Originally Posted by serenityseeker

obviously the definition for acerbic is rather flexible for some..."Hitler" ???...sheesh

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who takes a position, sometimes one he or she disagrees with, for the sake of argument. Uh...guess I must of missed that somewhere in some post.

Taking a simple survey of the posts makes self evident truths abundently clear with regard to tone and intention of posts, nature of replies, character assasination of candidates, and twisting of facts.

Some truths are self evident indeed.

"a devil's advocate is someone who takes a position, sometimes one he or she disagrees with, for the sake of argument."

What part of this statement does not apply to what I say? I have repeatedly "taken a position that I disagree with for the sake of the argument." I disagree with using casualty counts as as means to justify a dislike for the Iraq war and President Bush. Buy pointing out an opposing party's President/War I make the argument that using body counts to make the President/party seem bad is wrong. I was in Vietnam and know first hand how casualty counts affected the morale of the soldiers.

I've taken a position of using ridicules statements like "Hitler" for the sake of the argument that using the terms "evil" or "pact with the Devil" are not valid to use for the argument. Once again using a position that I dislike to point out the wrongness of using such terms.

As far as "tone", I try to have a one that is similar to the post I'm replying to. "Intention" is not for you to interpret, I know what I want to archive.

The "nature" of my replies is dependent on the strength of my belief in my position. It is my position after all, and my disposition or temperament shows on any given issue reflected in the nature of my response. Everyone doesn't have to like it.

I don't think that I've used "character assassination of the candidates" in my posts, but I wouldn't swear by it. If I have, point them out.

"Facts" seem to be a matter of perspective in these posts. Numbers used as fact can and do get manipulated to fit the desired outcome desired. Sources of fact, I.E. News sources, biased experts, endorsements from anyone, (specially actors/actresses), can be construed to be "twisting of facts" if you don't agree with them. The apple may not be red, but in fact green on one side, depending on your perspective. The core fact (pun intended) and the only one that is fact is that it IS AN APPLE. This truth is self evident.

Perhaps this is a little clearer,

dev·il's advocate (dvlz)
n.
1. One who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position.

Beyond that I really don't feel like putting any further effort into this. I have no personal issues with anyone on this board. My goal is to be well informed and weed out some of the mass of useless propaganda that seems to come from all sides, and I have no problem calling as I see it, however I will not do it with inflamatory statements or blind party line rhetoric. For unslanted factual posts I thank everyone, including at times gnu.

Originally Posted by chachacha

yes, it is true that colin powell is a respected individual, but he is still only one individual, and he will not change the minds of those like me who are solidly behind the conservative way of thinking. obama will never work for my conservative ideals so he would never receive my vote, no matter how elegant his rhetoric. so while my friends in this thread so far are enjoying a moment of perceived victory, i will put my hope in the silent majority who really have made this country great. i will keep the faith.

I Agree