Originally Posted by aceventura3

Are you saying that everyone knows that Democratic party leaders have been duped by the administration or that their rhetoric against the administration has been empty B.S.?



If what you say is true and so obvious, why isn't congress doing more? Why aren't the American people demanding more? Our current state of affairs regarding Iraq seems to be far from a crisis to me. Seems like the reported FISA violations by the administration is not at a crisis level, hell, Congress may even pass legislation to forgive the telecoms. And they have not taken any action against Bush for his alleged crimes. Oh, and let's not forget the latest spending bill for the continuation of the occupation in Iraq. You think these actions/inactions are managing a crisis?




I was more mocking Congress than glamorizing the administration. I clearly expected Bush to do what he did, I am just surprised others did not. and I know that if I was given unchecked power I would use it. Perhaps I am one of the few who would, but tell me to do what I see fit and to use my judgment and I will.

Rule #1 on managing wolves, never give a wolf an opportunity for unchecked power. Isn't that a lesson to be learned?



We speak two different languages when it comes to power and control issues. I advocate democracy, but like my quote below says, if a sheep and two wolves vote on lunch...I truly believe those who thirst power/control need to be checked. I think democracy is the best form of government for controlling those who thirst for power and control.

Rule #2 regarding managing wolves - never show weakness.



Perhaps you can specify which argument. Currently I am arguing that Democrats don't act in a manner consistent with their rhetoric. I think it is because they are dishonest.



I actually think our legislators generally support the actions taken by the administration, starting with the authorization to use force, continued funding, supporting the surge, rebuilding Iraq, democratizing Iraq, detaining terrorists, monitoring the communications of terrorists, etc., and that the rhetoric (from Democrats) is not consistent with their support of Bush.



When Bush ran for re-election he said he was going to "stay the course", he was re-elected on that basis. I voted for him on that basis. It is not more complicated than that.



I simply pointed to the law when it suited my argument. Generally, you are correct. And I do agree, and have said, that Bush tested the limits. I agree, that there are some who would not have tested the limits. However, we knew after Bush selected Dick Chaney that his administration was going to be an administration that was going to test the limits. Chaney had a clear track record of moving more power to the executive branch of government.

Rule #3 regarding managing wolves - never give power that you will want back, there will be a fight.

You can razzle, dazzle with lengthy explanations of my issues, my flaws, etc., but at least I knew what we had and what to expect. Are you suggesting there was anyone paying attention that did not know? And if they knew, how do you explain them letting him go unchecked? I stated that I had some respect for Democrats like Kucinich - he has been consistent, it seems like he understood his responsibility, and it seems he acted in ways consistent with his stated principles.

Rule #4 regarding managing wolves - be consistent, stand firm, deliver consequences quickly, decisively.



Generally, the nature and lineage of my argument is in the Socratic method. However, I am often in the position of asking and answering my own questions. I am somewhat impatient and this forum is not conducive to some of the subtleties in the arguments presented. Or again, perhaps it is in my weakness in communication - because I get the feeling you think I am presenting an argument on subjects that I am not making arguments on. I have always had difficulty when communication with people who see things in shades of gray or those who put effort into reading between the lines.

Rule #5 regarding managing wolves - know the language.

I wonder if this means I should know your language or if you should know mine? I guess it depends on the circumstance. But, are you saying that everyone knew what Bush was saying and what the implications of his words would be?



How is a post a "sham"?

By the way, I once tried a demo of that game in your video on XBOX, the controls lacked precision and the game seemed to lack a point. Reminds me of...never mind.