If you are going to use me in a post, then ping me.
You are lying when you use Sowell that way, Sowell endorses Gingrich, as does Jim Robinson of freerepublic.
You also seem to be implying that Jim Robinson has retracted his endorsement of Gingrich, which he hasn’t.
You may be as dishonest as you obviously are, and try to lie about Sowell, but I doubt that it is very smart to try and lie about JR, and for you to be giving the impression that he has changed his endorsement.
I was just going to write Steel the same thing, that was a very dishonest post, and it is the sort of thing Santorum supporters do all the time.
You are reading into it your own prejudices. What Prof. Sowell said is accurate, it is also the truth.
You need to take a class in English 101, if you think there was any implication whatsoever that Jim Robinson “retracted” the statement. This is your contortionist interpretation. On the contrary, I say categorically that you are providing us with a misleading interpretation of Jim Robinson’s statement and that of others to try and silence us into abandoning our support for Santorum. Who are you to try and enforce a prescribed orthodoxy?
I and other Santorum backers can read the polls, analyze the contests, and come to honest conclusions, especially in the light of what Carl Cameron of FoxNews said on Super Tuesday night about the Romney camp now being “happy” that Gingrich continues to be in the race, that his presence makes him an unwitting enabler of handing the nomination to Romney and undermining Le Resistance.
We base our analsysis on a number of factors. The squeaker wins by Romney in AZ, WA, MI, and OH, Gingrich’s high unfavorability ratings, his Grand Canyon-size gender gap, his inability to secure at least 50% of the vote in his own home state after massive campaigning and ad buys. Of course feel free to disagree and tell us why but don’t try to use Jim Robinson’s post and give it your spin as warrant to stifle independent analyses here.
Go take an English class-I’ll pay for it.
All too often, when you are unable to intellectually debate the merits of our arguments you resort to personal vilification, name-calling us as trolls, or accusing us of spamming articles. Some the vitriol you have posted against Santorum is beyond the pale including the absurdity that Santorum was pro-abortion because he supported Arlen Spector.
But please don’t slant the purpose of Jim Robinson’s January post as a cover to try and browbeat us into your own orthodoxy in claiming that anything posted here that in your view is anti-Gingrich is also against an “official” FR policy like you did relay to me in one of our prior posts. This now appears to be your standard modus operandus.
If these debates are above your pay grade and all you could do is name call us and seek to enforce a prescribed orthodoxy then you have gone beyond legitimate bounds.