I actually found the point-by-point rebuttal to be a much better and more down-to-earth read.

I'm glad you sat and read it. :D

really? how so?

The main article seemed like a stretch. I really haven't observed the violations nearly to the degree that the author wrote and the rebuttal really hit on points and holes that I saw.

I've heard this too much. Everybody around me wants to believe that Bush is either a blithering moron who can't spell his name without asking his devious VP, or is a totalitarian who spends his days dreaming what other constitutional freedoms he can s**t upon. To the extent, they become increasingly gullible to anyone who would say anything against Bush. They eat it up. If I said "Bush said in a secret meeting he thought the bill of rights was a waste of the founding father's time." Who would believe me? (if I put it in made-up words)

It seemed like people turned their mind off in criticism of Bush (on both sides).
To quote an anonymous commenter on the rebuttal page:
no reasons. Just a simple allusion that the opposition must have no brains because they do not believe Bush is the devil.

Basically put, I have problems with people who go overboard in their claims.
Bush is not retarded version of hitler.
Bush is also not God's blessing on the American people.

The rebuttal seemed like a more objective read to me. But then, I've always been a rebuttal sort of guy.

i agree fully with you here. I'm not a bush fan but people are pretty rediculous when it comes to claims about the guy. I think most people forget that Bush is just a face, a symbol, what he doesn't isnt fully decided by him, the people below him have a major role as well. Bush for the most part has become a Scape Goat for issues. If times are good people like the prez, if they are bad, then the president must be f'ing up.

i'm definitely more for objective reading, but either way. I knew someone would like this stuff.