[Michael.SF.]

You still seemingly grasp my point. I stated previously I am not arguing the facts of what you have stated, so the proverbial ball you are referring to was never in anyone's court. Let me give a few examples of how your post sounds:

BUSH IS A DESERTER!

CLINTON'S KILLED VINCE FOSTER!

KERRY IS A DOMESTIC TERRORIST!

RUMSFELD IS GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES!!

All of the above comments can be argued as having merit by those who make them. In some cases the case may be better then in others. However, in all cases those statements make the person who made them seem to be an extremist, hell bent on a specific narrow agenda.

There is plenty of ammunition to defeat Kerry w/o using the bombast that is being used in this post.

[Truth Table]

There is plenty of ammunition to defeat Kerry w/o using the bombast that is being used in this post.

D'ya think that the information in the post itself was bombastic, or just the label of domestic terrorist?

[johnqueuepublic]

Look Michael, you broached the initial challenge and in my opinion you are way out of your league.

Your argument doesn't even make any sense.

You agree that the main point of the article is correct, then you offer 3 preposterous statments by DU types that have no basis in fact from the left as evidence of...what?

I am not going to take the cheap shot with regard to SF.

[cyncooper]

Without entering the fray of calling Kerry a domestic terrorist, I will say you are flat out wrong to say that calling Bush a deserter can be argued by anybody based on anything.

Coming up with a charge pulled straight out of Michael Moore's hat does not belong on your little list.

And before you tell me some nut could argue the case--which was your point, evidently--you are wrong. No, they could not.