Proof, what Paul Oneill said about their pre 9/11 plan, their lying about why we went into Iraq, the contract giving oil companies 70 percent of the profits tax free, and the attack on Iraq even though they had nothing to do with 9/11. See http://bushliar.newcovenanttheology.com

The persom described is not a cynic, but a smug elitest.

A true cynic questions their own judgement and motivations FIRST. specifically because they know NOONE is immune to deception, false reasoning, or base selfish incentive. Cynics are no stronger smarter, wiser, or perceptive than anyone else. The only advantage cynicism has is it makes one less suseptible to the effects of political and religious Kool Aid because it forces one to question EVERYTHING instead of just blindly accepting the word of any “AUTHORITY”, even their own.

It is also short sighted to belive that conducting a conventional war in Iraq will prevent a terrorist attack here at home, but we all do what we can.

Cynics of that sort engage in the fallacious blind belief that they are better at discernment, immune to deception. Such hubris produces a fall eventually.

You by stopping terrorism, me by checking abuses of executive power that terrorism has created. We must agree to disagree on which threat is greater, but should find comfort in the idea that between the two of us, we have ALL the threats covered.

Not really. If a terrorist attack gets through the US defenses because of foreign aid from Syria and Iran, because they’ve already taken over Iraq, then this means for every major attack, American Civil Liberties takes a 1-10% decrease. A single attack that kills an excess of 3 million people, would more or less suspend the Bill of Rights.

It is shortsighted to think you have the power to make people not panic.

B) Any “adjustments” bear close scrutiny.
Yes, they do — it would just be helpful if the “scrutiny” were of the non-hysterical kind, and were a step above mere partisan power-struggles.

C) And, no the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land,…
So you think it’s possible to “circumvent” the constitution by just passing legislation? Why do people ever bother with constitutional amendments in that case? Do you even understand what a constitution is and means?

D) You have your fears, and I have mine.
Yes — and both can arise from legitimate, rational concerns, just as either can be the product of cynical manipulation and/or hysteria. In attempting to separate the former situation from the latter, it would help to note that skepticism and cynicism are distinct — failure to recognize this can, as Ymar indicated, lead to a “cynicism” that is indistinguishable from an inverse but still naive credulity.

E) Peace to you on this Easter Morning.
And to you.

Right. And without motherhood, there are no people.

False comparison. The America is not the “chicken” and the Constitution is not the “egg”. You take it for granted. You should not. Just look around at the tyranny in the rest of the world. The founders did not take it for granted either, They were more worried about tryranny coming from within than without as well. Freedom is not a given, it must be fostered and stood watch over. Any “adjustments” bear close scrutiny. And, no the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land, the provisions in the Patriot Act and several other pieces of legislation that were passed in the post 911 panic give the president the power to circumvent the constituion.

Funny, you suggest I am a victim of kookery, yet you are the one who sees Al Qaeda in every closet.

So the idea that the Bush administration is threatening the very basis of the nation is just a piece of wildly exaggerated political hyperventilation, worked up and spread about by partisan hacks as a way of spooking the “masses” they regard and treat as herds of sheep.

Ha ha ha. Do you mean like the ever evolvoing reasons for us going into Iraq. What scarey reason is Bush feeding the sheeple this week?

We are going in circles and have come back to the beginning of our argument. You have your fears, and I have mine. One thing is obvious Sally, we both seem to be trying to protect the American way of life. You by stopping terrorism, me by checking abuses of executive power that terrorism has created. We must agree to disagree on which threat is greater, but should find comfort in the idea that between the two of us, we have ALL the threats covered.

Peace to you on this Easter Morning.

I disagree, those who engage in unconditional blind faith are the true suckers.

Cynics view everything with a healthy dose of scepticism and tend not believe independent without verfication. no matter what the souce of the message.