A) Nobody asked you. B) Mike Protack’s character should embarrass him into silence. If you don’t know about him, look him up. C) There is no point in “debating” anything with Mike Protack, or any other Republican, in this forum. Nobody is going to make up his mind about anything based on troll comments from conservatives on a liberal blog, and your very presence here is unwelcome.

Besides, everything I said to him is good advice: For a conservative dickhead trying to get elected as a Republican, he sure wastes a lot of time in pointless bickering with liberals and progressives. Remember, we’re not talking about a regular masturbatory troll here — this bozo really thinks he’s elected-official material.

If you’re looking for who “won” the “debate,” go with Protack. He needs all the help I can get. I don’t give a remote fraction of a shit what you believe, and I’m not out to convince you of anything. So, uh, I believe the short version is “fuck off.” And no, I don’t care that it’s not something you can debate. It’s exactly what I mean, and I think I speak for a lot of other progressives here: Fuck. Off.

Besides, we all know that limited government is neither a D or R quality so that should make them nonpartisan right there.

And if anyone needs an organ transplant, it’s the Delaware GOP.

ad ho-mi-nem: adj. 1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than inttelect. 2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made. (www.m-w.com in case you were wondering)

congratulations geezer, you are textbook. l2logic plz.

Intelligent dissent, yes. But when a person’s stated purpose is to win elected office AS A REPUBLICAN, and has failed repeatedly at that mission, it would behoove that person to do something to further that goal if he wishes to be taken seriously, would it not?

Never mind. You’re cut from the same cloth. Again, shouldn’t you be looking for followers among your own kind rather than vomiting up your pitifully reasoned comments here? Again, shows an inability to prioritize.

“Still, they probably come at it from a non-partisan perspective. ‘Bulo is sure that a careful perusal of CR’s key players will demonstrate strong non-partisan qualities. Let’s go to the record.”

“Hard to imagine a more textbook definition of non-partisanship than that.”

“Still, the Beast Who Was Born at Night But Not Last Night is positive that CRI’s Board of Directors will prove to be fair and balanced:”

“But surely someone chairing the beyond-reproach CRI is just doing it in his capacity as good government watchdog.”

“He’s sure this must be an inadvertent oversight.”

“But surely, C. Scott Kidner, like his namesake, is merely a forceful advocate for good government.”

“Tune in tomorrow for Part 2 as the Beast Who Slumbers, in the interests of investigative journalism, demonstrates the honorable and above-board nature of CRI’s efforts.”

The Beast Who Venerates Walter Cronkite intends to apply this same standard to Part 2. He is near-certain that tomorrow’s segment will demonstrate the integrity of those affiliated with CRI. Presumably just like El Burrito Junior.

Not at all. The organization was created to support the ideas and specifically to take the partisan politics out of it. I know, because I was there. There was too much of a battle inside the party for the ideas to make it out.

So this was meant to bypass the partisanship within your own party, which is fine, but still finds this organization supporting Republican — conservative — policy initiatives. Which by any definition of partisan you want to go by, makes CRI a partisan group. Or in other words, Democratic policy initiatives need not apply.

That makes sense. Are you taking logic lessons from Protack?