You appeal to the "national security expertise" and of Gaffney and Trollstomper.
Incorrect, I've appealed to facts, with links, from a number of sources. Facts you don't answer. It's well-known you do not like Grover Norquist. It is well-known you don't like Karl Rove.
It's well known that you agree with them. This isn't, however, a matter of contending opinions, it's a matter of evidence vs. a breathtaking lack thereof. If I'm making things up, if I'm being in anyway selective about the documents I've posted, then it should be a real turkey shoot for you to show that's the case. Are you just lazy? Get to it. That's why there is such a fuss when nohing happened. It's all about settling some scores and a few personal pet peeves. Nothing more. Fine by me, I don't mind getting a few licks in, myself.
No comment, this is for Mercuria, who's lurking. That's why there is such a fuss when nohing happened. It's all about settling some scores and a few personal pet peeves. Nothing more. Fine by me, I don't mind getting a few licks in, myself.
No comment, this is for the lurkers. And why shouldn't I like Norquist and Rove - on most fronts, they have delivered considerable progress towards getting reasonable officials elected, reasonable policies pursued, and I am comfortable with their strategy. I'd like to see a lot of those policies continued. Certainly, I don't like people who want to undercut successful conservatives.
Well, now at least we can see the objective basis for your position, being factually shortchanged and all.
|
