Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never Is, but always To be blest:
The soul, uneasy and confin’d from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.

-Alexander Pope,
An Essay on Man, Epistle I, 1733

In case you check the EPU zone

The Suozzi Spitzer debate was full of fireworks. i don’t think either side scored a decisive win. It was lots of thrown elbows. Fn to watch, but it didn’t resolve any problems for either campaign

one more:

I’m too new at this to be sure, ’cause I don’t blog actively elsewhere, but I get the strong impression that the moderators here are a lot more careful and helpful to maintaining a sense of balance tw’ serious discourse and other types of commentary.

They don’t use a heavy hand at all. There’s no “censorship” per se, except in one way — ABSOLUTELY NO abusive posting is allowed. Even then, an offending poster is warned, or otherwise informed what’s happening.

The basically serious nature of FDL’s “mission”, if you want to call it that, attracts a lot of very serious, concerned folks. Discussion on such serious topics is exhausting for both posters and moderators.

Antidote: surely you’ve noticed plenty of free-wheeling *snark* — somewhat sharp-edged, often free-wheeling fun. It’ll pop up any time, a little or a lot. HARD for a newbie to tell what’s okay & what’s not, as well as determining what the bloomin’ heck is going on.

*snark*, & OT (going off topic, almost always with a warning at the beginning of a post to warn readers of that fact, and often written “with apologies” of some sort), are extremely valuable,IMHO, as safety-valves – a quick way to let a little of the steam off the top, so the discussion can continue in a serious vein, with a minimum of coronaries among the participants.

apologies, guys, for going on & on, but EPU territory sure is better than active topic, for this sorta stuff, [at least I got that impression. let me know if I’m wrong, some time ;->].

Don’t know if this has been said in comments yet, but FDLers have some very wise/handy protective devices to fend off trolls.

When you’re were all wrought up, & suddenly exploded into your 1st comment, my guess is you triggered a number of these all at once. Ouch!
Some background I’ve noticed about this unusual and wonderful site (please correct me at will, more experienced FDLers, thanks):

-commenters deep into meaningful discussion aren’t going to be receptive to OT comment, especially one that bursts in as full-blown tirade, from a stranger yet. Reactions could range from totally ignoring you to verbally popping you on the nose – neither fatal, but both discomforting to a newbie.

-in fact, commenters totally new to FDL routinely feel somewhat ignored for awhile, as ‘regulars’ get used to their style & size up the possibilities of whether the newby is a troll or crank up to no good, or someone genuinely interested in participating in meaningful discussion, and listening to ideas other than their own.

-overly emotional right-off-the bat, or overly self-involved, both are highly likely to trigger an ‘ignore’ response.

-makes it a little hard on some who are used to presenting an i.d., bit of personal background, et al., initially, as what they deem to be ‘proper’ intro.

Stick around. You’ll gradually realize that there are some tremendously high-powered credentials, and great wisdom, among rather deliberately low-key commenters here. That, plus superb moderation by Christy and the others, makes the site all the more powerful, democratic, and meaningful.

It’s a good place to be.

(((((peace)))))

Were you unable to e-mail your questions using the e-mail address that Christy provided?

If you’re referring to precedents for signing statements, I agree.

What I was referring to was your response to peterr’s question: “Any questions/comments from Gonzales about Bush personally squashing a Justice Dept investigation into domestic spying by refusing to grant security clearances?” You responded by stating “Peterr, he just said that the preznit was following precendent and that it was within his Constitutional powers and that he was respectful of Congress and that he thinks they could maybe do a better job of explaining this to the people.”

So if the president was following precedent by refusing to grant security clearances, what precedent was Alberto Gonzales citing? Did he cite any case law? Can he show us where the word inherent appears in the Constitution?