My absolute last response to you:
There is a difference between calling your posts mushy (because you didn’t initially source them) and your saying that I accused you of making up information. Big difference.
And that you clearly don’t understand that difference and have applied the Rutard name to me, I have aboslutely nothing further to say to you. You have a good day.
“And that you clearly don’t understand that difference and have applied the Rutard name to me, I have aboslutely nothing further to say to you. You have a good day.”
You had nothing to say to me immediately after I posted the cites, either. You just made some weird dismissive response about how my initial post didn’t contain them.
In other words, you didn’t have anything of substance to say then, and you don’t now. You’re averse to facts and citations. Averse to facts and citations. Averse! They are like garlic to a werewolf, to you. Like sunlight to a vampire.
Someone cites the facts about Rudy to you, and you put your fingers in your ears, say “nyah nyah,” and run away.
He is NOT a fiscal conservative, and I proved it.
Again - take a step back, and if you’re serious, counter what I said. I suspect you won’t - you don’t have it in you to deal with facts, only logical fallacies (frontpage mag said blah blah so it must be true - appeal to authority) - while actual metrics like I posted have you manufacture some victimhood as an excuse not to respond. Now THAT is a DU tactic on FR.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1811600/posts?page=314
You need to respond to the substance of the argument, or apologize for your outrageous posts.
That was the most pathetic, most desperate attempt to avoid an issue that I've seen in a long time.