Arguing the Constitution against a fool.

[gulliver]

It scares me when we credit Bush with too much gravity and argue first on meaty grounds like the Constitution. "Never argue with a fool," the saying goes. "People might not know the difference." When we pit the Constitution against Bush, it only makes less apt people think there is some equivalence between the founding document of the greatest country that ever existed and a prionic, lying fraud.

This happens with every good thing that is used to attack Bush, be it the honor of war service, the humanity of the Geneva Conventions, the civic responsibility of corporations, or the undesirability of corruption. None of these things could ever even be brought into question before Bush, because Bush's predecessors had character. Because Bush is such a worthless fool and will go anywhere, he acts like a catalyst for the destruction of all values.

I don't argue Constitutional minutia when talking about Bush. I simply say Bush is a proven fuck-up and should not be touching anything valuable at all. I don't even concede that Bush is worthy of an argument with the Constitution.

[BuyingThyme]

1. But he doesn't really argue. He just tries to make Pukes

believe he has an argument.

Like with the "human dignity" flap. He doesn't have an argument, really, but simpletons don't know that.

He say's "What does that mean...?" And they say, "Yeah, what does that mean?" Then they go back to picking that stuff out from between their toes.