City of Roses
That is my biggest argument with the Republican party. They allow all of these assertions and accusations that they could easily blow out of the water in many circumstances and they say nothing, which is detrimental to them and adventageous to the democrats.
And it's statements like that which expose your Achilles' heel: leading 5 out of 6 readers here to believe you're either an official spokesperson or operative on the Republican National Committee fundroll or a substitute air host to Rush Limbaugh when he has the day off!
Look, aside from the unnecessary sweeping generalizations and straw mans you make suggesting ALL Democrats are behind such shenanigans, I absolutely agree with you that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and several others have resorted to unnecessary political escapades during this particular tragedy, and I believe that's highly unfortunate and you make convincing points on this particular headline.
Yet, when I reflect on your history of commentary here over the past 4 1/2 years, quite often it strikes me that while you go out and dig up Democratic dirt (sometimes responsibly and thoughtfully, I might add) you also make yourself appear as though you're deifying the GOP or assuming it's the Democrat's fault whenever they are placed in an unfavorable light, even if it's obviously their own corruption or incompetence and they only have themselves to blame for it.
Several times, in the past, you've argued that the Republicans only resort to finger-pointing as a RESPONSE to the Democrats doing so, making it seem as though the GOP has NOT ONCE historically resorted to finger-pointing first in a particular incident. It's statements like that that dampen your credibility, even when your criticisms of the Democratic Party make absolute sense.
Passions In Poetry: The Alley: "My Wish..."
What's more, if you were a political analyst on a television network, do you not see how something you said in June of last year would spark major outrage: when you said regarding questionings of the money-tracking program (which I myself believe is necessary along with a vast majority of Americans, as long as it is done the legal way with a warrant): "My wish is that these Democrats and the New York Times staff be in the next place that the terrorists bomb."
I bring these things up not to force you into the hot seat really, but rather to make you think about how you can make your criticisms and indictments of the Democratic Party establishment all the more convincing to readers beyond the choir's orchestral pit, by moderating your language more and focusing on the particular offenders rather than resorting to straw mans among other things. Because it's examples like I've stated above where, regardless of how good a point you may bring up, ultimately only hurts your credibility.
With my 24th birthday tomorrow, it's times like these you are especially reflective on things, where you see both how you've matured and also recognize there's far more maturing to come. I've reflected on much of what I've said here over the past 4 1/2 years, and there are some things I've said here that I regret and some statements I retract, particularly when I accused President Bush of being a war criminal in previous anti-war threads. I retract those sort of statements, as I knew little about politics then and now recognize that there have been neoconservatives who had planned for this war well in advance, and if Bush was guilty of anything in particular, it was for being clueless about the scheme of things. But he's not a war criminal.
I believe my Achilles' heel is that often I let my emotions get the best of me, and sometimes I say things that are not quite rational. Make no mistake that my condemnation and outrage toward this war has been, and continues to be most real and authentic.......but sometimes I've let the emotions get the best of me and I've said some things I don't actually believe are the case, like the aforementioned example. I'm still working on moderating my feelings to this day, and while I believe I've gotten better at that, there's still more maturing to go on my part.
So, I'm constantly a work in progress, as are every one of us here, and the more I've learned about logical fallacies in my classes, the more I've been conscious about them when making arguments, where I don't doubt that some STILL slip past me even when I don't mean it. That's why, when I am criticizing a particular individual, group, organization, etc. from a particular party, I am specific in who I'm criticizing; where I don't say "the GOP" or "the Democrats" collectively but rather address the offenders by specific names, or when I do believe most individuals from one party are standing behind a position I don't agree with, I would say "the GOP" or "the Democrats", but place in parentheses next to it a list of the exceptions, like I have in threads about the few Republicans who have approved the SCHIP expansion, or approved of a phased timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, etc.
It is in my honest opinion that you resort needlessly and frequently to sweeping generalizations in your arguments, arguing in things along the line of "the Democrats" believe in defeat, or "the Democrats" believe in keeping Christmas out of public squares, etc. In this instance, without question Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have resorted to needless finger-pointing and politicization of one of the worst natural disasters in recent American history. But you're speaking as though ALL Democrats are behaving just this way, when I certainly haven't heard my congressman, Earl Blumenauer, say anything remotely like what Reid or Pelosi has said, or dozens other representatives for that matter.
While I indeed hold some strong opinions regarding the GOP myself, particularly in that they are fiscally irresponsible themselves in that they have let their guard down along with many Democrats in borrowing more and more money from foreign investors like China and Japan to simultaneously pay for a war in Iraq, making tax cuts permanent, continuing the reconstruction of infrastructure along the Gulf Coast and renewing essential domestic programs, I don't flat out say "the GOP's all about borrowing and spending". There are some Republicans, in fact, who continue to live up to the core conservative principles of fiscal responsibility, particularly Ron Paul, Tom Coburn and some other libertarian-leaning Republicans in the House. I just argue that the GOP leadership has become weak on fiscal responsibility overall.
The bottom line is, I'm not a fan of either party and believe both parties are failing us in many respects. All the same, I believe evaluating our parties in shades of black and white is also irresponsible, and while I believe the Democratic party establishment is out-of-touch with Americans on issues like immigration, faith and gun rights, I certainly also don't believe they're SO bad they collectively want the terrorists to win, or want us to lose in Iraq on purpose collectively.........just as I believe while the GOP is out of touch with Americans on issues like health insurance, foreign policy and protection of our liberties, I certainly also don't believe they don't give a damn about low-income children or that they want our Constitution destroyed (which believe it or not, some far-left and far-right pundits argue just what I said that I 110% disagree with)
"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"