Persnally, I would like to drop the argument. This thread's energy is better spent elsewhere, and not arguing over the semantics of what does or does not constitute an ad hominem, or other logical fallacy. It is better spent discussing the current political situation in general.
I don't have to be nice in regard to my opinions. Nor does Mainiac. Being nice is tangental to being correct, and is just a perk of civility. One can be perfectly, impeachably correct, and still be a complete asshole. I make no reservations about openly admitting to being an asshole. I am.
I do take exception to being called disingenuous, and toward the invocation of fallacious rhetorical statements being uttered at the same time, and in the same breath, however.
I will call those out without reservation nor hesitation. I have no issue with being called out on any I may make either. However, if a specific thing is cited, then a specific thing needs to be addressed. A specific thing, namely that I am a liar about the war powers acts being indicative of the slippery slope being presented, was cited. I cited that the 1973 war powers resolution makes no sense to implement if no abuse of power is happening. This went unaddressed. If P=!P, then why is there a war powers resolution of 1973?
Answer.
Additionally, if the creation of legislation to halt the use of such powers is indicative of successful repeal, why does the wikipedia article mention numerous violations by the executive?