Great advice, Cav!

3rd: I’ve had just about enough of your holier than thou attitude. If you consider Pam, who is one of the nicest people here, condescending, then you’ve got issues dealing with disagreement and people askig you to simply back up your claims with links that we can’t help you with. And as far as “insulated” goes, the only person who seems to want insulation is you – insulation from being asked to back up ANYTHING you say with something more than “because I say so.” That doesn’t work anywhere that I know of, and definitely not here. So when you’re ready to shed your ubersensitivity to disagreement and actually want to back up what you say with links, then it might be a good idea for you to log off and do some studying of your own – and perhaps consult someone who knows better than you how the game of political debate works. You obviously don’t know how it does.

This thread has about run its course. Time to close it.

Liberals are not widely known for their truth-telling abilities.

>you kind of bring out that weird thing
>in people where they’ll keep smelling
>something that stinks, b/c they can’t
>believe it stinks so bad.

Ahh, that would be your ability to debate at a higher than third-grade level. In fact, I feel kind of bad insulting third graders that way.

>I take comfort in knowing that you have
>no idea how badly you’re missing the
>point and getting your butt kicked.

Man, you just gotta love the self-aggrandising fantasy world all Liberals live in. When you totally destroy their arguments, and simply repeating them doesn’t work, they start congratulating themselves on winning the debate. Once again, this one is following the Liberal playbook to the letter.

>My argument does not rest on proving the
>FISA Review Court wrong. In fact, I’ve
>agreed that they held that FISA couldn’t
>encroach upon the president.

Therefore, you agree with me — and them — that the President had every authority to order warrantless survellance without having to beg permission. So what are you arguing about, then? You could have simply said, “Oh, I hadn’t thought of that; you must be right,” from the start.

>people whose “rights could be violated”
>if the president abused his power

One more time: when you have actual evidence of such abuse, let us know. You cannot shred the Constitution because yu fear it’s remotely possible that someone might somehow do something wrong at some point.

>FISA serves to prevent such abuse.

But FISA cannot be used to encroach upon Presidential authority, as the FISA Review Court has said, and you agreed.

>Someone else please explain to Cav what
>I’m saying.

You need a Liberal-to-logic translator, perhaps? We all know what you’re saying. Like the rest of your type, you’re saying that you hate Bush and don’t want him exercising the same Constitutional authority all Presidents have exercised to keep the country safe from attack. You’re saying that you believe the War on Terror does not exist except as a law enforcement problem — the same attitude that brought us to 9/11 in the first place. You have no concept of what we’re up against or how to fight it. Go back to the playground and don’t come back until you’re ready to think like an adult.

Hahahaha…. Liberals are not only the most arrogant of people, but the most undeservedly so. Liberalism is a mental disease, the symptoms of which mimic those of narcissistic personality disorder and ADD.

This is cool. I can’t believe I single-handedly broke up your little celebration b/c you couldn’t handle some real pressure from the outside in your insulated world.

Making you reflect? Shaking up your beliefs? Maybe you were scared my logic was turning you into Democrats or Independents or something, so you took your ball and went home.

Good luck with that. Just read my original posts and remember, you brought it on yourselves.

“Yes third…. that is our assumption. I voted the man in office. So yes, I gave the man my trust. Obviously you did not, and so in your opinion we all should watch his every move like a hawk and assume the worst until proven otherwise.”

Unbelievable! Of course the point is that someone should be watching. Separation of Powers you know.

So if someone is elected that you don’t trust, should we amend the Constitution? Enact new laws?

I mean if your foundation all along has been that he gives you warm fuzzies, then you should’ve just said so and we could’ve skipped this whole Constitution-thingy diversion. Actually the whole discussion for that matter. Incredible.

Not to mention this indicates that you did start with “Bush is good. I trust him.” and backed into your arguments from there.

The thing I don’t get is that you present rational arguments in some posts, then lapse into stuff like this, leaving yourself wide open. This is the second time you’ve done that.

“you might as well just stay in the leftwing section of the DNC bowl.”

There are other issues you know.

I scanned some of the posts I missed and wanted to respond to one of yours.

I think most of your post is tongue in cheek (it’s hard to tell), so I won’t cover all points.

“3rd symnpathized with OBL… by writing,…we’ve made him look prophetic and given him further basis for recruitment.”

I said making him look like a prophetic hero helps in his recruiting. I didn’t say that it’s justified.

That’s actually telling. You approach it from an American perspective, and think that b/c you find it to be unjustified, OBL’s recruiting targets will too. That lack of understanding is the same that got us into this mess. I guess these are petty little nuances though.

You’re right. They are all liberal talking points. Now, which aren’t true?

“There are plenty of truthful things to accuse the president of…”

Name 4.
Extra credit: Name one that I’ve actually raised that you agree with.

Thanks for the tip. Enormously insightful.

But, how dare you insult your friend Cav that way! I mean if you’re saying I missed the bus, then you’re saying that he didn’t even know there was a bus.

Maybe you can make it up to him by sending him an e-mail and telling him what to say.

He seems to have no answer for new assertions, so he just keeps repeating his old ones.

“You think those were “attacks”? Better toughen up a bit, 3rd.”

I’m not saying they hurt me. I’m saying they were attacks. But yes, I think someone calling you a liar is an attack.

The only reason I commented on it was b/c you asked me to stop being condescending, but seemed to overlook the 8,000 derisive attacks sent my way.

I mean, I can definitely take it. In fact, I did and responded in kind. But it’s not right for you as the site owner to single out one person’s “misbehavior”.

Let me clarify that. As the site owner you can do whatever you want. But it’s not right, if you’re interested in being fair.

With the link button thing, I was referring to Pam’s condescending tone, not the content. Til then, our exchange had been cordial.

Again, pointing out the apparent double-standard here.

- Bang

I said that’d be my last post to you on the topic, but you kind of bring out that weird thing in people where they’ll keep smelling something that stinks, b/c they can’t believe it stinks so bad.

On the other hand, I feel like I’m kicking a defenseless little animal or something.

So, I’m torn about continuing to hand you your hat b/c of my conscience. But I take comfort in knowing that you have no idea how badly you’re missing the point and getting your butt kicked.

You’ve managed to completely miss every point. I’m not saying you disagreed with them. You missed them.

You said:

“So you’re unable to prove the FISA Review Court was wrong in what they said, but don’t want to admit it.”

My argument does not rest on proving the FISA Review Court wrong. In fact, I’ve agreed that they held that FISA couldn’t encroach upon the president.

“In case you missed Civics class, the Constitution is the highest law in the land.”

Again, you pit FISA vs. the Constitution. Again, that’s not the point. I can’t tell if you’re erecting a straw man or you earnestly don’t get that.

“The 4th Amendment was not touched by this.

Huh? To understand this, maybe it would help if you thought, not about the people on the phone, but the people whose “rights could be violated” if the president abused his power. FISA serves to prevent such abuse.

“I’ve been waiting for you to provide any evidence of abuses for two days now”

I did. You just don’t agree, or understand or something. So can we just say that we disagree, rather than you pretending that I didn’t offer it? Good grief.

“Liberal talking point #4573″

Oh, you invoked the all-powerful “liberal talking point” clause. You got me there! Good one!

In point of fact, this is just the history of FISA, which I gave to help you understand the point. I can’t even tell what you’re rejecting with the all-powerful “liberal talking point” clause here. What do you think I’m attacking another Republican or something? I don’t get it.

Someone else please explain to Cav what I’m saying. He refuses to listen b/c it’s coming from me. I’m not asking you to agree with me (I know that ain’t gonna’ happen), I’m just asking that you explain to him where he’s missing the point(s), so he can argue properly.

Otherwise Cav, before you respond again, consider going offline and asking one of your friends for help.

- Even if by some quirk the Liberals were able to find a statute that somehow was written in a way that would be in conflict with the Presidents war powers, by definition the SCOTUS would find in his favor, and unless they suddenly took leave of their senses in the final analysis the Congress would also.

- You’re really on a loser tack here. You should be glad that your Dem reps are smart enough never to actually have to stand before the electorate and explain why you want to find ways to hobble the President in his effort to perotect the nation. You’d be lucky if you weren’t tarred and feathered.

- I know who puts these crazy. ill-advised ideas in your heads. The worst is they’re not the ones around when the fit hits the shan. Just like Kent. the SDS and Weather underground rabel rousers slipped out of town just before the shooting started. They drop their lies and emotional bombs and then let the followers take the heat. Its a sucker punch in the emotional gut when you gain some real world experience and refuse to be “used” anymore. Been there – done that. Rude awakening is what it is. Everyone has an agenda. Just some agenda’s are less honest than others. So there you are. My tip for the day.

- Bang

Oh. Then gonzales must have been wrong when he didn’t rely on FISA. Thanks for clearing it up.

If someone says you are spouting lies, there’s a very easy way to prove them wrong: links. We’re all challenged from time to time to do that and we either respond with links, or admit that what we stated was our opinion.