Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
host, I'm having trouble reading your post #93 as an attack on aceventura3 for holding his opinions. You're welcome to disagree with those opinions, but the entire "preamble" of your post aims it squarely at ace and not at the actual subject matter. You've moved from debating the topic to attacking the individual. Calling him an "enabler" and saying he's not praiseworthy when he's returned time and again to allow you the opportunity to expound on your points is not acceptable. Up to now this debate has been civil and even friendly at times, and you're trying to steer it away from that.
As per the restated Politics rules in the sticky, I'm posting this in the thread in the spirit of transparent moderation. At this point, I'm not raising anyone's warning levels or triggering the 3-day suspension rule because I don't think that's warranted. If anyone has any questions, let me know.
|
How else would I take issue with the posts that "gave credit" to ace, seemingly for simply continuing to post unsubstantiated opinions to counter intensely and thoroughly documented opinions that assert that the opposite is true, than in the way that I went about it. This occurs in the context of a Bush veto of the supplemental appropriations bill, just after the month of April, when it is reported that 104 more US soldiers were killed in Iraq, in April.
I'm not saying it's an excuse not to be polite, but Bush could not block legislation that mandates a time table for US withdrawal, without the support of people who need no real reasons for going Iraq and staying there, and who need no honest justification, even now. Who is stopping the impeachment process by criticizing Kucinich and his reasoning?