Rich-

That wasn’t the question. I asked you to offer your own definition if mine did not fit. You claim that Pete and I call conservatives racists, you imply my definition of racism isn’t valid, and you refuse to give me an alternate definition. I know you have one, you just want to draw me into another debate. I sense a pattern here.

For example – you mention that comparing anyone to Tim McVeigh is a Red Herring. I ask why, and I give reasons why I believe America is in fact hypocritical in its differing reactions to McVeigh and Arab terrorists. I ask you for an explanation, and you reply by saying that Pete and I describe all conservative as racists (which neither of us ever said). I respond with a fairly in-depth discussion of institutional racism as opposed to individual racism. You never reply. Rather, you focus on Pete, who points out that profiling is by definition racist. You attack him personally and I respond with a definition of the term. I even ask you for another and you fail to offer one. Instead you decide to change the subject again to a new conservative battle-cry: admissions policies.

You have to understand, I would prefer the intelligent debate of any idea over a way for each of us to score points for our side. I am not a liberal. I am a social libertarian, and an economic moderate. But what I value more than any point of view is the debate that is likely to enlighten each side. You have refused to stick to any single point, and chosen to try to slam what you think is my “side”.

I have no side, except that offered by the Honorable Justice Holmes in U.S. v Abrams:

“[W]hen men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out..”

I will debate any individual argument to its logical end, to preserve the free trade of ideas. I will not, however, allow anyone to suck me down their conservative rabbit hole, and put me on trial for every so-called liberal policy.

Back up, take a look back, and decide which of the statements you have made you are willing to defend, and I will gladly argue it with you. For the sake of argument, start with this post http://www.thechipboard.com/cgi-bin/tcb/tcb.pl?read=246928 . Or simply provide me with your definition of racism. Or I’ll debate any topic you like in depth, including the differences between pro-minority college admission policies and anti-minority profiling.

All you have to do is stick to one topic. I'm not out to "win" the debate, I just want to exchange ideas with a birght guy not afraid of losing. You are obviously a very bright guy I could learn a lot from, but your method of arguing makes it appear that you are afraid to defend yourself.

Peace

Al