I've been dealing with the issues at hand. I'm full of facts, and can weave the classic debate elements of logos, ethos, and pathos in an incredible array of combinations to construct arguments. I'm actually quite adept at analogy and metaphor, too. I just wish I had more time to get warmed up.

Unlike some people, I'm not a one-trick pony that resorts to questioning an opponents character as my only means of debate.

I suggest you look up the definition of "strawman", because I don't think you understand it. A strawman is a sham argument set up to be easily refuted. I don't think there's much in my post you can refute.

- Kerry bragged about his Vietnam service continually in 2004, and the Democrats made it a point to argue how his wartime service made him better able to be commander in chief than a former Guard pilot. But now the Democrats are bashing McCain's service as irrelevant because their guy has nothing.

"Please provide a link where "Democrats" have been bashing Mcains Service! I have not seen hide nor hair of talk of this nature from anyone and I watch and read the news fairly consistently. Maybe one of your guys like Rush is the only one reporting this.

Also, provide a link to reports of Democrats during the 04 election making it a point to claim due to Kerry's service he was a better choice then Bush. Again, I don't recall that in the way you are saying it at all. I do remember the swift boat liars"

- Republican rules knocked Stevens out of his committee positions, but Democrats haven't done squat about Jefferson. By the way, Stevens was indicted on 7 counts of false statements on financial disclosures; Jefferson was indicted on 16 counts, to include fraud, bribery, and racketeering.

"If Jefferson is guilty he should be accountable. I am not versed enough in the details of his case, but again all I can say if guilty he should be accountable. "

- Global warming advocates have, in fact, used global warming to explain glacier retreats and advances.

"They are people on both sides of that issue with differing agendas. Some agendas are motivated by true concern and some by greed. Again, that's on both sides of that issue. "

- We saw nothing but defense out of the Democrats when it came to Clinton, because that was his "private life." And yet they yelled for Craig's head.

"And yet they yelled for Craigs head" Oh my they "yelled" for his head, how scary. C'mon man you gotta come up with something better then that.

What many people where upset about with Clinton was the insane amount of tax payer money spent on a witch hunt over a hummer between two willing participants. That's indeed skummy for a president, but not against the law. Also, just a little bit different then being caught by an undercover cop soliciting for a hummer or to give a hummer in a mens restroom. That is against the law. "

- Affirmative action programs boil down to giving advantage to someone based on the color of skin. Change "black" to "white" when examining a policy, and see what happens.

"I said before their was a time when affirmative action was needed IMO. That time may in fact be over although it doesn't mean racism and prejudice is dead."

- Islamist anger has centered on western culture and the US for over 50 years -- historical fact.

"Have we not been exerting strong influence in that region for the past fifty years. Not getting into the right or wrong of it, but common sense dictates not everyone over there might be happy about it. What if oil had been discovered here and we had Middle Eastern countries drilling and interfering in our way of life. We'd probably act up a bit ourselves in that situation. "

- The lack of terrorist attack against America is the longest period of its type in decades -- fact.

"Well gee, after 9-11 you'd hope we'd tighten up security a bit. Also, attacks on the scale of 9-11 take many years to formulate and execute. We should have more resources here and in Afghanistan and Pakistan to guard against that instead of tied up fighting an insurgency."

- The Democrats insisted on setting a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq independent on conditions, thinking it would force the Iraqis to step up. If you announce to your enemy that you're going to leave the battlefield to him on a certain date regardless of what he does, it ain't victory. It's called surrender -- look it up in the dictionary.

"So, we should stay 100 years? It is acceptable to you that we continue to have casulties two per day, one per day, three per day, for the next ten years. Don't you think our troops have earned the right to come home and be with their families instead of riding around in a Humvee in what amounts to a game of Russian roulette?"

- The US had no significant national interests in Kosovo, other than to stop genocide. But if you accept that premise as a national interest, then you have to accept that same premise as valid in Iraq. What was going on in Kosovo was not a threat to a vital strategic interest for the world, nor did it have potential to threaten a significant US ally.

"Difference is we were lied to about the reasons for Iraq from day one. I guess it's acceptable to you but I prefer my Gov. doesn't lie to us on that scale if at all. "

- The death tolls are historical fact. Every Democratic administration since the Mexican War has used military force against a sovereign nation. The same doesn't hold true for Republicans.

"Oh geez, back to the future again. Your flux capacitor must not be working properly you didn't bring up the French revolution and blame it on the democrats. Hurry get it fixed."

- We've already debated Obama's anti-gun record. Look at the records of majority leadership in the House and Senate, plus the records of Democratic Judiciary committee leaders and membership.

"I'm not afraid like you are that my guns will be taken if Obama is elected. In fact I make the claim I will own more then I do today under his Presidency. I will be happy to verify that over the years if he wins. "

Go ahead, if it's a "strawman" you ought to be able to easily refute it. But I doubt that you'll do anything but dodge and make some sort of condescending claim about my character.

As predicted -- a one trick pony with no way to answer but character assassination.

That's why liberals are good at getting power, but poor at keeping it. They throw rocks and tap into negativity to get elected, but once they're held accountable for producing, they fall apart.