Originally Posted By Dabob2 Sure there has been, but so what? SPP was pointing out what post #1 was, at bottom. He never said the "other side" never did it. Nothing wrong with that. When the other side does it, it's perfectly fair to point that out as well.
Originally Posted By onlyme >>And there's never been partisian attacks from the other side in this section, please.<< Huh...I hadn't noticed. BTW...'PUHLEEEEEEEZE', would have been a much more fitting ending to your comment.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>And there's never been partisian attacks from the other side in this section, please.<< It's not that there aren't partisan attacks. It's the validity of each one, it's context, timing, etc. I might be more open to criticism of minor missteps by Democrats right now if we weren't facing major missteps from Republicans. With the war such a disaster and Bush not listening to a thing anyone says (including his own generals), then discussions like these seem pretty desperate. Some "partisan attacks" are more timely and valid than others. I had no idea of Murtha's sketchy-at-best ethics record before it was covered by our so-called flaming liberal media. It was important information that I was glad was brought up. But a senator pointing out that the leaders who got us into this fiasco called Iraq have nothing personally to lose beyond their already muddied reputations? That's not timely information, that's just desperate.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Huh...I hadn't noticed. BTW...'PUHLEEEEEEEZE', would have been a much more fitting ending to your comment.<< I guess I just don't get it. I see this type of comment more and more from (rightly) fed up moderates and just right-of-center Americans. And I would agree had Bush's presidency not been marred by Iraq and the left just threw potshots his way over any little thing. But that's not the case. Instead here's what seems to happen: 1) The left criticizes Bush over Iraq, Katrina, no-bid contracts for Halliburton, policies that many consider to be unconstitutional, and tax cuts for the rich. 2) The right criticizes Democrats over John Kerry's botched joke, taking the night off to watch a football game, and Boxer's obvious point that those making the decisions won't lose relatives. 3) People fed up with both sides throw up their hands and say "They both do it! They're both guility of it!" It seems quite obvious to me that the issues Democrats raise are far, far more serious than the ones Republicans have raised, as of late. Disagree all you want with Democratic assertions about Iraq, unconstitutionality, tax cuts, etc. But don't insult us by equating their criticisms with Republican criticisms.
Originally Posted By onlyme While I really hate using emoticons, I do, in hopes that people will see it, and realize that I'm just being silly/sarcastic/goofy, or whatever. But, I keep forgetting that in WE events, people always have their guard up, ready to go. So, ecdc...I was just having a little fun. I'll try to keep it more serious. -notice smiley face, indicating my friendly, non-argumentative tone. And the only thing that I will critize democrats about is if, or more likely when, as the election approaches, they fail to put forth a viable candidate AGAIN...having 8 years to prepare.
Originally Posted By onlyme critize....yea, whatever...should be 'criticize' I thought I read that the edit feature was on it's way...
Originally Posted By ecdc >> -notice smiley face, indicating my friendly, non-argumentative tone.<< Oh, that's it. You crossed a line. Why you have to be so unfriendly and argumentative? I'll see you at recess. P.S. It appears I do need to lighten up.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "And there's never been partisian attacks from the other side in this section, please." No one ever said there wasn't.
Originally Posted By onlyme Look, I don't want to get all gushy, or anything, but let me just finish up with this... >>It appears I do need to lighten up.<< No you don't. Your posts are not derogatory or in-your-face, and lack the element that turn me off the most...name-calling. anyway, back to the discussion at hand.
Originally Posted By DAR "And there's never been partisian attacks from the other side in this section, please." <<No one ever said there wasn't. >> I'd like to see that acknowledged just a little more. And not some cheap attacks from any sock puppets either.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy Why do socks get such a bad wrap? Puppets are made from other things too, ya know!
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> I didn't see the program, but softball questions are the norm for the morning news/entertainment shows. Not always. I guess Diane Sawyer, like Barbara Walters, goes out of her way to make all her subjects feel comfortable. But that's not the case with other journalists. >>> I'm not sure if our culture is ready to see women politicians handled the same as men politicians in interview programs. Why not? If women say they can do anything men can, let's see them answer tough questions. I thought we expected that of all our elected officials. >>> "Attack"? The latest GOP talking point. And it's not flying. But it's completely in keeping for the GOP to try to whip scandal out of nothing. It's not just the GOP saying it. I read that the topic was discussed on "The View," and one of those ladies said Rice 'deserved' the attack. >>> You like your 'ladies' to be demure and deferential, perhaps? I expect them to be civil and polite. While they try to give that impression when the camera is on them (most of the time), neither is above slamming political targets with emotional and baseless invective. My favorite politicians (male and female) don't stoop to that level. Just in case anyone cared, my main gripe wasn't that the interview focused mainly on liberals. (I also saw Sens. Hutchison and Dole in there.) My point was that these ladies, reveling in their achievement, gleefully agreed when Sawyer asked them to fill in the blank ... "Women are more ________ than men." They happily listed all the ways in which they thought men were inferior. I'm telling you, if Sawyer had baited a bunch of male senators with the same question, and they had answered it as the ladies did, we would have heard no end to the uproar. ARE women better at some things? Sure! And men are better at others. So let's have some all-around honesty. Women make better mothers. Men make better fathers. So why is the media so happy about the report this week that a record number of women are mommying alone ... and by choice? Dads don't matter. One news anchor (on ABC) said as much. And the same week, we hear about how women are so important in the role of motherhood. Nancy Pelosi surrounds herself with her brood, and these ladies talk about how important it is for children to have good female role models. Women do great things. But, darn it, so do men. Modern feminism is so hypocritical. It's about male-bashing and raising women to the same level of irresponsibility that too many men have enjoyed for so long. Men and women who look down at the other gender really need to grow-up, and that includes any female senator who can dish-out the criticism but cries "sexism" when it comes back to her.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka <<Men and women who look down at the other gender really need to grow-up>> Oh the irony.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It's about male-bashing and raising women to the same level of irresponsibility that too many men have enjoyed for so long.<< No, it really isn't. That may be your perception of it, but "modern feminism" isn't about that at all. >>Men and women who look down at the other gender really need to grow-up<< Hello?
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy Although some extreme feminists do seem to take joy in male-bashing. <Modern feminism is so hypocritical.> I agree in some aspects. <Dads don't matter.> I remember once I caught the end of "Honey, I Blew Up the Kid" on TV. And the giant toddler is roaming in a city, and the parents are after him and the dad wants to go up to him to stop him, but his wife grabs him to prevent him from going up and forcefully says, "Daddies are for fun. Mommies are for love", indicating that she should be the one to confront the kid. That really ticked me off.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Although some extreme feminists do seem to take joy in male-bashing.<< Perhaps, but that would be some form of extreme feminism, not "modern feminism".
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy I don't know about modern feminism, I just know about feminism, "extreme", and "moderate". ;-)
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka If you add "confused" to the word moderate, well by jove, you've got a WE topic!
