 |
The Bushtanic |
 |
There are lots of ways to measure Bush's failed second term. You could talk about how he hasn't passed any of his flagship legislation. You could talk about his party losing both houses of Congress in 2006. You could talk about the myriad of scandals that continue to plague everything Bush. You could talk about how little money Republican candidates are raising for their campaigns or how polls consistently show low approval ratings for Bush and his policies. But for me, one of the most telling illustrations of Bush's failure is the story of his most loyal aides, the ones he brought up from Texas, dropping like flies.
When he was elected, George Bush brought a large number of long serving and trusted confidants who he worked with as Governor up to the capitol to help him run the country. This outsider group was regarded with suspicion by Washington insiders, but it was a strategy that echoed his campaign promises of change and bringing the common, compassionate touch to D.C. Together, they made a mockery of good governance, and it seems that lately they have been resigning at a fevered pitch, only to be replaced by the very insiders they were tapped to marginalize.
Let's take a look at the roll call…
In the cabinet, Bush appointed seven Texas Republicans. He also kept on Karl Rove as top political adviser and Harriet Miers as White House Counsel. With today's resignation of Alberto Gonzales, only two remain, and 4 resignations have occurred after last year's midterm defeat.
That's a pretty damning lineup. Some resigned in disgrace, marred by scandal. There were a lot of explanations about spending more time with family. We will never know the true motivations behind all of these resignations. However, when the people Bush trusts most, those that have been with him from the beginning, start leaving, I think you can pretty well assume Bush's ship is sinking fast
Simply put, Bush has no more political capital, so there is no reason for his inner circle to hang around. He has no chance of passing anymore landmark legislation, his last effort on immigration doomed by pressure from both parties. His influence is fading fast over national policy and debate. And his efforts to politicize the Justice Department, among others, have won him nothing but scandal. The best he can hope for is to use bully tactics and veto power to get his way, and he has, vetoing his first bill ever last year in 2006 and threatening many more.
These resignations are a signal to the country that Bush is a lame duck. They are a signal to the Democrats to step up the opposition and look towards 2008. Surprisingly, it has not yet been a signal to the Republican party to make a clean break from Bush's policies. One thing is clear, however: We've got the longest presidential primary campaign to date, and we also have the longest lame duck period in recent history. Coincidence?
Nicely put in perspective. Dems need to up their game and not sit on their hands while they can make strides during this upcoming session.
Isn't this a repeat of history, just amplified through the anger and hatred of the left? You didn't hear about it like this when it happened during the Clinton years. I mean, on top of losing the congress to the Republicans, Clinton also lost:
Secretary of State, Warren Christopher - Resigned 1997
Secretary of Treasury, Lloyd Bentsen - Resigned 1994
Secretary of Treasury, Robert Rubin - Resigned 1999
Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin - Resigned 1994
Secretary of Defense, William Perry - Resigned 1997
Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Espy - Resigned 1994
Secretary of Commerce, Ronald Brown - Resigned 1996
Secretary of Commerce, Mickey Kantor - Resigned 1997
Secretary of Commerce, William Daley - Resigned 2000
Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich - Resigned 1997
Secretary of HUD, Henry Cisneros - Resigned 1997
Secretary of Transportation, Frederico Pena - Resigned 1997
Secretary of Energy, Hazel O'Leary - Resigned 1997
Secretary of Energy, Frederico Pena - Resigned 1998
Secretary of Vets Affairs, Jesse Brown - Resigned 1998
I only point this out because this is nothing new. If anybody thinks that the Clinton administration was in any better shape in the final years of his presidency, then they need to take a second look through the history books. The only reason that this is as big a deal as it is is simply because the left has such a deep hatred of Bush and his administration that they rub their hands together like greedy children whenever something like this happens.
How does the situation pan out now that people like Miers and Gonzales are out of office. Were congress to subpoena them now, would they still fall under Bush's claims of Executive Privilege? It may not be as damning as it could be, but it would be nice to see these folks forced to testify.
arclightzero:
Of course resignations are nothing new. There is always a certain amount of turnover in an administration. I feel the staff changes in Bush's cabinet are noteworthy for two reasons:
1. Bush, unlike Clinton, brought a large group of outsiders up from Texas. These were his loyalists. While Clinton certainly had his favorites, he didn't bring up huge numbers of outsiders from Arkansas. To me, when the Texas Republicans start dropping, that's a sign that fundamentally, the Bush administration is damaged and changing.
2. The Bush resignations are noteworthy also because so many resigned in disgrace. From the list above, Gonzales, Rove, and Miers are currently involved or implicated in some kind of investigation. Other high profile resignations like Donald Rumsfeld also bear this out. This isn't really the case with Clinton. Some, like Espy, did resign under controversy, but many did not. Yet another sign Bush is having trouble.
Dan. T.:
As far as I understand it, this really doesn't change the status of the investigations. I think executive privilage still could be claimed, though of course Bush has a lot less leverage now that these people are no longer dependent on him for a job. But that doesn't mean they will talk, of course. Here's a quote from Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Commitee:
So, the investigations are still on, even if Gonzo resigned. I hope that they are still persued to the fullest, though I've heard that the resignation will give the justice department another excuse to claim that they are not prepared yet to appear before the commitee, even though the deadline on the subpoena ran out last week.
Boy, wouldn't you love to be able to shrug off subpoenas at your local district court and not end up in jail? What I love is how these officials delay and delay, claiming to be deep in "preparation," only to take the fifth, invoke executive privilege, and fail to answer for "reasons of national security" on every inquiry.
Gee, all that preperation really paid off. I'm sure you are now thoroughly versed on all the issues that you refuse to tell us anything about. Thanks for that!
As for the slew of resignations: Rats leave a sinking ship. Could there be something coming down the pipes that only the Bush family-cabinet is privy to? Something that even they don't want their, already blackened, resumes stained with when it hits the fan? Hmmm…
Well, here's hoping Bush can squeeze out another year in office as interim President when the 2008 vote is corrupted by "software errors" in newly computerized-polling districts.
Ahhhh… Conspiracy theories can be fun!
The thing to remember here is that the charges on all of bushes aids are trumped up ones that the dems have been pushing from day one. True though that Bush has been incompetent in defending his friends but still these charges were completely BS. But it is true that historically all presidents have a pretty bad second term that was even true for Regan. However I doubt that Bush is going to go out quietly. And I most definitely do not think that Bush is going to leave office with a nuclear armed Iran. But just like all the other time you continually underestimate Bush and I thought that you would have learned by now but you clearly have not yet. but I'm not complaining if you keep it up it will be better for me in '08.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1188550958062&rss=newswire
Everyone, everywhere should be made to read this article on Gonzales and the Justice Department.
Funny that the only real credit the article gives Gonzales' tenure is in locking up and prosecuting Jose Padilla… an act which, to my mind, secured the end of civil rights entirely.
Not that I really believe in civil rights in the first place, but I am curious how the hell the conviction of Padilla secured the end of civil rights??
Why simple my dear boy!
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=124190 952&blogID=300399719
Padilla was held indefinitely without trial for over three years and every moment of it, in solitary confinement. He was tortured… oh, sorry: "interrogated" regularly. He was denied his right to be charged. He was denied his right to a trial. He was denied his right to face and challenge his accusers. He was denied his right to council; to a speedy trial; to impunity from cruel and unusual punishment… And after three years of all this he was finally placed before the courts in a mental state found "unfit to stand trial" by multiple parties. The courts looked passed every one of these eggregious violations of his rights and just entitlements, and convicted him anyway.
All these rights and standards he was guaranteed as an American citizen by birthright. Yet without trial, charge, or opportunity to defend himself, he was stripped of that citizenship by the stroke of Donald Rumsfeld's pen and upon the command of George W. Bush who has claimed (and now proven) the authority to "reclassify" his own citizens as "enemy combatants" at will, and without legal contestability beyond habeas.
If any one of us can be so relieved of our constitutional protections, than all of us can. If the constitution and the law only holds up so long as it pleases the men in power, then there is no rule of law - only the rule of a monarchy. And the "guarantees" of the constitution may as well be written on single ply toilet tissue.
Thank you ladies and gentleman, I'll be here all week!
And here again is why I think the bill of rights should be repealled.
When it comes to terrorist assholes like this guy, I think he was treated better than I would treat him. For people lie you to whine about his treatment is criminal. As I always maintain, people give up certain rights once they proceed down certain paths. He got what he deserved. Hell, he got better than he deserved!
Bill of rights repealed? All I can say is that I'm glad you're not in charge. Whew!
Yeah, if I were in charge it would be a very different ballgame
If you're at all curious as to why I would say such a thing, read my full post on it here:
http://arclightzero.wordpress.com/2007/08/17/a-question-of-rights/
In fact, I would appreciate your comments or criticisms.
Like Padilla gave one shit about anyone elses rights.
Roy said;
"George W. Bush who has claimed (and now proven) the authority to “reclassify†his own citizens as “enemy combatants†at will, and without legal contestability beyond habeas."
Thats right ! and he should have the same right to do it to assholes who defend shitheads like Padilla.
You're worried about arclight being in charge !
Shit ! with you in charge we would all be dead !
Oh look ! It says here he's an American !
Alright, let him go.
This is probably true. It also doesn't matter. US citizens get certain basic rights no matter who they are, that's just how it works. Did Padilla deserve to be put on trial? I believe yes. Was he guilty? Again, I believe yes. Should he have been put on trial as an "enemy combatent", imprisoned for years, in solitary, without a lawyer or being charged with a crime, and interrogeted (tortured) by the CIA and others? No.
He should have been put through the normal criminal justice system, just like everyone else. He would probably have been found guilty. I would have been happy with that outcome.
I feel no remorse for Padilla, but I worry when our government starts to deny rights to its citizens on shaky legal ground, as should you.
I just read the courts transcripts and findings.
The ducks are all in a row and explains what happened.
I dont see what anybody is bitching about.
This all just a shot in the dark at the Bush administration. Just a bunch of noise, fishing expedition.
Padilla got way more consisderation out of the system than anyone on the left will tell you.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-1027.pdf
I just wrote one of my signature three-page rants laying all the relevant ends of the Padilla case in line, elaborating on my point and attempting to prove my contentions… Then I deleted it and wrote this instead:
Any one who would empower this government with the authority to unilaterally decide which Americans are protected by the law and constitution, and which aren't is an American by name alone. He is a traitor to his country and to his fellow man; and he should be looked upon as such.
So lets get this right Roy,
An American that is loyal to Al Queda should be treated like an American, and those that dont do as such should not be treated like Americans ?
Please, tell me I'm misreading you
What Roy is trying to say (I believe) is that you've got to be careful who you give the power to declare non-citizenship to. In the Padilla case, the Bush administration and no one else decided Padilla was no longer worthy of his rights. Now, I do believe you can lose your rights as an American citizen, but one branch of government should not have the power to declare this. That's a road towards abuse, and it is against what our system of checks and balences stand for.
If you really believe that people like Padilla shouldn't be given their Constitutional rights (Which I find a weird assertion. Look at Timothy McVeigh. He was a domestic terrorist, yet the court system dealt with him just fine.), then you need a robust system to decide whether to take away those rights. That means more than just the Bush administration.
Jro said;
"is that you’ve got to be careful who you give the power to declare non-citizenship to. In the Padilla case, the Bush administration and no one else decided Padilla was no longer worthy of his rights."
Bush was elected president, and he has this right( lets not forget his rights)He exercised this right with careful deliberation.
Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8 and designated an enemy combatent on June 9. He was held "justifiably" as a material witness to matters involving the saftey of "all other U.S citizens" Within that month the administration looked over evidence that was compiled on Padilla by CIA and Homeland security. Al Queda was not crazy about Padilla to certain extent. Converts do not hold the same effectivness as home grown loyalist. But Al Queda was willing to use him in concert with other operatives in the middle east.There was verifiable intelligence to prove this. This was why he was nailed as soon as he set foot in Chicago Bush did not just jump out right away and name him an enemy combatent.
Padilla only prolonged his appeals by filing for the wrong representation in NY instead of Florida.
The left wants to make it appear as if the administration was off on a witch hunt and that this the end of our civil and constitutional rights. This was the case in the over seas wire tapping scenario where we would have to wait for the FISA courts to issue a warrant.( congress voted on this and gave it to Bush)
The simple logic that justify's the presidents discretionary powers is that by the time you cut through the red tape the threat is gone or moved on. This was the same circumstance with Padilla. To let him out on bail the day after his arrest would of been a mistake before we had the goods on him. Immediatly the CIA and other security agencies brought forth reasons for Bush to do what he did. If the administration was doing any kind of a witch hunt and had reason to be as reckless as the left claims is or was, he could of also applied these measures to the numerous media outlets that have blown military operation info that was sensitive right out in the open. This is different because it is not a intentional effort to harm Americans, but I think they should be locked up just for being stupidly dangerous.
Padilla was intentionally dangerous.
The courts transcripts are lengthy and I dont think any of us want to disect them in this thread. But of course you are welcome to read them yourself. You will see that Padilla was offerd every fair opportunity to contest and appeal his conditions but actually screwed it up more himself than anyone else did.
Bottom line is Bush made the right call. His discretionary powers proved to be used correctly as Padilla has been convicted and awaits sentencing.
It might be better for the country if the left was more worried about those that are really suffering in prisons for crimes that are of little or no threat to anyone.
Instead of throwing empty bombshells at the administration who is just doing its job.
Timothy was not working with Al Queda, he was just an American punk.He was doing what he did out of some warped allegiance for his country.He thought he was doing America a favor by doing what he did.
Padilla made it clear he had no allegiance of any kind to America.He had met with Al Queda operatives on numerous ocassions, how long should we of waited ?
He was dumb enough to go to Chicago and got popped.
No no. You couldn't be more wrong right here, and that's really the crux of the argument. Talk to your friend arclightzero on this one, I'm sure he'd agree. Where in the Constitution does it give the president the power to declare someone a non-citizen?
Edited to add:
Even people charged with treason are still afforded due process under the law.
President issued an order to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld designating Padilla an “enemy combatant†and directing that he be detained in military custody.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-1027.pdf
I'm tired of reading the damn thing,I've done it twice. but its all in there.
Right, I've read that too. I would call it a bad decision, and many other constitutional scholars agree. Plus, the ruling only is applicable "in a time of war." While the justices held that Congress's war declaration against Afghanistan was broad enough to allow this kind of thing, when the war with Afghanistan is over, those powers will cease to be.
Either way, I'd rather see this kind of thing put to the states. In my view, to grant this power needs a constitutional amendment. If people in the states are that scared of terrorists that they want to grant power to the President to do this, then let them ratify that amendment.
Well I guess Bush has nothing to worry about.
And you guys are barking up the wrong tree.
I doubt any case brought against Bush in this case will hold water.
And any ratification will take place after the fact.
Jro said;
"I would call it a bad decision, and many other constitutional scholars agree. "
Unfortunatly "most" constitutional scholars did agree.
Actually,J-ro, the president is designated as the C&C of the US military, which gives him the authority to issue orders to military personnel. Somebody being declared as an enemy combatant is done so by the military. That is how prisoners of war are taken. If you look up the legal definitions as to how somebody can be decalred an enemy combatant, it is clear that Padilla fit that definition - and hence was declared as such. Bush may have been the final signature, but he is not a one-man process in this sort of thing… Just a signature.
I have to apologize, my espresso stash was low.
But as far as his citizen ship goes I was confusing that with the being an enemy combatent.
Once an enemey combatent, does he loose citizenship?
Jro said arclight might have the answer to this ?
Officially? I don't know. That's a good question. However, it is clear that he loses at least some of his due process rights.
As for the amendment, I doubt it would pass, and that's why I think Bush hasn't pushed for such a thing after the fact.
As for Micky's question about citizenship… I think it's a matter of where somebody "belongs". There's also an issue of once somebody is considered "military" or a "non military enemy combatant" they really have no real citizenship anywhere. Being in the military, I learned that while I was in the military, the US constitution did not apply to me. Part of raising your right hand and signing the paperwork means that while you are in the service, your ass belongs to the military. You are not an American citizen as yo used to be. Your body isn't even your own. You're property and subject to different laws and rules. For instance, you can be arrested and charged for destruction of government property if you get into a car accident and weren't wearing your seatbelt.
Anyway, that mentality carries forth to other armed services as well, which is why POWs are treated differently than normal citizens when detained. When an American citizen joins a terrorist (military) organization, they become subject to the same rules and treatment as any othr member of a domestic or foreign military member. At that time, the only rules that must be adhered to are the rules of the Geneva Convention (which we are taught is important, but a joke these days since our enemies do not abide by the Geneva convention).
So, with that said, if it can be proven that an American is a member of a foreign military (or terrorist) force, they fall well within the right of the US government to be tagged as an enemy combatant and treated as any other POW would be treated.
Jro said;
As for the amendment, I doubt it would pass, and that’s why I think Bush hasn’t pushed for such a thing after the fact.
Doesnt even look like he would need to as arclight just pointed out.
What Arclight said is true. You are "Property ".
Even masturbation is a no no.
Ok, so if we want to get into Geneva, if Padilla was tortured, Bush violated that. Of course, Bush argues that Padilla isn't covered by Geneva. If he's not, then what is he covered by?
Here's my question, and maybe a bit off topic, but can a person ever give up their basic rights? I mean, can we declare someone outside of the constitution, outside of military law, outside of Geneva, to such an extent that they have no rights?
The answer for me would be no. At the very least, people have the right not to be tortured.
Padilla dropped the torture thing.
Jro said;
"At the very least, people have the right not to be tortured."
Depends who those people are.
Once you put a blanket on it you limit important options , you are risking millions of peoples right to live
I mean, I guess this goes back to core differences between liberals and conservatives, but I believe rights are rights. You can't take them away. On top of that, I don't believe in these "smoking gun" reasons. We can effectively combat terrorism AND give people their rights. It doesn't haave to be mutually exclusive.
We can effectively combat terrorism AND give people their rights
Depends "who" those people are.
And then you have to define " effective"
Which right is greater?
The right to life, or someones right to phone call ?
Of course that's a misleading frame. When you say right to life, I assume you are talking about a terrorist who has "ticking time bomb" information, and that more people would die if you don't get that information fast.
I'm not convinced that situation ever exists. That has been the justification for Bush's actions, but I can't recall one instance where there was actually a ticking time bomb scenario. So right away, you're comparison is on shakey ground.
However, I would say that giving all people their rights all the time comes with a price. It does mean there is red tape. It does mean that we can't attack unless in defense. That is the price of being a moral nation. So the question is, are we a moral nation?
"Depends who those people are?!" And who gets to decide who these people are? You? Bush? A riotous crowd of small minded bigots carrying pitch-forks and flaming bails of hay? Who is it that has this almighty unchallengeable perfection of mind that can know all things knowable, and never require oversight, boundaries, or limits on authority?
Because that determination of guilt or innocence is to be left to the LAW which is bound and guided by THE CONSTITUTION. That's kind-of the function of these things within an organized society. Welcome to CIV 101, where we don't hang people based on public opinion, untested allegations, and rumor.
I can't believe you would deny yourselves and everyone in this country the simple right to trial before imprisonment and expatriation, out of your cowardice and fear. We live in world that carries a threat of terrorism… Yeah? So? What? We should undermine the most basic constructs of our government and democracy because of that? Way to hang the white flag of surrender out there boys. Way to set aside three hundred years of our father's self-sacrifices and curl up under the bed like a little girl in a thunderstorm.
I mean - WOW - for people who claim to believe in the virtues of small government you folks would just about give the government the keys to every citizen's backdoor, bathroom, and closet wouldn't you?
"Come on in fella's. So long as you keep my taxes low, I'll let you set up your warrant-less surveillance van in my driveway. By the way, as long as you're here would you like to have relations with my wife? Because that's what SMALL GOVERNMENT means to me; the unchallengeable authority of the Federal government to do anything it wants with the people and their lawful protections! Yup, that sure is some SMALL GOVERNMENT, there. Wouldn't you agree Jim Bob?" [spit...ding]
Talk about generalization.
You're not talking to me , [insult edited out]?
You are more worried about protecting the rights of someone who was clearly out to kill us. Than our right to be protected.
You can run around with your condeming one track minded tree hugging kumbaya mentality and bitch all you want.
But the fact is you or I have not lost one of our rights since Bush came into office.
So spare me all the hateful angry rhetoric, you have nothing to bitch about.
Here we go again. I'm just having a decent debate, nothing antagonistic going on and you fly in here like a rabid bitch in heat and actually made yourself look pretty stupid by asking questions that throw assumtions on the part of those that dont agree with you.
You might want to take a valium and back up and look for a solution or compromise as Jro did in post #33.
People are allowed to be held on suspicion legally without bail untill trial for logical reasons.
The saftey of the public outweighs your desire to let every asshole run free untill he actually kills someone.
You might want to actually look at things in their entirety before you go talking shit.
Who? wants to put a van in your driveway ?
Do even you know what it is the FISA court will allow ?
If you did somethinf that ignoranyt and dumb would not of come out of your mouth. As much as the other things you also said which represent an abnormally high range of paranoia.
That is a stunningly selfish argument, and one I think we need to move beyond. Does it really matter if you are I have not been affected? What if you were affected? I'm sure then you would feel differently.
The question here shouldn't be about degree of illegality. If Bush has done anything to infringe any rights illegaly, then that's a problem. It doesn't matter how widespread it is.
I maintain that terrorism can be dealt with within the bounds of our normal justice system. Why do you think it can't? The only argument I've heard is the "smoking gun" one, which as I've stated above, I don't believe.
Like you mentioned this is one of the clear lines between the parties, and I see no reason why an approach with both ideals could not be found. We have elections and public forums and the right to protest in order to put into play our system of checks and balances.
If determining the treatment and or capture of a questionable individual could be excercised in a way offensive to none that would be very good . But as it stands untill then we will have to work with what we have.
I belive the smoking gun thing applies. Especially when intelligence dictates it time to move instead of take a chance.
911 proved this overwhelmingly. And although you contest by saying how would I feel if it affected me, I dont believe the day will come and it hasnt.
Jro said;
"Why do you think it can’t? The only argument I’ve heard is the “smoking gun†one, which as I’ve stated above, I don’t believe."
The left is also using the smoking gun theory in relation to " our rights are under attack"
There is more proof that we are under attack by terrorist than we under attack by the administration to take our rights
Despite #37, now comes the apology.
When micky and I go head to head it does little but to spread a black mist of hate. We mutually pull each other deeper down into the muck until we are both compromising our own standards of decency and argument.
It's funny, because last night I wrote that little paragraph using the word, 'traitor.' I sat over it for a good ten minutes before submitting the comment, asking myself whether such language was justified. In the end I decided it was worth saying and that I was willing to back it up.
But as I went to rest my head onto the pillow I lay there and resolved to apologize for it when I woke up. Because, whether it is true or not - whether I believe it or not - it is a statement that causes division and accomplishes little but to kick the beehive. It is a hate-generator and I don't wish to be a contributor to humanities back-stock of hatred.
But then I wake up, I see the comments and the de facto unsupported one-time statements and… Instead of an apology I find myself writing my own version of that same de facto, one-time, liquid-hate. I find myself stooping and I don't like it.
Therefore I apologize. I am sorry for my words and the hate that they have brought upon the forum. I'm trying real hard to be more loving in my text. It's just… I have so much fun writing the caustic stuff. It's hard to let go. I may not be able to subsist within these pages any more than I can within the suburban brambles of this nation. The tendency towards darkness amongst my fellow man is radically infectious and quarantine may be necessary. Time will tell.
I concede nothing in the way of argument; You're still wrong as wrong can be.
But I do apologize for throwing stones instead of stacking them, one upon the other.
I came into this fairly civil, with reservations from another seminal thread.
What you said to or about me by generalizing and bigotry.
(I'm anything but a redneck)was uncalled for since I dont see anything in the thread where I said anything to you in such a manner.
Apology accepted.
But when this shit happens my gloves come off. Now I'll put them back on and go watch a movie with my boy.
Have a good weekend gentlemen ( whats left of it)
I don't want to sound like Dr. Phil here… But our inability to see personal attacks on each other is a big part of our inability to communicate across party lines.
When you respond to something I post with a comment like: "[Bush] should have the same right to [reclassify citizens as enemy combatants] to assholes who defend shitheads like Padilla[,]" it sure reads as though you just called me, and anyone here who would defend Padilla's rights as a citizen, an asshole. Further, it suggests that me-and-mine should all be locked away without trial or opportunity to speak — for the good of the nation. That is a gross personal attack with no relevance to the issues we would otherwise be discussing rationally.
It's hard to engage in civil debate when your oppositions first comments are, "You and everyone like you is an asshole and should be imprisoned." We must both be mindful of challenging issues and ideas, and not each others person. The sweeping statements that "everyone who thinks -X- is -Y-" have come from both sides of the table and none of these are beneficial to any of us.
I'm going to try to post here without engaging in senseless mud-slinging. It would help keep me grounded during heated discussions, and it would behoove us all, if the greater community will seek to take the same care with their words.