But I hold nothing against you thomas. Nor against fishin, nor finn d'abuzz, nor timber, nor craven, to name a few whom I've disagreed with on many occasions.
Every now and again, these meta-discussions arise in Politics... how best to go about debate. That's unavoidable, and positive. We each wish, I'm certain, to find effective ways to exchange ideas. Home from college one summer and driving taxi, I picked up the most disagreeable overt racist I've had the displeasure of meeting. I found no way to effectively debate the fellow, and dropped him on a country road, expecting he could manage the two mile walk that remained before he reached his destination. If I bump into him next week, he'll get no apology. On another thread this very moment, two chaps are yet insisting that the 9-11 commission is either 1) not really bi-partisan at all or 2) foolishly ignored evidence to be found on numerous websites regarding the connections between Usama and Sadaam. Beyond any shadow of doubt, I know that even if Don Rumsfeld were to admit that he had ordered or knowingly facilitated torture of Arab prisoners, some folks here would perceive and argue the admission as evidence of nobility. If a Reconstructionist christian (one who holds that the constitution is trumped by biblical law [of course, they don't really disagree anyway] and that christian theocracy is the only really legitimate form of governance for America) were appointed Attorney General, there are some here who would sigh with relief and hopefulness.
But I think what you are suggesting is that a style of response such as I committed above works at odds to the community's interests in that it degrades the overall tenor of political discourse here. In this, I think you are probably correct.
That is entirely enough said by me on all this stuff.
For those curious to learn more about Leo Strauss...
http://www.logosjournal.com/xenos.htm
