I think it has to do with the "Bush Legacy" personally. In the end he and daddy are going to do all they can to secure a place in the history books and if he can suck up just enough in the "end" of his term, I'm sure they hope they put as much as the "bad stuff" into the background as possible.

Sort of "History is written by the winners and not totally truthful." :cheers:

This may not surprise you, but I think GD has valid question. I realize that taking the stance of victim is a great way not to take a look at the actual argument but, we seem to have pretty good discussions here without a whole lot of theatrics, with one exception. I think it's time that the constant theatrics be put to rest so we can actually have decent discussions.

And, I'm not being snarky here, I'm quite serious.

You sure you don't have a headache? You aren't emotionally exhausted?

I am not deliberately twisting anything. I honestly read your justification for Bush's actions as advocating "party before country" patisan politics. If you have a different view, I'd love to hear it. That's what "?" <--- these little things mean.

But no. Your response any time someone questions what you mean is to complain about twisting your words. Until you decide to just try clarifying your position when someone misundersands you instead of instantly accusing people of purposefully going after you, which I guarantee you is not the case, this is the type of covnersation you're going to have. Over and over. Sorry if that's not what you came here for, but dealing with someone who can't have a rational debate without giving up every time they're misunderstood isn't why I come here for, so I guess we're even.

ETA: You want an example of how to handle such things? Go find where you, correctly, caught me saying things in a way I didn't mean them regarding poll workers. Did I throw my hands up, roll my eyes, and accuse you of twisting my words? No, I restated my position in a way that more accurately communicated what I meant. It's a debate technique I like to call "communication".

No headache- thanks for asking.

Nope, not emotionally exhausted- but thanks for your concern.

Neph, I have to agree with GD. This is a discussion board. Simply posting a link without providing any commentary that lends itself to a discussion doesn't really get us very far. Just my own opinion but when I see a link that someone provides, I also want to know what their view on the topic is in a way that provokes discussion. I see a lot of provoking but I don't see a lot of reasoned discussion.

Also, for the purposes of discussion, I think it is appropriate (and polite) to answer questions when they are posed to you, even the tough ones. Even "I don't know" or "I really can't answer that" is better than just ignoring the question and changing the subject.

I've always felt that if you truly believe something, you can defend it in a non-aggressive manner. Sure there is going to be occasional snark but in this case, I think what is being perceived as a pile on is merely frustration at attempts to have a reasonable discussion that are often met with being ignored or rolled eyes smilies or anger. I'd much rather you defended your positions in a way that lends itself to honest discussion because then we might better understand each others positions. Doesn't mean we will agree but that is ok too. Anything is better than repeating these catfights every few weeks.

Kinda reminds me of the Ralph Waldo Emerson quote:

Quote:

I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.

These are not "theatrics"- I am just choosing to not engage in the conversation right now. The only one calling someone a victim is you- I have never claimed it- you keep trying to give it to me.

I am being quite serious as well.

Someone tell me why my decision to back out of that conversation is such a problem for you. I have made a choice to not engage in it at this time- that does not make me a victim. It is not theatrics- it's just a choice to not continue with that vein of the discussion at the moment.

Instead of respecting that you keep at me- as if I need to respond in a certain way at a certain time. I needed to step back and wait to discuss it- and you won't let it go.

Someone's been listening to KCRW ;)

So, a lot of talk about Rummy...what about Gates? I'm cautiously optomistic. His association with Sr. is a plus. While I didn't love daddy's politics, he is a reasnaoble human being and the Gulf War was run pretty professionally. And Gates was serving on the comittee that was getting ready to make recomendations on strategy change in Iraq, so he's obviously open to reevaluation.

But then, his history of single-minded skewed world view towards blaming everything on the Soviets recalls Dubya's own propensity to try to make everything fit with his "It's all Saddam's fault" view. Hopefully Gates has grown out of that and he'll bring a more open mind to the position.

Hopefully.

Tee Hee - I've been experienceing a lot of media synergy lately
:cool:

Oh my! Very hansome. (Why does that make me feel dirty somehow?)