Thank you for responding. (I've known other Freepers in the past who've ignored these type of direct Qs...so kudos to you for responding directly to the Q)
So as for the content of your response...OK, I can understand that...PRIOR to 7+ hrs ago...up until I gave you a direct link in post #50 to a Rush article -- an article posted on FR 8+ hrs. ago citing multiple Rubio staffers as behind spreading the rumor. (And, btw, Rush said he "liked Marco Rubio" per an FR thread headline posted Feb. 2nd...so this wasn't simply a Rush "snipe" job)
So, here's the timeline:
8+ hrs. ago the Rush headline posted on FR re: Rubio staffers behind rumor-mongering
7+ hrs. ago you bash Cruz over this
7+ hrs ago -- 9 minutes after your post -- I reference a couple of articles, including Rush's, pinpointing Rubio staffers involvement
7+ hrs ago -- 9 minutes after my post -- you ping me & bash Cruz again
5+ hrs ago -- you respond to my post to you about "selective outrage" (toward Cruz, but not Rubio)...& accuse Cruz supporters of ducking this issue.
So, finally, 90+ minutes ago -- over 5.5 hrs. after I pointed out Rubio staffers' involvement in the rumor-mongering, do we see any provocational response where you actually target Rubio. ????
See what I mean?
1 Cruz staffer involved in rumor-mongering; multiple Rubio staffers involved.
Who'd you go after consistently? Cruz. But not -- until I called you out on it -- Rubio.
If this issue was really about ANY given candidate's staff engaged in rumor-mongering, you would have gone after Rubio with equal teeth.
But, no.
You've proved my point: Selective "outrage," indeed.
On the surface, it appears to me that your provocation was more about attempting to exploit the targeting of THE leading candidate vs. the issue itself. If I'm wrong, set me right.
This false news was sent to 1,500 Cruz precinct captains who used it to get Carson voters to switch to Cruz. It should have been verified. That is what was despicable.