Comment: I fail to see how any portion of the title or the body...

(See in situ)


I fail to see how any portion of the title or the body...

of the post is misleading. It was breaking news at the time and Tom Woods did accept the invitation to debate Mark Levin. What's misleading about that? I further stated that many of the details were premature at the time. What's misleading about that? I also mentioned that Mark Levin had been contacted and that his response was pending. What's misleading about that?

The source is a person affiliated with a Southern California Tea Party group. I'm not into "outing" people online any more than I'm sure that JSBach is not your real name. I'm sure you can understand.

I don't understand your accusations about the post being a distraction and implicitly unimportant. There was 1 singular topic for the debate: The War Powers Act. How is that distracting and since when is the topic of how we go to war unimportant? If it's so distracting and such a waste of time for you, why do you go on a nattering rant that is twice as long as my original post and which covers topics totally unrelated to the original intent of the post?

Finally, if you feel so strongly about the items you mentioned and you charge that "a strategy needs to be in place," then why don't you give us some solutions instead of problems? Why don't you start your own thread on the topic(s) instead of hijacking another thread?

"Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth." - George Washington