invitation to start is as open now as when this thread began.