Its rather pitiful that you make it into a partisan issue or a class warfare whenever someone doesn't agree with you.
Did it ever dawn on you that your position may be colored by your class and/or partisan biases? Of course not, you're a trial lawyer. <g>
My friend, the person with the problem here is you.
You understand that the person making that claim is usually the one with the problem.
Every article and every commentator must be looked
at from the POV of their particular bias or agenda.
That was the point I was making here.
Do you honestly believe that I don't understand that premise?
Check out this site. It's pretty interesting:
lyinginponds.com
You've posted plenty of bile about Limbaugh and
others of his stripe and spoken adoringly of Ivins
and those like her.
Rarely do I post articles from Ivins and rarely do I criticize Limbaugh mainly because I think he is fairly inconsequential in the grand scheme things. However, I must admit his hypocrisy is starting to smell up the joint.
That's your partisanship showing. It would be helpful
to you to evaluate these so called "pundits" from a
more critical perspective rather than wholeheartedly
swallowing their position whole if it jibes with
your own predisposition.
Like I've said before, you are coming to conclusions with very little data. You've posted on this board....for what? two weeks? If you had been here longer, you would understand that the articles I post reflect my position and not the other way around.
You see I am an intelligent, thinking, well informed adult who is capable of independent conjecture.
My legal background animates my thinking to
the extent I expect people to be logical in
their analysis rather than dogmatic and emotional.
As a woman working in a predominantly male
profession (at least when I started) I learned
a lot about self control.
Aaaaahhhh......now I understand your issue over emotions. Because you felt the need to subjegate your emotions to survive in "a predominately male profession", you would encourage the rest of us to do the same. First, I enjoy having emotions and like their input in my decision making process. Its one of the reasons why women created feminism. and as a male, I take full advantage. Might I suggest you might want to rediscover yours.
BTW didn't you once sign off a post as Matt?
WRT to the Ivins article I initially posted,
I just found the reference to "purity of intentions"
so interesting when you contrast it with the
extreme left rhetoric these days.
Doesn't that even amuse you?
Why would it amuse me? Of course, I going to enjoy the writings of people who agree with me over those who disagree.
You may not have discovered this yet but the current debate in this country is not just about partisanship, class struggles and the like. This discussion/argument/schism that is going on in this country is very fundamental to who we are as a nation and how we want to precede. Its been coming to head for at least 50 years. There are two very different ways of thinking and its pretty much evenly divided us. I would not be surprised if it leads to civil war.
As I've said, where people stand depends
on where they sit. It would serve you
well to apply a little logic and critical
assessment to the debate rather than
accepting a lot of rhetorical leftist
dogma at face value. I know when I hear BS
and most of the stuff out there is just
that plus a lot of noise.
Now that's amusing...........there is logic throughout my thesis re. Bush, WMDs and al Qaeda links. All one has to do is look. I suggest you don't see that logic because you don't want to see my POV. |
