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? I am suggesting a middle ground actually. Had the original headline read:
"Did Kerry advocate 'Domestic terrorism'?
I would have had no problem. But the headline states, as fact that Kerry is a domestic terrorist. I contend that the statement does not square with the facts.
'Our man in Washington' spells out a much more reasonable scenario, then to make outlandish statements, ones which only serve to make Freepers out to be extremists.
I think overall, we are much more intelligent and reasonable then to make unfounded accusations.
However, judging from some of the responses I am getting (not yours), I am begining to question ny assesment of some of the people here.
"I am suggesting a middle ground actually. Had the original headline read: "Did Kerry advocate 'Domestic terrorism'?" I would have had no problem. But the headline states, as fact that Kerry is a domestic terrorist. I contend that the statement does not square with the facts.
If someone advocates segregation, are they not a segregationist?
If someone advocates conservativism, are they not a conservative?
If someone advocates liberalism, are they not a liberal?
If someone advocates domestic terrorism, are they not a domestic terrorist?
Sometimes you just gotta call a spade a spade, man. Especially when it's something this serious. I'm wondering if we're just not at odds on definitions, here.
Qwinn