And there's always, "So what you're saying is [insert straw man here]. [Attack on straw man here]."

Good luck.

But wait, it gets better.

You can expect him to accuse you of being hysterical, irrational, bush basher, blinded by hatred, rabid, a democrat.

And there's always, "So what you're saying is . ."

It's a lot like online poker for play money. There's always a game in progress, but no matter how good you are, there's nothing to show for it.

Next game in
3
2

No, my opening sentence claimed that you stated something that was untrue...

"There is no dishonor in not knowing everything"
-Subcommander Tal, THE ENTERPRISE INCIDENT, Star Trek

>I not only could be wrong,
>I'm hoping that I am wrong.

So, you concede that you might be wrong on the whole Iraq issue. That the course that Bush and Congress has set might just be the correct way to go.

That's quite an admission. I am very proud of you. There might be hope for you yet. :D

@Benskull

I'm just heading out the door for another fun day in the neighborhood. So I will respond to your comments later tonight when I get back.

Michale.....

>but his general position is usually
>that everybody else is wrong, and
>he'll attack you until you stop
>commenting.

Quite untrue..

My general position is that ya'all simply cannot concede the possibility that you MAY be wrong and, ergo, you are the close-minded ones…

The fact that ya'all ARE wrong is simply incidental to my general position..
~~~~~

I have no trouble conceding that I may be wrong. Nothing benskull said suggests that he's unwilling to concede that he may be wrong. Your opening sentence claims that I AM WRONG. which proves my point, doesn't it?

I not only could be wrong, I'm hoping that I am wrong. Proving me right doesn't help your case. Take the time and care to prove me wrong.

Quite untrue..

My general position is that ya'all simply cannot concede the possibility that you MAY be wrong and, ergo, you are the close-minded ones...

The fact that ya'all ARE wrong is simply incidental to my general position..

Michale.....

I find your thoughts well reasoned.

Don't worry about the personal attacks from Michale, if you comment, he will respond, and unless your comment is in line with the current republican talking points, he will attack you relentlessly. Attempts to engage him in conversation prove useless ... not that he won't engage, just that you've pretty much heard his range of opinion and the quality of his rhetoric.

It's a shame really, we need voices from the right and Michale sometimes makes some good points, but his general position is usually that everybody else is wrong, and he'll attack you until you stop commenting.

>I find it hard to beleive that
>anything honorable can be said
>of Bush and his "terrible decisions
>for the greater good".

And therein is where you fail to make a cognizant argument..

You are trapped in the mindset that such actions have NO REDEEMING value, solely because you cannot comprehend them..

It's an new take on an old issue. You cannot conceive of the possibility, ergo the possibility does not exist...

This is the flaw in your reasoning.. For one cannot reason when one is close-minded to reason...

As far as the "faulty leader" premise that you propose, I would simply say that every leader is "faulty" with the benefit of hindsite...

Clinton now knows that getting a blowjob in the Oval Office is bad...

"Because, you know, everybody has a weakness. For Pandora, it was the box thing. For the Trojans, hey, they bet on the wrong horse."
-Hades, HERCULES

My only contention is that future historians MAY view Bush's decisions in time of war, in the same vein as we view FDR's, Truman's or Lincoln's decisions today...

The fact that you cannot even CONCEDE that the possibility exists is your failing...

Michale.....

I find it hard to beleive that anything honorable can be said of Bush and his "terrible decisions for the greater good". It is clear that our stagnant position in Iraq is one of necessity due only to the fact that we have to clean up the mess WE created. Had Bush been honest with the American people and not connected Iraq to 9/11, had he then been honest after that was discredited and not made the claim of WMD, without evidence and without corraboration from the UN, which our constitution requires cooperation, and just continued the hunt for the true 9/11 criminals, in a law enforcement fasion with the help of other nations, ie interpol etc, we wouldn't be wasting trillions in a country that had nothing to do with the trade center atrocities in the first place. Now you may argue that these decisions are important to further the economic power of the US, but frankly, destroying other nations for our own progress, will destroy foriegn relations and continue to breed hostility from those persecuted, and create more and more factions such as Al Quaeda. And not only that, but the trillions being spent to clean up the mess of our own creation could be spent on developing new technology to lessen our dependance on foreign owned fossil fuels. Maybe then we could be self sufficient in that sense and not need to create false reasons for profitable war. Yes this is weakening our constitution because it is being ignored. If the governement were to depend more on the people, there would simply be better decision making in Washington. Unfortunately the "People" with the heaviest influence on this decision making are of a very small minority that crave power. Their motivations are very different from that of the majority of Americans who want to create a better world for their children and their childrens children. When Bush said, "why do they hate us?" referring to Al Quaeda, the answer was already given. Bin Laden said he was fighting the US imperical persecution of other nations, mainly concerning the middle east. And he was surely referring to the governemtn and not the populace. If the people of America had any real influence on the foreign policy of the US it would certainly be more geared towards cooperation with other nations. This would create relationships that weren't based on such negativity. And as far as breaking the camels back, that is very possible. Unfortunately the way Bush is leading us, that will probably not be related to occurences in our own government, but surely in other nations grouping together against the school yard bully mentality of our leaders. Eventually an underdog stands up to the bully, and it usually doesn't have deplomacy in the equation, as we saw on 9/11. Our military progression and aggression around the world is creating more enemies and more nations preparing to defend themselves. Eventually that straw may be a nation or several, deciding to no longer be on the defensive, but the offensive. Our continued neglect for the UN and the World Court will tell others that they don't have to listen either. This is certainly a point where our constitution is becoming weaker and weaker. And as far as future history, that all depends on who contributed to it and whether or not they're honesty is comparable to the faulty leader you seem to be defending.

Just a lil bit o' trivia for you.. :D

Michale.....

>And I submit that you are nothing
>more than a hack to disrupt and
>dilute discussion.

That and $20.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

You just don't seem to get it thru your head that, the more you make personal attacks against me, the more you validate my position.

>History does NOT bear you out.
>In fact, HISTORY bears out that
>while the acts aforementioned
>occurred, they were viewed as
>wrong historically, but, were
>corrected.

Wrong. If what you say was true, that every act actually weakened this country and the US Constitution, then this country and it's constitution would have collapsed long ago.

It's a historical fact that each time something like this occurred and was rescinded, the faith and belief in our system actually rose.

>You say, "that which does not kill
>us makes us stronger"… to which, I
>reply: so, you believe that someone
>can torture you and for every day
>they do, you become stronger.

Medically speaking, this is true. When you get a flu shot, what does it do?? It gives you a mild case of the flu, so that you develop anti-bodies against the flu. Hence, if it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger against the flu.

This is really common knowledge..

>Do you care to volunteer to
>test that theory?

Are you volunteering to do the torture??

Michale.....

And I submit that you are nothing more than a hack to disrupt and dilute discussion.

History does NOT bear you out. In fact, HISTORY bears out that while the acts aforementioned occurred, they were viewed as wrong historically, but, were corrected.

You say, "that which does not kill us makes us stronger"... to which, I reply: so, you believe that someone can torture you and for every day they do, you become stronger.

Do you care to volunteer to test that theory?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297126,00.html

If you exercise your "free speech" at a John Kerry appearance, you get taser'ed and hauled off to jail..

Michale.....

Many on the hysterical Left decry the actions of Bush and scream and moan how it is the END of our democracy and the Constitution is being destroyed..

What they fail to consider (because they are hysterical and irrational) is that, as you and Gass point out so well, many many MANY things have been done in the past that are much MUCH worse..

And our country (AND our democracy) not only survived, it became stronger.. We actually PROSPERED from these despicable acts...

So, it seems to me that these things, while not being "GOOD" in and of themselves, were actually GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY..

Would this country have survived the Civil War if Lincoln hadn't suspended Habeas Corpus and jailed those who spoke out against the war?? Or would there be a north USA and a south CSA??

Would this country have survived WWII if FDR hadn't illegally jailed hundreds of thousands of innocent American citizens, some of who lost their lives in their illegal incarceration?? Would we have survived WWII if Truman had not used his country's most powerful and diabolical weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?? Or would the USA be an extension of the Japanese Empire right now??

Of course, we can never know the answers. At least until someone builds a machine ala' Lester Del Rey's INFINITE WORLDS OF MAYBE....

This is where Gass and I part ways. Michael seems to think that such acts of the past have WEAKENED the US Constitution and made our country WEAKER.. That, soon, one of these acts may be the proverbial straw that will break the camel's back..

I submit that he is grossly wrong. And history bears this out. Such acts have STRENGTHENED our country. These acts have made the US CONSTITUTION STRONGER and MORE IMPORTANT..

In short, there has been greater good as the result from these heinous acts...

THAT WHICH DOES NOT KILL US, MAKES US STRONGER

To sum up, maybe Lincoln knew what he was doing when he suspended Habeas Corpus and jailed those who spoke out against him. The USA survived the Civil War..

Maybe FDR and Truman knew what they were doing when they took actions during wartime that secured this country and put an end to WWII...

And maybe, JUST MAYBE, Bush knows what he is doing and history will put him into the same class as Lincoln, FDR and Truman. Great leaders who, in time of war, had to make terrible decisions for the greater good...

Yes, you scoff now. Just as Lincoln's detractors scoffed at such a concept back in his time. And FDR and Truman detractors scoffed back in their time..

Future history will show who is right and who is wrong.

I just wish I could live long enough to say, "I TOLD YA SO!!" :D

Michale.....

Ok... and now I finished reading...

This is why (in my opinion) you and I have such wonderful debates; we both come from a factual standpoint and are willing to at least consider the other's opinion.

Yes, there were times that were pretty bad in our history... no doubt. That, I will not dispute. I will even agree that there came a point (at what point IS debatable) when our government worked to tear at our constitutional rights.

But, we survived it... as a people... as a nation.

And yes, it got bad. Concentration camps in AMERICA for Japanese people living in America during WWII? Free Speech Zones? The media hawking the sinking of the USS Maine?

Yes... we may even survive George Bush.

But, how long can our Constitution hold out from the continued bashing by the government? How long, Chris?

Is it this year? The next President? 4 President's down the road that our Constitution is gone? When does the Constitution cease to exist?

I have read the Federalist Papers. I am in awe at the profound insight of our forefathers. They worried, even as they debated our Constitution, about what it would take for it to no longer exist and protect the people.

I agree with you that there are past times that seem "as bad" or were even worse at times... but do you believe our very foundations can survive indefinitely the continued assault?

Then, I ask... when do we say enough?

Ok... I'm to the point where Cheney shot his "friend".

Point of fact: The US Secret Service and "Ranch Personnel" OBSTRUCTED the Sheriff's Dept. from even SEEING Cheney for 18 hours AFTER that shooting. Why?

As you know, I am former law-enforcement, and I can, without any factual evidence whatsoever to back it, tell you right now why someone who has been drinking (as Cheney admitted) would do that:

- he was DRUNK.

And that... makes the shooting a felony by Texas statute.

Cheney's shooting my not have been the FIRST time a shooting occurred, but, it was, however, a CLEAR obstruction of justice.

(I'm reading on now...)

Ok.. I admit... I quit reading when you said "Anyone who decries Fox News and Rupert Murdoch as some sort of aberration from our long history of dispassionate media simply does not know beans about history."

Yes... I'll read the rest... but I want to point out something right at this minute:

- From the very time our constitution was being DEBATED in the Federalist Papers, there were newspapers who sided with one Party.

Now... before you think this supports your very statement... wait...

Yes... there WERE... SOME... newspapers that supported one side... BUT... it was not a MONOPOLY of our media owned by ONE source.

Remember... Murdoch owns 39%... which he had to BRIBE Congress to allow him to have (they raised the level from 35% to 39%... the EXACT amount Murdoch owned)... and yes... he DID bribe them. Trent Lott, it was reported, got a BOOK DEAL advance out of it.

So... I'll read the rest... BUT... there has never before been a time in our history where ONE Party has worked so hard to control ALL of the media as we have seen today.

...Stan