Cheyney Shooting: Coverup? (Page 3)

You've explained it, DerekL. But that doesn't mean we believe your motives. It's a little too convenient that is always the reason I hear, though I do compliment you on pulling it off so well. That's basically how the Republican party has won the last two elections, so you have good company.

Everybody else has been a gentleman throughout this while disagreeing vehemently

And I will comment that again, the Bush administration is defended by playing the Clinton card. Nice work there. 

I've heard you and other Democrats say this before. I have used this arguement and I do believe it's valid. When I make the arguement I am not supporting a course of action on behalf of the Republicans by saying see the democrats did it. What I am trying to point out is the inconsistency in arguement and critisism. I believe it is fundamentaly unfair for either party or a supporter of either party to critisize on party for actions when they have supported similar actions carried on by their own party. If something is wrong it's wrong regardless of who is doing it. It's unfair to say the Republicans have done something wrong when you support the democrats engaging in similar conduct when they were in power. The reverse is also true for republicans critisizing democrates.(It's why I wasn't in favor of the impeachment procedings against Clinton, because eventually it will be turned around on the Republicans, and then how in good faith can republicans object?)
For me the examples are to point out inconsistencies in thought, arguement and policy.

For me the purposes of bringing up what a prior administration has done is to 1) show that an issue is more complicated then just blaming one administration 2) that certain events have wide reaching historical precedeeing triggering events 3) to show iconsistent arguements by the oppossing side, i.e. arguing against one course of action when done by one party but in favor of a similar course of action when done by the other.

I will conceed if such arguements are made simply to say see you did it so we can, then I agree that's pretty weak. Wrong is wrong.

I think a two party system sucks.  It only encourages the two parties to work against each other to try to gain the majority.  If we had say 3 strong parties, it would force cooperation between parties, rather than the brinksmanship currently borne out.  But that's just my opinion.  I'm open to other ideas on how to resolve the polarization of US politics, but the cynic in me only sees it getting worse.  :\

-C 

Heh. Okay.

I'm registered as Dem, but I despise politicians from both parties who play partisan politics. One of the few people I respect in gov't is McCain.

I think a two party system sucks. It only encourages the two parties to work against each other to try to gain the majority. If we had say 3 strong parties, it would force cooperation between parties, rather than the brinksmanship currently borne out. But that's just my opinion. I'm open to other ideas on how to resolve the polarization of US politics, but the cynic in me only sees it getting worse. :\

-C

And for the first time in these threads, I take offense to this post. Everybody else has been a gentleman throughout this while disagreeing vehemently and never felt the need to take a veiled personal shot at me. Your first post in the thread is nothing less than that. Don't tell me what my motives are, and don't tell me what I mean.

 I did not and do not mean to offend you...but I do not believe you.