Replies

Ouch.

I'm terribly chastened. LOL

Let me see, what was it that unleashed your ire? Was it truly a lack of backbone on my part? I somehow doubt it.

I tend to suspect it has something to do with a reply I addressed originally to you rebuking one line of attack you advanced to another. Here is your post.

How sad that FReepers are now agreeing with Michael Savage and Chuck Schumer! Fickle soup, anyone?

My response to you...

Eh, I found myself on the side of Jesse Jackson over Terri Schiavo and Pat Buchanon on Miers substantively if not in their chosen overall rhetoric, interesting bedfellows don't really determine if this is a good or bad deal. After all, carter is for it.

However, choosing to move beyond mere agreement over nixing the deal into DU rhetoric is beyond respectable. The fact so many have done so damages their arguments against the port sale. That is what I find both pathetic and sad, and what I'm reacting against tonight.

The hysteria and excessive rhetoric have largely prevented a reasoned debate over the matter. Minus a couple of posters on either end that have risen above it as I slowly wade through this thread.

So, because I nuked your line of attack of being in bed with Savage and Chuck, given carter is in favor, you are reliant on silly attacks on my character. If you want a backbone, here is an example of one beyond the above quotations. Grow up. Take the critisism of the line of argument for what it is. A Draw at best if you attempt it. You may also note I devote far more time to critisizing the folks that engage in wholesale attacks on G.W.B's character than I devote to critisizing this one line of an argument you chose.

I have gone on record as NOT having a position yet on the port deal. I suppose I could march off half cocked as so many have and declare one right here and now to satisfy you, but satisfying your sensibilities isn't a concern of mine. What I have gone on record on : a) Politically a bad move b) instinctively I'm negative toward the deal but willing to give G.W.B. a fair hearing because too many folks are acting hysterically in opposition than rational c) do not have enough knowledge of port deals to give an educated opinion or conclusion at this time d) Bush is not a drunken shrub in a bubble selling us out to terrorists e) not everyone against the deal is an Arab hater d) Bush has threatened VETO's on numerous items so it's silly to advance the argument in feigned outrage as though this is the first time he's made the threat.

All in all, your attack against me is typically representative of the discourse of much of this thread and nothing but reaction to the original posts highlighted that evidently touched a nerve with you.

At best, at this moment in time, I find the heat of the conflict to reside around two opposing views.

Domestic security (ports/borders) and foreign investments in our security (building democracies/incentives encouraging cooperation in the WOT). Generally I favor both. This is one of the rare circumstances when each collide, and that is at the heart of a lot of resistance to this deal. Some place more of a premium on one or the other. I happen to view each as necessary and it why I'm on the fence so far, preferably I'd like to be convinced they are complimentary in function but I am not yet there. Too wishy washy for you? Too damn bad. I'm not going to make a pretense of being decided when I am not. Now take your tantrums to another interested in engaging the thread in a catty fight.