Replies

Care to respond to Nick Danger's points?

Nick Danger didn't make any factual points, but he tried very cunningly to make malicious insinuations.

Care to answer the FACTS pertaining to Norquist's terrorist associations and advocacy? Not a single one of Norquist's apologists (they haven't earned the title "defenders") has even attempted a factual rebuttal.

Facts are stubborn, they're not going away, and I'll continue to pull every disingenuous spinner back to the FACTS. I am waiting for a refutation to the allegation that this "conservative stalwart" is not an enemy agent. Whether or not he's a dupe is quite irrelevant in time of war.

Fishing in barrel is more difficult than deciding which side is winning this "debate".