|
cj2112 and pan....you can criticize my political sentiments, but as far as the "ic" thread, I think that I supported my argument that it was not possible to take the "day after" conciliatory tone of president Bush, seriously, since he went out of his way to use the knowingly insulting reference to the democratic leadership that insinuates that they are not "democratic", and must be called "democrat".
I pointed out that renaming the party, and constantly using the renamed description in speeches, indicated zealot level, extreme partisanship.
In this thread I have offered support to describe the damage already done, as well as the potential, if left unchecked for the next two years, for Bush to do much more damage, not the least of which is setting up the needless and avoidable deaths and permanent injuries to more of our troops. I've cited the precedents for impeachment.
I would like you to consider that my posts are reliably documented with "in depth" support that would make it difficult to argue that my posts are "shrill".
Can the two of you describe your posts and arguments as balancing to the ones I've made, because I don't see that they are.....
|