I think you are right about the priorities stuff, and for more than just yourself.
The Dems hijack the hearings to bash Republicans - not a violation of the “spirit of the rules”. Bricker short circuits a thread to point out that the Republicans are acting legally - a flagrant violation, etc…
Which can be uncharitably characterized as INOKIARDI[sup]*[/sup].
Regards,
Shodan
[sup]*[/sup]It’s Never OK If A Republican Does It.
They haven’t been found guilty; they haven’t even been tried; the tribunal hasn’t been constituted at all, much less “properly”; and the existing law has not been followed.
You could, but you’d have exactly zero factual basis.
Other than for those quibbles, though, you have a hell of an argument there. Pity it has no foundation in reality.
Since it’s now time for the fallback argument “But they might know where Osama is, and other inside information about Al Qaeda that can’t be made public”, note that anything any of them might have known is now 2 years old and almost certainly useless. Yet there they sit and rot.
Is that what you think America ought to stand for? Truly?
I remember my neighbors and relatives talking about this sort of thing, and it apparently is true. The Germans were trying to get to the Grumman factory on Long Island.
Mr. Moto, you are very inconsistent.
But earlier you posted:
and
I think that Gitmo is certainly fair game for this thread, but we had a number of threads discussing it. This one was particularly about Sensenbrenner’s attempt to silence the PATRIOT Act Debate and the discussion of Gitmo that he knew at the beginning was about to ensue.
I’m not trying to Junior Mod you, but I did want to point out that there is more than a little irony in your posts.
Thank you for answering my question honestly.
I don’t think Sensenbrenner was trying to silence debate on the Patriot Act. He was attempting to prevent a hijack of the hearings away from its avowed purpose and off to Gitmo.
I’m not seeing it if there is.
Regards,
Shodan
As I mentioned above, this is the same guy who re-wrote Dem amendments to the Parental Notification bill so as to cast them as a means to empower sexual predators. In my book, that makes him a bucket of pus.
Why else do you think Shodan is defending him?
I thought I cleared that up: the Patriot Act allows for the detention of aliens under suspicion of aiding terrorism, just like the prisoners at Guantanamo and just like Padilla. How America treats it’s “detainees” is more than relevant in discussing the Patriot Act, the hyper-pissiness of Sensenbrenner aside.
It would be relevent, if any of the detainees at Gitmo were being held under the Patriot Act, or if its revocation would affect their detention.
Otherwise it would be more a case of the Dems trying to hijack hearings to grab some publicity for their Bush-bashing. It’s hardly surprising that such a tactic would go over well on a messageboard where so many political threads also get hijacked for the same purpose.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, You know, I think that it is just time to stop being coy. Lay your cards on the table, and answer a direct question: do you like our current administration and where they are taking our society and county?
You think my last six thousand posts have been “coy”? 
BD, it seems to me that in the real world, it is possible to have a position on Bush that is more nuanced than “he was born sinless from Zeus’ brow” and “he sucks”. These strike me (both of them!) as extremist positions. And I am not an extremist.
However, there are a number of folks hereabouts who are extremists, and who hold extremist positions about Bush. I will leave it to you to decide which of the two extremist positions is the more common here on the SDMB. 
But to an extremist, everyone who disagrees with him even slightly is an extremist too. And therefore, extremists tend to attribute to everyone who agrees with them slightly, credit for full assent with their positions, and even more strongly to attribute to those who disagree, blame for being an extremist.
I am not necessarily accusing you of doing this. But it is not exactly unheard of here on the SDMB.
There are a great number of posts here on the SDMB attacking Republicans in general and Bush in particular. Some of it is even, God knows, deserved. But a big whacking chunk of it is coming from folks for whom hatred of Bush is the very jerkiest of knee-jerk reactions. And that kind of thing descends with mind-numbing facility into the most despicable kind of invective, and has nothing thoughtful or even useful about it. And the tendency exists, especially with the Usual Suspects, to lump anyone who refuses to join in the general chorus of “Bush sux” as a rabidly mindless conservative drone - because most of it comes from rabidly mindless liberal drones, who are incapable (apparently) of understanding the very notion of principled disagreement.
I am a Republican. I voted for Bush, since he was the best available candidate of all offered. Some of what he has done since election I support completely, and some of it I regret. He could do better. He could do one hell of a lot worse.
If this strikes you as being “coy”, well, maybe it is my fault. I am not a perfect communicator by any means.
Regards,
Shodan
You know, it is strange that you should bring that particular point up because it is at the heart of my major issue with our current congress. At some point, the Democrats seem to have moved from being Loyal Opposition to the Republicans to being considered to be Enemies. This latest bruh ha ha is just the latest example. Makes me pretty sad.
In any event, thanks for the thoughtful post.
Shodan, what are your thoughts on Cynthia Brown, Noam Chomsky, or Al Sharpton?
I suspect that you think at least one of them sux. I do not consider that to be an extremist position.
Why is Bush so different from these folks, that thinking Bush sux is extremist?
I think the man is awful. He has done very, very little while in office of which I approve. His priorities are almost directly opposite mine, both in ends and in means (I will credit him with keeping his campaign promises, one of the few means for which I can respect him). And I don’t consider that to be extremist.
There’s a good handful of Republicans whom I can respect for various initiatives: Nixon, for example, did some good stuff, and I recall in the past being impressed by certain of Arlen Specter’s actions (although I don’t recall the specifics). Bush, however, embodies the worst of the party, from where I stand.
I think it’s worth understanding that a person can have a nuanced outlook on the political scene, and still find that certain players in it are fairly loathsome. Much of my dismay comes from the fact that Bush is on the extremes of people that I do NOT want to see as president.
Imagine your reaction were Al Sharpton elected to office.
Daniel
Oh, Canada…
The difference is that George W. Bush is far closer to the center of American politics than Al Sharpton is.
Now, some of you might not like the fact that this is so, or that the American political center is where it is. It doesn’t change that fact, however.
Well, for one thing, I don’t start seventeen threads a week saying, “Chomsky sux!” the way, for instance, Reeder does about Bush. Nor do I assume that, if they did it, it’s wrong, but if Bush did it, it is OK. (You can believe that or not, as you see fit.)
What I was trying to say is, there is more to political discourse than either “Bush is always right” or “Bush is always wrong”. There are a number of people hereabouts who take the second position. And there is apparently no room in their heads for anything more than a reflexive “Bush/Republicans evilbadnastygollumgollumgollum…” About anything political.
Do you see what I am saying? Looking at the evidence and deciding “Bush sux” is one thing. Deciding from the get-go that “Bush sux” and then looking around for evidence to back you up is quite another. Especially if your search for evidence leads you to hijack every other thread with drive-bys and snarking and the SOP of the Usual Suspects.
Regards,
Shodan
I like the Churchill quote. But with respect to the Patriot Act and the War on the World I Mean Terror…
“We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.” — Edward R. Murrow
True. Irrelevent to the point Dorkness is trying to make, but true none-the-less. The argument he’s making has nothing to do with the distance between George Bush and the American political center, but the distance between George Bush and Left Hand of Dorkness, which is as vast as the distance between Al Sharpton and Shodan. The point being, hatred of Bush’s actions does not follow hatred of Bush, but rather the other way around. Most of the people who hate Bush do so because almost every single thing he does is in direct opposition to their own principals and morals.
(And, please note I said “most.” We all know who the exceptions are, no need to rehash that here.)
To follow up on what Miller said (which is all good by me), I quite recognize that this was true. Continue with the hypothetical, though: can you imagine how dismaying you’d find it if the majority of the people in this country voted for Al Sharpton? Can you imagine how depressing you’d find it if your fellow countrymen tended to think that Al Sharpton was a man of integrity?
I could be wrong, but I’ll hazard a guess that if Chomsky were president of the country, you might be starting more threads about his suckitude. I’ll further guess that you hear Chomsky’s political opinions rather more rarely than I hear Bush’s, and that his political opinions have rather less impact on your civil life, and that you therefore have rather fewer opportunities to be infuriated by him than I have to be infuriated by Bush.
Nevertheless, I appreciate the distinction you draw between folks who hate Bush as the beginning of the process, and those who hate him at the end of a process. I agree with Miller that the former are far rarer than the latter, but if you confine your accusations of extremism to the latter group, I’ll have no beef with you.
(Not on this subject, anyway ).
Daniel
After some consideration of this point…
…I agree.
I should have followed my own advice. It would have made my point much stronger, and me not guilty of the same sin I was screeching about others committing.
Point well taken. Sorry it took me so long to see it.