Replies

you offer 3 preposterous statments by DU types that have no basis in fact from the left as evidence of...what?

You are really getting tiresome. This is my last post to you, because although you seem to grasp the language, you totally fail to comprehend what I am saying.

Let me be frank and blunt and cut out the niceties:

The DU people make asinine statements, w/o basis of fact, then they make slanderous allegations against Republicans, thus making themselves look like morons.

When we copy their tactics, by making outlandish statements like "Kerry is a domestic terrorist" then we begin to look like the idiots that they are.

It has become tiresome to try to explain to you my point, since your lack of comprehension knows no bounds.

I will instead revert to an old cliche:

"Never argue with a fool, some people will not be able to tell the difference."

Look you brought this up and I merely suggested that we fully explore your thoughts on this.

I do indeed have a grasp of English and I do understand what your argument is.

Let me restate it for you.

You feel that this type of piece is merely aping what goes on at DU, that it is stooping to name calling.

The difference however is that nothing in the piece is untrue, it is not the same as Terry McAuliffe saying on nationa television that Bush was AWOL.

If you want to quibble about how the information is couched then in my opinion that is quibbling.

What people like you need to understand and internalize is that the left needs to be more than reasoned with, that in most cases is an impossibility. What our side needs to do is drive over them and leave tank tracks accross their backs, that is the ONLY damn thing that they understand and respect.

If you want to break off the discussion, that is certainly your perogative.

The difference is that the DU statements you quoted -aren't- supportable with the facts. You claim they are "to some degree", but frankly, they're just not. They're complete fabrications.

But let me try and see it from your perspective. Even if we go with your thesis, at the VERY minimum, the DU charges require incredibly loose definitions of terms like "war criminal" and "AWOL" in order to stick, definitions that the vast majority of people would not accept.

However, I'd be very interested to hear -anyone- who would claim that the definition of "domestic terrorism" would not, absolutely and without caveat, include conspiring to assassinate U.S. Senators in a time of war.

There's a difference between "shocking" and "outlandish". Yes, the charge is shocking, but it is not outlandish, there is a great deal of evidence to support it, far far more than the flip side from DU you are trying to present.

Reading your arguments, the only thing I can glean is that if it's too shocking, it's out of political bounds. Sometimes the truth really is shocking. What do you suggest then - ignore the truth, or cover it up?

Qwinn