I don't know who Dr. Williams is, but sarcasm. as well as ridicule, parody and turning the opponent's position into a joke are all legitimate forms of argument.

Without them we have no satire and no way to strongly verbalize impressions we feel need to be corrected in others, or points of our own we wish to get across but cannot be factually "proven", such as whether Americans have the constitutional right to own weapons not in existence when the Constitution was written.

One of the best uses of sarcasm to make a point is Dorothy Parkers little poem from her book "Not So Deep As A Well"

Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
A medley of extemporanea;
And love is a thing that can never go wrong;
And I am Marie of Romania.

People will differ about this, but the form of expression Law employs, sarcasm or taking things to a logical absurdity are valid forms of expression. They may or may not make their point, they may or may not be skillfully written, they may even be wrong, but the legitimacy of the form is absolute.

I don't mean to take us off topic, but it's important to understand that there is more than one way to skin a moderator.

If you have comments or disagree with me about this, please start another topic so this thread won't be hijacked, but I had to comment on spryte's post.

And again--who is Dr. Williams? PM Me.

Back to the topic at hand, are not all candidates for political office or political appointments carefully vetted? Is this just an Obama thing, or does every President do it?

I grant you that Michael Brown, the FEMA genius was inept at his job, but had it been discovered that he were a pot smoker or had an Algerian mistress whose brother was in al-queda, he would not have got the job even if he were extremely competent.

Obama has publicly admitted to smoking cannabis and snorting coke in his younger years. So I wonder if now, drug questions will be removed from the vetting process.

Will job applicants who admit to having done pot in the past be given government jobs if otherwise qualified, or does the privilege of having tried drugs without repercussions apply only to the President elect?

I was responding primarily to the whole post of sarcasm, not necessarily the infrequent use of.. sarcasm *can' be used effectively, but it can just as easily be used not only ineffectively, but to the detriment of communication. I included the information as an fyi, not a condemnation of Law specifically, only .. well, I guess as potential 'dangerous curve ahead' warning.

I'll pm you the rest.

hopefully you'll let this post in, promise no more here on this topic, but I wanted to be clear that I wasn't accusing.. just informing.

. o O (Damn! Dax knew right away where I was going with that!)


But back to the topic, this Obama vetting could certainly torpedo any ideas that Hillary Clinton is going to named Secretary of State, unless the questionnaire is waived in her case. She and Bill bent over backwards during the primaries to keep the "particulars" of the Clinton Presidential Library donation list and other Clinton enterprises such as the Clinton Foundation Global Initiative from ever becoming public. You think the Clintons are going to change their minds on this secrecy now? I don't think so. Unless, as I said, Obama gives her a pass on certain information.

One wonders how much ideaological vetting there will be? Consider for instance...if Obama gets to fill a Supreme COurt vacancy, will the 2nd Amendment be a litmus test issue for him? Will he screen potential candidates to see how many think the 2nd Amendment conveys an absolute individual right to own firearms of a military character and eliminate those from consideration in favor of those who support a contrary view?

What sort of impact will the circle of advisors with which he surrounds himself have? How much ideaological screening will be done with those individuals and how will that impact the choices Obama makes on the basis of their advice?