Y'know, Jack,

I often like what you have to say. Particularly on the sex threads on the DC boards, you've said some funny, intelligent and creative stuff.

I just think that, pending further evidence, you're wrong on this one.

I'm going to chalk up some of your harsher language to me as anger in the heat of the moment, because I really don't think I said anything warranting that kind of a backlash, and don't wish to push the more personal issue further.
I think you responded to some of my points about the general tactics of U.S. liberals, and of anti-American rhetoric from outside the U.S., responding as if all the points were addressed to you personally, and they certainly weren't.

I don't question that you believe, in your chosen way, that you're fighting the good fight against an emerging police state that, from your perspective threatens to take government power from the people and give it to an elite few.
And although I think power over the U.S. is in fewer hands than ever, the control of U.S. policy by corporate business and military-industrial elite is nothing new, and is as old as our country. George Washington pressed to build all federal buildings out of granite, and owned the only granite mine in the U.S.
And certainly Clinton and Gore have demonstrated themselves to be just as influenced by campaign contributions and corporate lobby as George W. Bush.

I think I made it pretty clear in my earlier posts that I think it's legitimate to question U.S. government action prior to and after September 11th.

All I question is the abrasiveness with which the issue is raised, as thousands of Americans have friends and family who survived or died on September 11th, and hundreds of thousands more who have lost their jobs from the aftermath recession. Let the issue be raised, yes, but in a way that is respectful of patriotism other Americans feel, and not unnecessarily harsh in its rhetoric. Which I'm paraphrasing from my earlier posts.

I feel it would be easier to take take your ideas more seriously if you weren't so irreverent and contemptuous toward the Bush administration, contemptuously referring to him only as "the Shrub" instead of his proper name and title. All that really conveys to me is that you have a deep hatred for Bush and are eager to believe the worst about him.
It comes across as a hippie-brand fashion-chic iconoclasm, an eagerness to believe cynical conspiracies and shout "down with The Man".
And while I stress there is a possibility you might be right, that evidence might someday reveal a conspiracy, the evidence just isn't clear or credible at this time, and you should make your case with respect for the fact that most people believe in and are patriotic to the government you're voicing criticism of in the most comtemptful and vociferous terms.
You'd find more people willing to acknowledge the possibility of a conspiracy if you eased down your rhetoric to a more respectful choice of words.