Oh. The explanation for Congress' closed session surfaces.

[icarus]

Today's Washington Post article about CIA secret prisons scattered around the world.

I guess we now know what Tuesday's closed session in the Senate was about.

The Washington Post would have informed them that this article was coming out on Wednesday: "Do you have anything to add?" I bet the Democrats were pissed.

The two unidentified European countries that have CIA prisons are Poland and Romania. WG just informed me that Poland and Romania are both desperate for US weapons and have been given weapons deals in exchange for their participation in the Iraq war.

Comments

[vichka.livejournal.com]

Gosh, I could so use ur eloquent opinion in my journal right now :)

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Okay, I took a peek. But a lot of the debate's in Russian.

A tip on dealing with hot-heads: keep your initial responses simple, direct, with only one or two points, open-ended and directed at their own arguments. For example:

Hot head: "All protesters are helping the terrorists!"

Your response: "How does exercising free speech help terrorists?"

Open-ended: Note that it draws out their own argument (which promises to be entertaining and ridiculous) with a question that can't be answered with just a yes or no.

Simple and direct: Note also that you provide them with no new information about your position. This focuses the conversation so you stop them from stirring up emotions and force them talk about facts.

Directed at their own argument: Note that instead of adding new information to defend yourself, you are asking them to defend their own position. This gives the hot head nothing new to attack.

If they go back to your original argument, bring them up short with: "You didn't answer my question. How does free speech help terrorists?"

Lastly, be sure to maintain a calm, interested manner. This will either:

a) relax them so you can engage in a civilized debate (the ideal scenario), or

b) drive them bat-shit crazy (the amusing scenario).

Once they've descended to base insults, of course, you've won the argument as they're clearly out of facts and are trying to win by upsetting you. They have only embarrassed themselves: roll your eyes and move on. Never make apologies when you're on solid moral ground.

Icarus

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I see what you mean. The guys who are attacking you in your journal are really arrogant. They bluster into the conversation like they're God's own experts on the universe.

When they lose a point, they don't acknowledge or take a new tack -- they simply pretend it didn't happen, hoping no one will notice. Instead pull out their pricks to say "mine's bigger!" when that has nothing to do with the subject.

On top of that, every debate point is a personal attack from them, from the start. I've run into people like this but only on the Backpacker forums, which are completely unmoderated.

Icarus