[hchutch]

If that floats your boat, go ahead.

You want to hang out with those folks, fine. But I do find it interesting that FR threads and posts from me pass for entertainment.

Nick Danger and Bob J have raised some questions about this, questions that go to motive and whether all this is really necessary. We have the assertion that Gaffney did think it was necessary, but he is not a disinterested party.

And the facts I see do not warrant such a fuss. There may be some room to debate the judgement calls made, but it still strikes me as a mixture of a strong belief that the secret evidence provisions are not on strong constiutional ground and a refusal to admit mistakes than anything malicious.

[Sabertooth]

Nick Danger and Bob J have raised some questions about this, questions that go to motive and whether all this is really necessary. We have the assertion that Gaffney did think it was necessary, but he is not a disinterested party.

They've rasied questions about motives because they're firing blanks on the facts.

That's the essence of an ad hominem fallacy.

And the facts I see do not warrant such a fuss. There may be some room to debate the judgement calls made, but it still strikes me as a mixture of a strong belief that the secret evidence provisions are not on strong constiutional ground and a refusal to admit mistakes than anything malicious.

Well, that's mighty intellectually curious of you.

As though this entire thread has been narrow-cast to questions about the use of classified evidence in terror cases.

Norquist hobnobs with terrorists and sympathizers, and when anyone calls him on it, he resorts to race-baiting and lying. This has been demonstrated to you numerous times on this thread.

Yet you shrug it off with I don't know Norquist. I can't explain that.

Is there "room to debate" Norquist's lies and race-baiting, in your mind?