Nope, GM’s response was to try to discredit me. This tells us a great deal about his confidence in his ability to discuss the issues themselves.

Thanks for clearing that up, GM.

I excluded you and you know it.

False:

Your argument might hold a heck of a lot more water if those of you on the left side of the political aisle…

Hmmm, take the log out of your eye before complaining…

You tried to lump me in with unnamed others whose views you ridiculed, GM, and dismiss my argument by means of guilt by association. Have the good good grace to admit that you were caught doing so. Your transparent attempt to backpedal from the accusation in the same paragraph in which you made it fools no one.

The evidence agains Padilla is fairly overwhelming if the MSM reports are to be believed (I do not know this, because I, like you haven’t seen any evidence).

‘Scuse me? The evidence is overwhelming… but you haven’t seen it? If you don’t know what the evidence is, then how do you know it is “overwhelming”? Or is this a tacit admission that you are willing to see a man tried and convicted in the media, simply because you believe him to be a terrorist, on the basis of evidence that you admit you have not seen?

Try again. The evidence agains Padilla is fairly overwhelming if the MSM reports are to be believed (I do not know this, because I, like you haven’t seen any evidence). I’m more than willing to hold him innocent until proven guilty, but I notice you are more than willing to repeat the unproven (unprovable?) issue of was Padilla tortured. Neither of us know. If he was, those engaging in the torture need to be prosecuted (they may be found innocent – who knows).

But I do find it interesting that because the word “torture” is used, thusly “could open up charges from defense lawyers that their earlier statements were a result of torture,” you seem to be assuming that he was tortured and that is the reason they “didn’t want that to come out in open court.” Interesting that a claim of torture by defense (and it was mentioned as a possible, not a given) that it makes it “ok” to use. Please, don’t lecture me on guilt by association and then make up your own arguments out of whole cloth as you accused me of doing. I excluded you and you know it.

Guilt by Association is the attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it… Guilt by Association argues against an idea based upon associating it with disreputable people or groups.

You’re not discussing the gist of my argument, GM. You’re simply trying to dismiss it by associating me with a group you disparage. And you’re doing it on the basis of opinions that you attribute to me out of sheer ignorance. You don’t know what my opinions of Libby or Rove are — so you invent them out of whole cloth.

Now, do you want to try to actually discuss the attempts to gut the US justice system, and Cao’s approval of same?