I'm sorry, Mike. I thought the topic was racism, Steele, Reid, and President Obama, with the focus on how Republicans couldn't call an African-American something racist without getting flack for it. You felt that Democrats could. I pointed out that this was not the situation, explained things and suggested that you were confusing Senator Lott's situation inappropriately with Senator Reid's.
The notion of a double standard was yours.
Unlike you, I do expect something more.
You chose not to respond to my comments about the original topic.
You decided to change the subject to Massachusetts.
You decided to discontinue the topic of racial politics.
You asked if anybody did not consider this a double standard.
If you did not want an answer, you should not have asked the question, should you? Republicans have been playing fairly shoddy political games for quite a while, including the ones in Texas. If the Republicans felt that these were unfair tactics — and I think they are unfair tactics — it seems they'd avoid them. Complaints about Democratic use of a legal political nature hardly compare to use of attempts to use the Federal Power structure to bring the Democratic members of the Texas legislature to heel by the Then Republican House Whip, The Hammer.
Attempts to force Federal prosecutors to bring charges selectively against Democrats and Democratic organizations were of dubious legality as well, and resulted in a major legislative and Administrative scandal that involved both Rove and Cheney. I believe it is stupid for the Democrats not to force prosecution on these matters. Other folks, believing that politicians should not be hounded after they leave office, feel differently.
I think it might actually tend to keep them honest while they're in office myself, but then I'm no politician, and I have little or no understanding of what sort of logic runs these guys.
If you didn't want my best shot at a straight answer, though, you shouldn't :A) have changed the subject in the first place; b) asked a question whose answer you weren't equipped to give an actual response to.
Bravo, Bob. You completely evaded the question while pointing fingers somewhere else. I wouldn't have expected anything less.
While the above is not entirely terrible as an attack on me, it doesn't actually address the comments I made to you. It doesn't disprove or even address them. Mocking me doesn't make the points I raise wrong, all it does is smear me and make me look more unattractive than I already do.
Even ugly people can be right. To disprove ugly people, you still need to disprove the truth of what they have to say, not make more fun of the way they look or of how awkwardly they dress. These are the tactics of bullies who think that beating up those who disagree with them can make the truth go away. Deal with the substance of what I say, Mike. If you don't believe there is any substance, say why and make your case as best you can.
If you're going to change the substance of the discussion in mid stream, take responsibility for it yourself, don't try to fob it off on me. It's not attractive.