Nice to see you give me such great press in my absence, Frank. With such quality reference, how can I stay silent?

I think its absurd that you criticize me for being consistent, yet I have NEVER ONCE seen you yield on any position you have taken, even when your statements are shown to be inconsistent or your facts wrong. You make blanket statements about 'the left', I have made no such statements (outside a single positive one) about 'the right'. You make factual issues into personal ones (as per above, as per the bush-hater remarks), not me.

I take my position based off the best research I have available. I seek to engage in discussions to *test* my positions. If you can't exhibit where my facts are incorrect or my logic is invalid, and thereby make me change my mind, then MAYBE, just MAYBE its not because I refuse to concede that I *might* be wrong, but rather you refuse to believe that your viewpoints might be in some part incorrect or indefensible. The sword you are swinging, Frank, has two edges. Be careful about who you think it might cut deeper.

When it is pointed out to me that my empirical information or logic is inconsistent, then I change my mind. Many of my positions on social issues admit the presence of values and opinion.

The question of a social safety net is one of those issues. I believe that one of the fundamental duties of a society is to act for the good of the society, without abridging the individual. Folks like Tom disagree with that premise. Ethical and Logical and Factual Consistency is possible in both cases, and it is difficult to tell who is right and who is wrong- just who argues their point better.

I am intransigent on the war issue, and INSIST argument based on fact and evidence and NOT belief because you better be able to prove your damn point if your going to slay 10-15,000 people and occupy their civilization. This is not tax dollars, but a whole lot of fucking dead people that died as a direct result of these beliefs.

That I don't throw up my hands and say 'Well Gee-willikers, Batman, I might be wrong so lets just do whatever' is because of that reason. It is also because those I debate with here use partisanship to patch the holes of their inconsistent arguments. Its the blood in the water for my mind. Lately those patches have been augmented with, as Robert pointed out, a good deal of feces flinging.

If I want to stand around using Empirical fact, logic and reason to no good end while shit is hurled at me, I'll go to the zoo and argue with a gorilla in his cage.

Make sure to wash your hands before you eat, Frank.

Davin L.