Sure, Mr. Know-it-all, I'm perfectly happy to admit both sides are partisan. That's not exactly where we started out, was it? I seem to recall that I was being labeled for using the "democratic partisan smear campaign", as opposed to the Republican righteous search for truth and justice. I said the topic was politics early on, don't give me this "you're political, and I'm not" line.
Where I first engaged you in this somewhat pointless debate was in 428, where in my request for an honest voice on the Republican side you came back with the smug and sanctimonious
You smear too much with that broad a brush - I personally resent the generalization you're making that all of the opposition is cut of the same cloth as Mr. Clinton.
To me, that's as fundamentally repugnant as saying all Germans were Nazis or that all white people are racists.
It is a weak point from which to engage in a substantive debate.
So, once again, where is my honest Republican speaking out on this matter? I've never claimed to be non-partisan, but this line that only one side is engaging in smear tactics is bizzare. Who am I supposed to be reading to find news on this "substantive debate" you oddly claim to be representative of? Mr. Vaughn claims that Newt is "fair" on the matter, a claim that I find rather absurd given everything I know about Newt. Do you have a better candidate? Or would you prefer to engage in more ad hominem attacks, as in your ridiculous Nazi analogy above? Enquiring minds want to know!
Cheers, Dan. |
