[familyop]

"You’re not flamed for posting facts. You’re flamed for posting the exact same cut-and-paste post 12 times on every thread where Thompson’s name comes up."

The problem with that argument is that I was flamed from the first time that evidence was posted. Some of the campaigns for the nomination process haven't even started yet, and Thompson's fans here have been calling for censorship of the evidence for some time. If his campaign won't stand that from opposing conservatives before he's even declared, it certainly won't stand much opposition from the Democrats later on.

[The Blitherer]

Thompson's fans here have been calling for censorship of the evidence for some time

"They" have? Who? When?

[ejonesie22]

Not to flame you in the least, but the problem I have with your multiple posts is that I have seen good, sound explanations of the various things you have posted appear along with your info. in several threads, and I am just casually looking.

Several of the items are reasonably explained, especially some of the votes. Perhaps tying into those a bit more would be more persuasive if indeed you cannot accept the explanations of a given position. Regurgitation of the same facts makes for a continually weaker argument.