Reply #27: I'm with you on this one Juniperx

[onenote]

I'm constantly harping on the fact that we are fighting a group that has no regard for the truth, that routinely lies, distorts, misleads, mischaracterizes, etc.

Many here seem to think that the appropriate way to fight back is to do the same thing. I think that is a losing proposition. Certainly, I haven't seen it work. We tend to get called on it when we do.

In fighting these folks, and trying to rebut what they are claiming, we have to protect our own credibility. I've seen some simply riduculous things here at DU lately. For example, one poster contended that the fact Fred Fielding (WH Counsel) capitalized the word president in his letter to the Hill was evidence of the administration's aggrandizement of power mentality, because some style manuals indicated that president shouldn't be capitalized. In fact, of course, you can go back and research letters written in any number of past administrations (including Democratic administrations) and find that, here in DC, in government-written documents, president is capitalized. Same goes for court opinions. Of course, a number of DUers immediately bought into the OPs theory, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Now, I'm not suggesting that the discussion in this thread over the "resignation v. firing" issue is as silly as that piece of psychobabble. But you are right that attacking chimpy, or anyone else, for referring to the US Atty's as having "resigned" is barking up the wrong tree if they are going to claim that they were fired. If there is a criticism to be made is that saying that they "resigned" is incomplete. A more complete statement would be that they were asked to resign.