Originally Posted by penchief
By the way, thank you for saying that I do make valid arguments from time to time. You are the first.
I just don't think it is appropriate to have arguments labeled strictly partisan when I believe there is a strong case to support those arguments. That is where I think the White House does a nice job as well. Label criticism as partisan and your supporters will "ditto that," without taking an objective look at what is right in front of our faces.
It is quite a game that both sides play. Partisanship is at it's worst when the truth is ignored. The problem is there is so much grey in the middle that can be taken either way.
Examples, Clinton lied under oath because of a percieved partisan witch hunt. One side believes the witch hunt is to blame and the other doesn't think a President should be allowed to lie no matter what the subject. In their own minds, both sides have somewhat legitimate arguments.
Some believe Bush's administration have mishandled everything in Iraq. One side points their finger and says "This administration has bungled Iraq from the beginning" while the other side says "War is hell, not everything goes as planned, and we're glad FDR didn't puss out like today's liberals want to do". Again, both sides have somewhat legitimage arguments.
An example of going too far is when someone posts on the board that Bush deliberately lied to get us into the war. That simply isn't true or at least unproven which is partisanship at it's worst IMO.
I think most of us like to believe we are objective but at times we all fall prey to our partisanship and some are worse then others.