When political polarization goes too far

John Reynolds said:
http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2004/021104e.htm

Truly reprehensible. And just part of the more radical right's willingness to impugn anyone as a traitor (even if you're a Silver Star owning vet) if you don't support anything and everything Dubya does. This country's political landscape is simply becoming too bipolar. Divisive times we live in indeed.
Click to expand...

That's really a digusting article :cry:
 
Hmmm, I guess I'm part of the "radical right" then.

I didn't see any assertations of fact that wasn't backed up by evidence, and I didn't see anything over the top in the opinion side.

The only statement that is a bit of hyperbole is "Bush's National Guard service is the most thoroughly investigated event since the Kennedy assassination. But the Democrats will accept only two possible conclusions to their baseless accusations: (1) Bush was "AWOL," or (2) the matter needs further investigation."

And I tend to agree with those statements. No matter what, for partisan reasons, the critics seem to move the goal posts in order to keep the story afloat so that it ingrains in the public psyche.
 
John Reynolds said:
http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2004/021104e.htm

Truly reprehensible. And just part of the more radical right's willingness to impugn anyone as a traitor (even if you're a Silver Star owning vet) if you don't support anything and everything Dubya does. This country's political landscape is simply becoming too bipolar. Divisive times we live in indeed.
Click to expand...
That must mean that your part of the radical left which doesnt believe in the freedom of speech for the radical right.
later,
epic
 
epicstruggle said:
That must mean that your part of the radical left which doesnt believe in the freedom of speech for the radical right.
later,
epic
Click to expand...

No, it means I'm a moderate who's sickened by what he sees going on in his country. And I criticize the Bush administration more than the left because they're the ones obviously currently in power and doing things I'm not too fond of (Patriot Act, invasion of Iraq, Homeland Defense, gay marriage ban amendment, etc.).

I also never wrote Coulter doesn't have the right to write whatever she wants. That said, to viciously libel a decorated vet like she has for political reasons is nauseating and most definitely a sign of the times. If Cleland were the most radical neocon out there in his political views I'd still be just as upset.
 
I agree. If those aren't the facts, then they shouldn't have been written.

However, he wasn't injured in combat saving his buddies and his silver star didn't come from those injuries.

He's a decorated hero, and he was injured, but he didn't become a decorated hero for his injuries.
 
John Reynolds said:
That said, to viciously libel a decorated vet like she has for political reasons is nauseating and most definitely a sign of the times. If Cleland were the most radical neocon out there in his political views I'd still be just as upset.
Click to expand...

I see, but its ok to continuously slander/libel the president with assertations of AWOL and deserter?
 
John Reynolds said:
No, it means I'm a moderate...
Click to expand...

Whatever that means.

... who's sickened by what he sees going on in his country.
Click to expand...

So am I. When I see people demanding pay stubs for Christ's sake of their president, it's quite nauseating. I'm rather upset at Bush for even acknowledging the request, as if it's a valid one.

That said, to viciously libel a decorated vet like she has for political reasons....
Click to expand...

Um...as opposed to viciously libeling the President? (What libel are talking abot here, anyway). What does being a "decorated vet" have to do with anything? Vets are to honored for their service. This does not make them immune to criticism for their subsequent actions.

is nauseating and most definitely a sign of the times.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
RussSchultz said:
John Reynolds said:
That said, to viciously libel a decorated vet like she has for political reasons is nauseating and most definitely a sign of the times. If Cleland were the most radical neocon out there in his political views I'd still be just as upset.
Click to expand...

I see, but its ok to continuously slander/libel the president with assertations of AWOL and deserter?
Click to expand...
He is part of the radical right so it must be ok to slander/libel him. :rolleyes:
later,
epic
 
If you truly want to get politically viscious, Bush should be impeached regarding his administration's statements about the Iraq war. We impeached a former president over cum stains on a blue dress. I think this current president has far more serious questions, deadly in fact to 500+ americans and injurious to thousands more, to answer.

But this is, of course, if you truly want to get politically viscious. ;)
 
Clashman said:
RussSchultz said:
I see, but its ok to continuously slander/libel the president with assertations of AWOL and deserter?
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary, Russ. The left is trying to set the record straight, once and for all. Check it out: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/bush_guard.html

10,000 bucks if you can prove Bush served his time. Apparently there's over 600 applications so far.
Click to expand...

Yea, but many of them are talking about seeing elvis recently, and aliens. :p
 
Natoma said:
Yea, but many of them are talking about seeing elvis recently, and aliens. :p
Click to expand...

And seeing John Kerry throw his vietnam medals back at at the government...oh wait...he didn't throw his own medals...
 
Joe DeFuria said:
And seeing John Kerry throw his vietnam medals back at at the government...oh wait...he didn't throw his own medals...
Click to expand...

I will give you 10,000 dinars if you can prove conclusively that Natoma ever supported Kerry. ;)
 
We impeached a former president over cum stains on a blue dress
Click to expand...
No, not because of stains. but because he bold faced lied aobut it ("I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman!" -pointing a finger at the camera). Of course if we impeached every politician who lied then....... :LOL:
 
Silent_One said:
We impeached a former president over cum stains on a blue dress
Click to expand...
No, not because of stains. but because he bold faced lied aobut it ("I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman!" -pointing a finger at the camera). Of course if we impeached every politician who lied then....... :LOL:
Click to expand...

Indeed. :LOL:
 
Natoma said:
If you truly want to get politically viscious, Bush should be impeached regarding his administration's statements about the Iraq war. We impeached a former president over cum stains on a blue dress. I think this current president has far more serious questions, deadly in fact to 500+ americans and injurious to thousands more, to answer.

But this is, of course, if you truly want to get politically viscious. ;)
Click to expand...

With a republican controlled house and senate? It would never happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top