Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

well thank you <smiles>

and now i'm going to go to bed ;-)

Let us hope, to sleep the sleep of the just.

and wake up the object of lust...

This whole story of Clinton turning down Bin Laden when he was "offered up on a silver platter" is getting kind of tired. Its very misleading.

The situation wasn't that cut and dry. Maybe you should try to understand it a bit more:

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/ladnsudx.htm

They way conservatives say it, they make it practically seem like Clinton was practically funding Osama and helping plan his next attack

Run along and have a salad, you overgrown hamster. The adults are having a conversation. :wink:

nimh - Thanks for taking the time! Frankly, with the sheer numbers of liberals here I was half expecting you'd find that they'd offered more citations, so I admire your looking at it as a percentage. But I'll concede that my point was over-simplistic, and just an off-the-cuff response to Suzy's silly comment. The posts that get my ire up are the ones that lack any factual basis, have none, and the authors of which seem not only ignorant of reality, but unconcerned by it in the way that my four year old is unconcerned about how the water gets to the faucet. I want to chuckle light-heartedly at these people, and then I realize that their votes count just as much as mine, and it really pisses me off.

Don't get me wrong; I have no issue with anyone who consults and acknowledges available facts and reaches a different conclusion than I, but I despise these willfully ignorant children playing at being adults, and peeing in the grown-ups pool.

I've seen you change your mind about issues in these discussions. I think you've seen me do the same (I could certainly point you to a discussion, if you've missed these exciting moments! :wink: ). But take a look at the record of certain others (I suspect you can come up with roughly the same list I would provide) here in A2K and see if you find a single self-aware moment in anything they share here. Of course they never change their mind about anything; they aren't letting any new data in. Period. They know what they want to believe and that's all they need to know. Reality? What does that matter?

Anyhow, thanks for being someone who challenges my point of view without attacking me personally. thanks for being someone who comes either loaded with facts or ready to go find them when challenged. Thanks for recognizing the efforts I make to back up my point of view even if you find my argument unconvincing. Thanks for coming here for the kind of thought-provoking exchanges that make this enjoyable.

Better than thanks is emulation.

As an aside, I'd like to request that you avoid complimenting me in the future. When it happened today, while you were busy insulting others I didn't like it at all.

I don't like the association with one so given to insults and slurs as a form of debate. I too, prefer those who are more influenced by fact than rivalry and therefore request no part of your compliments.

And better than poking your nose in is minding your business.

Scrat,

I know you are complimenting nimh here. You are doing the same thing. Brown nose one liberal to feign a level of factual superiority or superiority of reason so that you can continue the mindless generalizations your rivalries produce.

It's off-putting enought that I decided to request no compliments from you in the future.

I'm not talking about insult from time to time. Your compliments of nimh or whomever you are lauding at the moment are almost always just attempts to insult the others and intimate that you are on some higher level and have a greater regard for fact.

Nimh said it best, "schoolyard 'youse stupid, we're gooder, nana energy'".

Your compliments have the feel of a duplicitous insult for the others and I want no part of the schoolyard game you play.

You've gone way over the line, Craven. Way over.

I'll have to reject your definition of the line Scrat.

May I also request that Scrat please not ever compliment me in any way, left-handed or otherwise?

Thanking Scrat in advance...

This is the point which EB makes about you, Shirley. You never miss an opportunity to take the cheap shot; and if you succeed in irritating someone enough to make them lose their temper, that's just a bonus for you. You're pathetic--not simply because you will make any specious argument to contradict those whom you disdain, but because of you dedication to addressing them contemptuously. You're a sad case, Shirley.

I missed the love fest. Dammit, I have to sleep once in awhile........squinney where are my stimulants?

Oh well, I stopped looking at this thread when you all got off course. It was VERY productive when you all sticked to the facts. I was learning and LISTENING. As soon as everyone started making gross generalizations about Republicans and Democrats, and started getting personal, my eyes glazed over.

My point was, in this thread, was that I was unsure and ambivalent about the two candidates, and really needed help in sorting things out. I am sure that there are many more people on this forum, who are in the exact same position as I find myself. I was giving you all the opportunity to CONVINCE us of the rightness of your particular position, so that we might make an educated decision. We just might vote for YOUR candidate, if the rationale behind your choice were strong enough.

There is a lot of "stuff" going on now, with Clarke's book out, and the
terrorism hearings. I think that this is a wonderful opportunity to bring out logical points around these issues.

There is a lot of knowledge evidenced by the members of A2K, especially in the area of politics. Please use that knowledge and insight to convince, and not turn this thread into the same-old same-old pissing contest.

A LOT of people are suspicious of Dick Clark and his book, and for good reasons, I think. He has worked for republicans AND democrats in the past, and apparently he has stated an opinion that the democrats have a chance this election... and he wants to secure a job with them.

I got a letter from the ACLU asking for support in fighting things the Bush administration is trying to do...

overturn Row VS Wade
Patriot Act
Spy on library usage
Spy on church services
wiretapping and homesearches without probably cause
change the constitution to ban gay marriages

It was an interesting letter, to say the least.

Phoenix --

Look at it this way: it's nice that you learned something in this thread. Perhaps it was just too much to expect that its initial level would persist. There is only so many intelligent things you can say about politics, but the game of personal attacking and defending can go on forever. I couldn't name any political thread that didn't die of too much heat and too little light sooner or later, and most of them die of it sooner than this one did.

Thomas- Sadly, you are probably right...........but it was beautiful while it lasted. I do think though, there is enough new "stuff" going on, that we all can get back on track!

I have the impression - but mind you, its just an impression - that the people who have gotten really suspicious about Clarke are the ones that would have gotten suspicious about anyone making the points he does. I.e., its what Clarke said that made them suspicious more so than how he said it - simply because it doesnt side with their beliefs.

I base this impression on the kinds of arguments that are forwarded to submit that he cant be trusted. They all seem to be of the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-dont category. For example the one you propose: "He has worked for republicans AND democrats in the past". Wouldn't that normally be a good thing, i.e. an indication of relative neutrality (or lack of partisanness, at least)? I mean, if he'd worked only for Democrats, you would have all the more easily been able to shoot him down on that score, should you have wished to, no? But in fact, he worked longer for Republicans than for Democrats. Now that is to be considered to discredit him?

Same with "he has stated an opinion that the democrats have a chance this election... and he wants to secure a job with them". I'm guessing that he hasnt actually stated that "he wants to secure a job with them", that that is your interpretation. I.e., that what he said was merely "that the democrats have a chance this election". Well, they do. What else should he have said here? How does stating the obvious discredit him? What might discredit him, might be your interpretation that he's just out for a job - but would you have thought differently about anyone else publishing a book about this, now?

Myself, I think it would be better to just bypass the speculation on his motives and discuss the validity of the points he made. Because the whole exercise of smearing his motives seems to me to be at least as partisan election year-motivated as the book he wrote.

Agree. Then, putting it together with the report from the bipartisan committee on 9/11, we MIGHT get a somewhat credible view of what REALLY happened!