politicophile:
i do not understand why you find that democrats voted for bushwar to be a source of anything for you. i fail to see any argument that would make of the fact that the democrats on the intel commtitee voted along with the administration on this either a demonstration or falsification of anything. when i said that i thought your argument was arbitrary, i meant that i see nothing surprising or interesting or significant about the votes.

as for folk finding themselves to have been duped, see above.

There seem to be four possibilities, one and exactly one of which is true:

1. Senator Feinstein did not receive the same intelligence that President Bush did. Her vote in favor of authorizing the use of force was based on this insufficient intelligence and she now realizes her vote was wrong.

2. Senator Feinstein received the same intelligence that President Bush did. However, she is extremely stupid and was convinced by the President's rhetoric (and by "the climate of his high approval rating, just after his 9/11 anniversary propaganda campaign") that the patriotic thing was to authorize the use of force, despite the fact that the intelligence in no way supported this conclusion. She has now returned to her senses and realizes her vote was wrong.

3. Senator Feinstein received the same intelligence that President Bush did. She is a part of the Bush/Rove/lumpenconservative/Christian Right conspiracy to reap oil profits from the invasion of Iraq, so she obeyed Emperor Rove's command that she vote in favor of authorizing the use of force. She has now realized that she isn't going to get the money she was promised, so she now claims that her vote was wrong.

4. Senator Feinstein received the same intelligence that President Bush did. She carefully analyzed it and came to the same conclusion that 12 of her 17 committee members came to: she honestly believed in light of the available evidence that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Now, in a brilliant political move, she has accused the President of acting against the available intelligence. She weakly claims that the President receives weekly memos that could conceivably have provided him with additional intelligence that Feinstein never saw. Feinstein does not know whether this additional intelligence exists or what it might have indicated, but the best political move is for her to insinuate that her vote was proper in light of the limited intelligence she received, but that Bush's decision to invade was improper in light of broader intelligence.

Which of these scenerios (or which fifth scenerio) do you think is true? I especially pose this question to Roachboy and Host, but welcome other responses as well.

This is not the first time that roachboy and host have reminded you that it is absurd and irrelevant to focus on what senator Feinstein, or any other senator, knew or did not know on October 11, 2002.

The overwhelming compilation of evidence is that, as Andrew Card infamously said, "you do not launch a new product in August". The "product" a propaganda campaign timed to take full advantage of the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and the spontaneous sentiment of Americans triggered by the memory of that day, embellished with the co-ordinated message of all Bush administration heavy weights. The message was a litany of all the menacing items in Saddam's arsenal that Bush could keep us safe from, if we authorized him to invade Iraq, with, or without the authorization of the UN.

It would be my pleasure to vigorously lobby the voters of California to recall senator Fienstein for incompetence and stupidity, immediately after Bush and Cheney are impeached, tried and found guilty in the senate of "high crimes and misdemeanors", and turned over to the DOJ for deportation to the Hague to satnd trial before and international court on charges related to crimes against humanity......

What's sad here is we have one party saying they were stupid and duped, and another party just saying they were all stupid for not reading into all the info and truly seeing the war was not necessary.

So if both parties are so easily duped, conned, stupid and foolhardy, what does that say about the leadership of our country?

Meanwhile Bush smiles and uses every chance he can to attack Dems. and blast anyone who opposes him or wants to get to the truth.

So we have both parties saying the war is wrong, and we have both parties pointing the finger at the other for getting us over there, yet, when it comes to finding a way to come home, one party tries to make proposals and the other party plays games.

All the while the President and company sit on their asses telling people that if they so much as question the war they are non patriotic traitors.

This is a weak argument, Host. Essentially, you are saying that 77 Senators were so consumed by their 9/11 aniversary emotions that they were unable to vote against George Bush's blood for oil scheme. The Bush spin machine is strong, for sure, but those Senators supported the plan for deeper reasons than blind patriotism.

You have provided an answer to my original question as to whether Democrats are stupid or hypocritical: you chose the "stupid" answer because it allows you to continue arguing that my case is not at all strengthened by the fact that almost half of the Senate Democrats agreed with me back in 2002. I understand now why you have told me repeatedly that my appeals to the Democratic votes don't matter: you hold those Senators to be, to a lesser degree than Bush, parts of the Republican machine that used propaganda as a tool to coerce all "patriotic" Senators into authorizing the use of force.

That's funny because the Democrats sounded pretty sincere in their beliefs that Iraq was an imminent danger to the U.S... I guess they were just swept off their feet by patriotism when they made these statements. (Click on the "play" link) How do you explain the pre-9/11 comments?

ok, let's try it this way, then:

pretend for a moment that you are actually interested in persuading someone who does not already agree with you politically---which means that you have to explain you frame of reference rather than simply repeat it. i am sure you understand the distinction.

so let's adopt this fiction, shall we--that you are actually interested in talking to folk who do not share your intimate relationship with the conservative talking points of hte moment---think of it as evangelism, if you will----and then try sort this out logically, politicophile--go through the chain of events that resulted in the distorted intl presented to congress by teh administration--and perhaps presented as such from one office to another within the administration at one point or another---then to the congressional actions you are talking about---taking into account the fact of the unsc and information presented publically by the un and other international sources. and then explain to me how it is that your way of trying to frame what is "relevant" does not require so many assumptions behind to that it is functionally arbitrary.

repeating yourself is not answering, btw.
sometimes it seems like there has to be a rule or two.

It is unfortunate that you felt the need to pollute the dialogue between Host and me with these personal insults. Your tendancy to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being hopelessly and illogically dependent upon "the conservative talking points of hte moment" is annoying, to say the least. It is more than time for you to lose this labeling (lumpenconservative, e.g.)/ad hominem (so let's adopt this fiction, shall we--that you are actually interested in talking to folk who do not share your intimate relationship with the conservative talking points of hte moment) tendency that is so damaging to good dialogue. Host and I will continue our discussion in spite of your rude, confrontational interference. It is possible to debate a conservative heathen without resorting to name-calling: take a page out of Host's book.

In response to your actual argument, I will attempt to explain my chain of logic:

George Bush's intelligence indicated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
France's intelligence indicated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Great Britain's intelligence indicated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Germany's intelligence indicated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

George Bush sent his intelligence to Congress, who agreed by a vote of 77-23 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that the President should be authorized to use military force against Iraq if necessary.

France thought the use of military force against Iraq was unnecessary.
Germany thought the use of military force against Iraq was unnecessary.

George Bush thought the use of military force against Iraq was necessary.
Congress thought the use of military force against Iraq was necessary.

George Bush is accused of falsifying the case for going to war against Iraq because the actual threat turned out to be insignificant compared to the threat portrayed by the intelligence.

Some members of Congress who voted in favor of authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, and who are on record for thinking that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, now accuse Bush of falsifying the case for going to war against Iraq.

Bush's intelligence was not different from the intelligence of France or Germany.

It is safe to assume that Bush did not falsify the French or German intelligence.

Thus, Bush did not falsify the American intelligence, as it would not have matched the French and German intelligence if he did.

Thus, Congress' claims that Bush "hyped" the case for war are ridiculous because the Congress had access to the same intelligence as France and Germany and yet they voted in favor of going to war.

The members of Congress who changed their minds are just looking for an excuse to justify voting in obvious opposition to the facts.

I think that roachboy's posts to you may seem condescending in their tone, but I think that is because you have given him much justification to end any further dialogue with you. His frustration is showing, and it is his responsibility to control his reaction, but your "style" of argument does not include much indication that you've fully considered the facts in the counter argument. I call them "facts" because most of my references are direct quotes that you haven't challenged, and MSM news reports. You have not even indicated that you have read them, and your certainly haven't taken any of them into consideration in your argument.

My post to you here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=42 on another thread on this poltical forum contains a reminder to you that you did not indicate that you had considered my points in a previous post to you.

When I post quotes...for example, from Tenet, Powell, and Rice that all make it clear that, prior to 9/11 these key spokespeople for this administration were of the unanimous opinion that Saddam's Iraq bore continued close scrutiny, but there was a consensus that his military was no threat to his neighbors, that the "no fly zone" and trade sanctions were working as intended to keep Saddam from recontituting his prior, WMD programs, and inventories.

No one from the conservative, "defender of Bush et al" POV, who I have posted the points in the above link, has ever offered an explanation or a rebuttal to my premise that Tenet, Powell, and Rice were all of the same opinion regarding the threat that Saddam and his ambitions posed. No one has been willing to discuss the curious paradox of the above three officials all committing to a policy of "closely watching" what Saddam is up to, yet suddenly being part of a massive "about face", wherein Saddam is transformed almost overnight into a threat that justifies an invasion to stop, not only towards his neighbors, but even imminently to the U.S. mainland itself.

I've posted the contents of the post linked above, politicophile, at least a dozen times in these threads. You ignored the quotes in the contents of the post, and the MSM news reports of CBS news/Rumsfeld, Time's early 2002 report that Rumsfeld knew that Iraq was weak but requested intel to the contrary from the CIA "ten times", Bush's "Eff" Saddam, we're taking him out"
quote, and Wolfowitz's comments to congress that acknowledged that the "no fly" zone had been effective, but that it cost more than an invasion would, going forward.

You've also ignored or failed to refute the clear evidence that there was a one year anniversary of 9/11 propaganda campaign intended to sell an invasion, complete with intended fear mongering that was shameful in it's scope and intent, and the effect that had on legislators who voted the intent of the overwhelming majority of their constituents, an action which is in keeping with the reasons that they are sent to Washington.The overwhelming "intent" of the constituents was a direct result of deliberatley alarmist rhetoric and exaggerated from Bush and his entourage, all at once, at what they perceived, and probably was the optimimum time period on the calendar;
coninciding with the 9/11 attack anniversary and 8 weeks in advance of the midterm elections. All of that mattered and it overwhelmed the feeble oppostion of Bob Graham, a lame duck in his senate position.

If the GOP "video" that you referred me to is so compelling, why did Bush's speechwriter and "re-write" history" "Op" co-ordinators blow it with the weak and transparent distortion of a senator Levin quote, used in Bush's Veteran's day speech to the troops.
You also failed to respond to the unusual reaction by Washington Post reporters to that speech, the reporters judged that the speech contained "less that truthful" statements from Bush.....
<b>Here is the article, described in the preceding quote box....</b>
Bush's approval poll numbers won't be coming back, even if you choose to stick to your interpretation of Bush and Co's pre-invasion presentation to justify a choice for war. roachboy rightly describes the conservative reasoning process as "tiny", because so much of what actually happens has to be left out, because it just doesn't fit with the conclusion that the reasoning process arrives at.
And...the above item. from Bob Graham, appeared on the web as i was posting this article. I look forward to a response to my questions, and a more thorought response to roachboy's core question, distilled to....how do you come by you opinion and your rock solid belief that this is a matter of how legislators voted on Oct. 11, 2002, and not about the integrity of the information, the sincerity of the president, and the fairness and balance of the assessment that he and those, at his driection, delivered to the American people in the days leading up to the senate vote. I go to extreme lengths to post exactly what influences my opinions and conclusions, and I do not see anywhere near comparable transparency in your posts.........

That's exactly my experience in this thread too. As far as I can tell, politicophile didn't even read my posts.

The sad thing is, that strategy works: I quit posting.

Congratulations, politicophile. You've successfully BSed me right out of the conversation.

I told myself that when I ceased to feel like a valued member of this community, I'd call it quits. This repeated (and false) argument that I haven't responded to previous counterarguments is particularly annoying in light of the fact that this thread is three pages long, I am the only one advancing my position, and I simply don't have time to respond to everyone.

The sad thing is, that strategy works: I quit posting.

Congratulations, ratbastid. You've successfully BSed me right out of the TFP.

I will not post on or view any TFP forums until at least January, at which point I hope to have recovered from this feeling of not being welcome here.

Oh come on now! You don't like that people point out your shortcomings in this debate so you're taking your ball and going home? That's absurd! The simple fact is that you haven't responded to the tough questions in this thread. I know it's frustrating to be backed into a corner while you're debating, but don't you think this reaction is a little extreme?

Besides it's not really your fault that you can't win this argument. There IS no winning this argument for the republicans at this point. Too much of what they've done has been exposed. Debating from the republican side right now would be incredibly tough. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit.

Wow.

I honestly regret that you feel unwelcome, that wasn't my intention. I was actually interested in hearing more from you, not less.

This thread should be re-titled: "Portrait of the Republican Senator as a Young Man" and stand as some kind of case study.

Who can blame him for being disillusioned?
He presents a simple, straightforward question, and is met with excuses, semantics, guerrilla op-eds and posh condescension.

Another lifelong Republican joins the ranks, I imagine.

Some of us here transparently post the sources that shape our opinions, and some of us apparently prefer to visit sites like the most recent one that politicophile posted; www.gop.com .

Your approach here seems very similar to politicophile's......you never responded to my quesions, here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1850316&postcount=45

The scenario on this forum plays out over and over, I lay out my opinion, complete with a majority of references from main stream sources, you counter with a contradictory opinion, and if it includes references, they are more often than not from obscure or biased sources. You dismiss most or all of my documentation, or you ignore it completely.

You posture in a similar way to politicophile, acting as if your opinion or point is obviously true or reliable, without showing the rest of us what influenced your thinking.Then you'll fail to respond, as in the example cited in my last link in this post, and you'll maintain a running commentary in the forum with jabs like, "host hasn't responded, google must be down, or barbs about your distaste for the amount of content in my posts.

You do everything to keep the focus of your criticism on the messenger, because you are unwilling or unable to engage in a series of posts where you
respond to the points in the message.

Aside from the effort that you put into your "Good things about Iraq" thread, you have not demonsrated a willingness to make your claim, back it up with reports from MSM or other non-partisan sources, and defend your points and references and rebut those posted by others.

That describes the exchanges that are supposed to take place at this forum.
politicophile has not shown a willingness to participate as I've described, and now he announces that he will step back for a while.

When you start a thread or make a point here, you should be prepared to back up your point with comments other than talking points, prejudices, or feelings. Exchanges need to progress similarly to what happens in a courtroom, a process that attempts findings of fact. That process requires research, and it is not usually helpful to look on rnc.com or dnc.com .

If you disagree with my outline of how our exchanges should be conducted on this forum, powerclown please offer points of disagreement, and your own outline of how we should structure our discussions here, and examples that show you operating within your guidelines, in your prior posts.

How do we end, for example, people posting opinions that there is a strong chance that the US will till find caches of Iraqi WMD, in Iraq or in other locations, using a different approach than I have used to discourage posts that still try to advance the idea, other than to respond to every post like that with links and excerpts from white house press secretary mCclellan's admissions too reporters that the expected weapons were not there to be found, and were not expected to be found?

Your "gueriilla op-ed" critical comment fails to mention the vast amount of news reports and reliable, referenced documentation that was posted for politicophile and others who agreed with him, to consider and respond to, but unfortunately, that did not happen. What took place here, as far as a fact finding proocess, was very one sided, as most other threads are. If that is the core reason motivating your comments, why not make the effort to challenge the documented points that others make with points of similar strength and transparency?

The argument that 'we will till find Iraqi WMD" finally went away because it was challenged with a set of unimpeachable points of fact, everytime it was raised. All future weak, tentative, and unsupported arguments will meet the same fate on these threads, no matter how obviously valid they may appear to be to you.

Amazingly funny way of showing it :p

politicophile - Don't feel to bad, I learned that lesson about TFP political posting quite a long time ago, and I took a few long breaks as well. Focus on one of the more reasonable posters, and ignore the bombs thrown. I think you know you don't reason with liberals you defeat them, you can't reason with someone who has has a case of the socialist disease. Its good to see their reasoning, but think of it more as a case study than a debate, and it can be fun despite these limitations. Hope to see you back, and best of luck to you, I think you have made an excellent start.

I would prefer that we did not lose the excellent perspective of this member



You will be missed.

I think this is totally incorrect. It's not accurate to say that he didn't respond to the "tough questions", the problem arose when his response wasn't to immediately fall in line with the liberal adjenda. And I could understand his frustration with being the only one defending his opinion in this thread for the most part, but I think many who might agree with him have grown tired of leftists requiring full theses for arguements that essentially come down to an overblown version of a two children yelling "Uh-huh" and "Nu-uh" at each other.

Many people on both sides just can't be convinced of the other's rightness or wrongness, no matter how much informatinog is given. So it's pointless to try. And I'm sure that you're gonna come back with some not-to-veiled attack on Rebublicans being blind to the truth, but it's just as bad on both sides. And to ignore that fact is to be blind to the truth.

And just in case you are still watching politicophile-the ignore function is your friend. You'd be suprised how much good it can do, if used properly.

Yes, but what does this mean exactly? How can you pretend to be accessing 'transparent' material from sites that are committed to the Left point of view? Of course you are going to get the material you want from sites that resonate with your beliefs. How can you honestly invalidate gop.com while at the same time validate tnr.com?

While I have respect for the amount of time you put into your posts, whenever I respond I get deluged with guerilla op-eds. And not only that (and one or more mods here can attest to this) but you frequently omit key parts of articles that don't support your line.

99% of the sources everyone provides here are op-eds, and these days that means they are strongly partisan. Truthout.org, The New Republic, dailychaos.com are nothing more than mouthpieces for the Left - these organizations have no interest in espousing moderate, rational views. I have found very few sites that take a reasonable, moderate viewpoint, yet they do exist. In the case of this particular thread, one simply needed to cite the official Senate voting records to answer politicophile's question, not Liberal op-eds of those voting records.

So evertime someone posts an opinion or comment, they have to back it up with a source, which inevitably gets knocked down anyway?

Take the last week or so. I have made multiple posts regarding the Democratic cooperation for the Iraq War. What do *I* get for my effort? Snark, patronizing remarks, or sarcasm. Here, for example. I get tired of this shit real fast.

Why should he 'participate as you've described'? He started the thread, he asked a legitimate question, and you (and others) never directly answered his question. Instead, you cite multiple, dubious sources that you think discredits his question to begin with, which you use as justification to avoid the question.

Please...your links are some of the most partisan out there. 2-way street. If we had a judge here declaring guerilla op-eds as inadmissable, the courtroom analogy might work. I truly believe at this point that people are here mostly just to vent their frustrations, not seek the truth.

I'll cut and paste to repeat: Take the last week or so. I have made multiple posts regarding the Democratic cooperation for the Iraq War. What do *I* get for my effort? Snark, patronizing remarks, or sarcasm. Here, for example. I get tired of this shit real fast.

As long as you maintain that guerilla op-eds constitute "unimpeachable points of fact", interesting and intelligent dialogue here will remain the exception to the rule.

I think you might be too blinded by party politcs. This has nothing to do with being a leftists or socialist, but everything to do with right or wrong. If you are unable to see past your party, then you will probably never see the corruption if it hit you in the face. Politicians are famous for posing as popular groups in order to get their agenda through ( like Conservative or Christian) and the sooner you wake up to this the better off the country will be.

A defeat for this administration is not a defeat of conservative ideas, but a defeat of corruption which you should hold above your party.

Whatever, this whole thread was troll-bait from the beginning. The title was changed, but it was too late to change the opinion of many members here that politicophile was not interested in serious debate. I think we should just lock this thread down and move on.

You're seriously using that thread as an example of you being slighted? You took a thread that was supposed to be about a general aspect of the duty of a nonspecific congressperson and, without and coaxing, tried to make it a thread about how the democrats voted for the war in iraq too, so they must be hypocrites. You tried to hijack the thread. Cry me a river.

This next part isn't aimed at anyone specifically. I think it is funny when certain "valued members" paint themselves as being the victims of the other side's inability to respond to a reasoned argument. Especially when certain party(ies) i'm thinking of has never once admitted to being mistaken about anything in tilted politics. Nope. When someone posts their ass into a corner, they simply cease posting in that thread. Yet they are still the "victim" of the other side's irrationality. Some people are so full of shit you just can't even imagine how they aren't able to smell it.

The 'new' thread was started less than 5 minutes after dude posted in the old thread.
It was a continuation of the discussion that for some reason warranted starting a new thread.
He was trolling - you were sniping.

So thats why you post, eh....at least you're honest about it. I like that.

Thank you for your rapid and detailed response, powerclown. In the interest of prioritizing my response and abbreviating it, I'll address <b>your</b> "op-ed articles are not unimpeachable sources, and your "deluged with guerilla op-eds" and your "99% of the sources everyone provides here are op-eds" <b>points</b>, first:

I examined the contents of all of the posts that I made in this thread before
thread starter, politicophile, announced that he was no longer participating, since most of my exchanges on this thread were with him. Here is a complete
recap of all of the linked references that I posted, post by post:

<b>powerclown</b> here is analysis of the recap of my 12 posts, above:

In twelve posts, I posted 20 links to references in support of my points.
A link in my post #4 pointed to a June 30, 2003 <b>TNR</b> article. It was not a "guerilla op-ed". I then posted two links to neutral sites to provide support for points highlighted in the TNR article.

In my post #8, I posted an excerpt from the same June 30, 2003, TNR article as I did in post #4, and I backed the point in the article with a Bush quote that was linked to the white house site.

In my post #11, i cited portions of a <b>second</b> TNR article, linked here:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w051114&s=lizza111505

I then posted these two WaPo news reports to support what I had highlighted in the two citations from the one TNR article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...11101832.htmli

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ebriefing.html

TNR has been publiished since 1914. It does have liberal bent, and it claims to report political news and expose hypocrisy and report the truth. It is not simply a source of "guerilla op-eds".
http://www.tnr.com/about.mhtml

TNR has a subscription demographic that contradicts your dismissal of it as a
credible source: http://www.tnr.com/media-kit/print-research.mhtml
In a 2004 subscriber study, it's readers were 76% male, avg. age 56,
91% college grads, 67% post grad study with degree, had an average net worth of $1.3 million, and averaged an annual income of $153,300 each, 65% were married, and 85% held professional/managerial jobs. 22% served on a board of diirectors, and 32% were owner/partner in their enterprise.

I repeat....I recognize that some readers will contest an excerpt posted from TNR, since it is not an MSM, WaPo or NY Times level, news provider. Four of my 20 linked excerpts displayed above were to two TNR sources. Each of the two was cited with a link twice..... Each TNR sourced point that I was trying to stress was backed by a link or two to MSM or to authoritive archived sources, as in the example of the CIA's letter to senator Graham.

powerclown, I posted nothing here that you could fairly or accurately label as
a "guerilla op-ed" piece. If you disagree....point the link and the excerpt out, and back up your accusation, please.

<b>If you disagree with my contention that the above analysis is representative of my post content in other threads, please point out examples, liikewise if you disagree with my analysis of the references that I've
posted and reviewed from this thread.</b>

I am confident that you've made up your mind about what you will find in my posts, before you read them, and that you reflexively dismiss all content from sometimes accurate sources, such as TNR. As far as your criticism was intended for me, I don't see how you cannot reconsider your opinion as to the extent of my use of "guerilla op-ed" pieces, as I endeavor to avoid doing that, unless the information that they contain can be supported by other sources.

To put TNR.com on the same partisan level as gop.com , is to entirely dismiss that TNR has any merit or validity. That is not accurate, especially in the way that I posted TNR sourced material on this thread, supported by linked excerpts from news articles.

Early in your last post, you stated: <b>"While I have respect for the amount of time you put into your posts, whenever I respond I get deluged with guerilla op-eds. And not only that (and one or more mods here can attest to this) but you frequently omit key parts of articles that don't support your line. "</b>
One moderator accused me of "omitting", and as you can read at this link, quickly retracted the accusation. It also did not appear that it was an accusation made during the duty of moderating, but it seems to have been made during participation by the moderator in a discussion:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=40

Here is the full page where that exchange took place: (Post #40)
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ed#post1884790

And....I was grateful for the supportive comments posted in that thread:
here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=36

and here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...7&postcount=38

You stated that my <b>"links are some of the most partisan out there. 2- way street."</b> Why don't you challenge them when you take exception to them, and the same goes for pointing out the intentional omissions that you accuse me of making when I post a supporting, linked excerpt?

I'm hoping that you'll read this response and consider that your grievances either do not apply to the majority of stuff that I post, and that it influences your to reassess your "take" of what I've been presenting on these threads.
If you think that what I've posted on this thread is not indicative of the larger portion of my linked references on other threads....show me. If i'm wrong, I will admit it....promise. All points and opinions and linked citations are not equally approximate to the truth, or as near to it as we can potentially get.
There aren't many politicians on either side of the aisle that merit an unquestioning attitude towards. Fortunately or unfortunately for you, there are no democrats who have the power to make policy or to vote a law into being. Hence, the focus will continue to be on the republicans, because they are in total control of the legislature and executive branch, and they already had the SCOTUS, two appointments ago, if Bush v. Gore was an indication.
So......

This thread has become nothing but a place to criticize each others debate techniques...So I will rename it again, and let you all get this out of your collective system. Seriously, there simply has to be a way to get everyone to accept that we are all different in the way we view politics, and work WITHIN the diffences, rather than try to beat each other up.

Go ahead...get it out....then I will close this fiasco of a thread and we can all....oh...I dont know....maybe...discuss politics instead of each other

As far as i could tell they were completely seperate. The fact that no where in the new thread did he mention the old thread to me means that they were completely seperate. You were the only person to see a connection. If there was supposed to be one, and i doubt that there was, then i was wrong.

So what it all boils down to is "i know you are, but what am i?" Nice.

Aside from the obvious threadjack, which seems forgivable since the thread author ceded the field.......if you are reeacting with disapproval to the recent exchanges of posts between powerclown and I, then I would like an explanation.

It seems to me that his recent comments help to iimprove my understanding of what i do (or what he perceives that I do....) to make it less likely that he will consider the merit and the validiity of the core points that I attempt to make. I won't speak for him, but hopefully, I've provided him wiith a better understanding of the criiteria and standards that I try to achieve in the quality of the references that I cite and link to in my posting content.

Our discussion seems to hold the potential for improving the atmosphere around here.

I can state that I have never 'surrendered' in a thread, but I have stopped posting in threads where someone may have thought that was the case.

There are simply not enough hours in my day to give every thread my full attention, and every response its due. There are a few reasons I will just ingore a thread.

#1 I just want to say my bit and be done with it. Some topics are done to death and there is no point having the same argument over and over. This is the most common reason really. I learned long before TFP, if I don't read it I won't feel the need to respond, so I can have my point, they can have their counter point and thats fine, I am not diminished.

#2 Some posters I just avoid reading. I find I only respond to them when I read others posts where they are quoted and nothing good ever comes of it. Since their insults often target me, and are not often read by most moderators, I just ignore.

#3 Sometimes its obvious there can be no common ground for debate. If you take a stance George Bush = Hitler or something on those lines there isn't much point in explaining why he isn't or why some policy is good.

This is why I'll really focus on one persons responses, and if they stop posting, so will I, plus there is no law against giving someone the last word. Often times these 'debates' become more like to kids in the back seat of a car, trying to say the last thing before mom or dad yells at them to shut up.

I see what you're saying ustwo, but part of having a discussion is reciprocity. If someone takes the time to respond to something you have written, especially in instances where you have specifically asked them to, it's kind of disrespectful to just leave them hanging.