I've often seen the more open-minded ones of our group say things about candidates from both parties. There's a number of left-leaning individuals in here that have said they have a hard time stomaching Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson and other wacko Dems. However, each time they say something like that, the hard-core Republican nuts jump on the bandwagon, thinking they've got some new convert to their side. There's almost never a letdown of their vile rhetoric and a concilliation that some of their party's elite could have some warts as well.
I posted an article the other day that was letters home from a soldier in Iraq that I thought had a balanced view of things there. There were digs against both sides from this very frustrated soldier. Right away I get responses about how the article proved that the war was worthwhile and that the media bias was to blame for all the ills. Not one word from our militant right members about how mistakes had been made by the administration and military commanders.
I've made disparaging remarks in here about my disdain for labor unions and have never been villified by the more liberal members about my viewpoint. They seem to accept the fact that in a free society people can think openly and have divided loyalties between issues or even change their minds. Not so from the right it seems. You're either for us or against us. Bring it on. Every member of the Bush team is a good guy. Must be. They're Republican. Hmm, sounds an awful lot like the enemy we're fighting in Iraq. You attacked an Islamic person? Oh man, you must be evil then (in spite of the fact he beat my uncle to death last week and raped my sister. Rove be praised.).
Current Events » in reply to That cuts both ways, RL
That's such a crock
The whole thread (28 posts)
- We need to kill them first
- hmm, Russians went full-force into Afghanistan
- re: Stinging attack on Bush. I hope he hear's it and we take out Al Sadr.
- Insurgency battles
- re: Very smart
- any occupied population? No, not Vichy France (n/t)
- There are would-be "insurgents" in every population
- "Occupied population?"
- re: "Occupied population?"
- 20,000 insurgents is still only 0.08 percent of the population.
- only 0.08%
- rBritish probably said the same thing, after the Boston teaparty (n/t)
- 20,000 insurgents is still only 0.08 percent of the population.
- re: "Occupied population?"
