Blind Partisanship

[Saboteur]

If this thread isn't going to come back around to discussing the OP, then why leave it open?

If it is going to discuss the OP, when will such discussion begin?

Please, go ahead and close it. The original author of the post just wants to argue semantics and obviously does not wish to debate the article he posted as I have invited him to do. :roll:

 

[Saboteur]

lol....you're saying that my using the term McFly is equaly to my calling you stupd? Is that it?

Okay, now I mean it. That was stupid.

Okay... now can we talk about the article?

 

[KCConservative]

Okay... now can we talk about the article?

You accused me of calling you stupid. That was a lie. Yes, now we can discuss the article.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

I am also offended by your quote.... You seem to be the one supporting hate and slander.

It was rather ironic that his signature was a fair example of a little bit of partisanship, but I've seen signatures that do the same thing only on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

On the topic of "blind partisanship" it is interesting why people set their ideas to agree with a certain group of people and never re-think or re-evaluate new ideas. It's easier to live life that way because: (1) your opinion is already decided, and you never have to think, and (2) there is a group of people already built in for you to belong to, to support you.

It is almost as ironic as KC's sig to see how people see the "lefties" with out seeing the "righties" or the other way around. Some believe that there is only partisanship on one side of the aisle, and it really isn't true (and doesn't make sense when you think about it).

 

[Saboteur]

You accused me of calling you stupid. That was a lie. Yes, now we can discuss the article.

Well if you want to believe that it was a lie go ahead... I'll take misunderstanding myself.

Anyway, as I was saying there are some obviouse flaws on both political sides here and I didn't like the article because it was one sided. Now I may be a liberal or whatever but I am just as disappointed with the Democrats as I am with the Republicans. I've never been taught that one side or the other was made up of saints. In fact I've been taught that they are all "good for nothin's" to quote my father who always voted republican for the president but DFL for state and local positions.

But then that was before all either side cared about was making the other look bad. And while my father may sound less than intellegent in that quote, at least he knew that the government is a system that runs on more than one party. I have been known to follow his example and if John McCain runs in '08 (which I really doubt he will) I'll definitely be listening to his platform, I do not just vote for Democrats. I'm not sure if I want Hilary Clinton in office just yet. I don't think the environment of the houses would welcome her and I don't like the idea of having a lame duck from either party in the office of president.

I do think that if and when these little boys running around the playground claiming to have a clue as to what they're doing grow up Ms. Clinton will be a great president. So there it is my opinion I hope it is comprehencible.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

You accused me of calling you stupid. That was a lie. Yes, now we can discuss the article.

Okay good.

But the press has not told the American people that Democrats demanded an updated intelligence briefing of their own during the debate to authorizing action in 2002.

Inaccuracy #1. The fact that the customary NIE had not been done and had to requested by Congress is widely available in "the press."
It was a rush job. Usually NIE take months to prepare. Yet, coming into the congressional invasion debate, the executive branch had not directed that one be prepared.

They have not told the American people that the Clinton appointed Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, delivered that updated report, known as the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concerning Iraq in October of 2002,

Inaccuracy #2 This is also widely available in "the press."

which indicated that the intelligence against the Hussein regime was as Tenet put it, a "slam dunk".

Inaccuracy #3. The NIE does not present the evidence this way.

They have not told the American people that literally none of the Democrats currently critical of pre-war intelligence bothered to even read that report before casting their vote to send American troops into harm’s way.

[Two sets of inaccuracy in one.] This fact is also available in "the press." There were a number of them who actually read the entire thing that was locked in the Senate Building. However, most congresscritters merely read the summary that the WH provided.

Now it's you're turn. Whenever you feel froggy.

 

[KCConservative]

Okay good.
Inaccuracy #1. The fact that the customary NIE had not been done and had to requested by Congress is widely available in "the press."
It was a rush job. Usually NIE take months to prepare. Yet, coming into the congressional invasion debate, the executive branch had not directed that one be prepared. Inaccuracy #2 This is also widely available in "the press."
Inaccuracy #3. The NIE does not present the evidence this way.

[Two sets of inaccuracy in one.] This fact is also available in "the press." There were a number of them who actually read the entire thing that was locked in the Senate Building. However, most congresscritters merely read the summary that the WH provided.

Now it's you're turn. Whenever you feel froggy.

Inaccuracy #3. None of those quotes belong to me. It appears you've already forgotten about Mr. Williams and his Op/Ed piece. You were saying, Froggy?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Inaccuracy #3. None of those quotes belong to me.

Of course they don't.

It appears you've already forgotten about Mr. Williams and his Op/Ed piece.

Since I quoted his piece that you posted, where'd you get the idea that I'd forgotten him?
Nix that. No need to feed your sidetracking and dodging.

I refuted your OP. You've yet to offer any rebuttal.

You were saying, Froggy?

Umm, no. I said, "...froggy." Quite the difference there.
Whenever you feel froggy, go ahead and jump on in.

If you ever get around to feeling confident enough to actually begin debating your OP just step up and let 'er rip.
Just let me know when. I'll be happy to oblige you if you ever should decide you're ready to start.