Replies

You still missed the substantive rebuttal (though it is clear why you'd avoid addressing it head on, like a man...), so here it is again. Another chance to drop the fuscia tutu and put your "biggy boy" pants back on:

The cynical defeatist drivel offered up by Nate B. in fact deserves but to be ignored by actual thinking Americans, not applauded like some particularly prescient precept.

"I can’t think of a single politician so thoroughly loathed by the MSM, and whose image is so set at this point in the presidential election season. If Palin runs, in order to win she has to overcome a media blockade unlike any other."

Ahem. Ummmm, the Lamestream Misleadia has spent the last three years attempting to knock her off her pins with every imaginable onslaught available, tired to shut her up and convince America that she's already all washed up.

I guess you haven't noticed, but...

...they failed. Badly. Monstrously. Indelibly. Forever. Sarah Palin is better known and better liked today than when they started their assault on her all those years ago. Her Facebook fan base has tripled over the last two years. Her volunteer ground support has organized ready-to-launch teams of "get out the voter" commandos in virtually every State in the Union, basically as a response to the FAILED media attempts to destroy her.

Anyone who at this point thinks they can effectively point to the media's repeatedly ineffective assassinations of Palin as a reason why she cannot win is simply and quite obviously as blind to the truth as they'd like to paint us as being.

In fact... they, like the media, are just whistling past the graveyard. Make no mistake.

Sarah Palin is coming, and the TEA Party is coming with her.

You have not gotten a substantive response to your alleged to inquiries because you are personally unworthy of a response and the quality of your statements is unworthy of the readers' attention:

1) you have not withdrawn your charge.

2) instead you have taken refuge in semantics-you say you did not make a "charge" but you certainly made an insinuation. And an insinuation of fraud and deceit!

3) after making such an insinuation and hiding childishly behind semantics when you were called on the boorishnish of your conduct, you then accuse me of not behaving "like a man."

4) in doing so you behaved cowardly and repeated your original offense ad hominem.

5) then, you compound it with this remark: "Another chance to drop the fuscia tutu and put your "biggy boy" pants back on"

6) two or three times now you have led the reader to believe that the following is a quote taken somewhere from one of my posts. I have no recollection of such a statement being made by me. I have posted well over 5000 times, perhaps 10,000 times, on this forum so it is quite possible that those are my words but a decent man would provide a citation. Perhaps the quotation belongs to Dark wolf 377? I'm entitled to the context so that I can write a response if I choose to, which is unlikely in view of your conduct.

7) in leaving the reader with the impression that I have made the statement you quote, you have possibly misled the reader, you've certainly confused me. You do not debate in a decent and honorable fashion because you do not provide context or citation.

8) repeating your points in bold type does not make them cogent it makes them annoying, they remain what they have always been, bluster.

You have not helped the reputation of this forum and you have certainly not advanced the cause of Sarah Palen and you never will do either until you learn to behave decently.