[pt17]

it is also quite clear that whatever Party one belongs to - as long as somebody has the Party view, it is careful reasoned and cogent analysis. Actually it pitiful and pathetic rationalization

Let's see if I understand you. When you say something, it's reasoned and cogent but when others disagree, it's ascribed to being a pathetic, rationalized, party line view. Is that what you're saying?

[rbmillerjr]

Me: it is also quite clear that whatever Party one belongs to - as long as somebody has the Party view, it is careful reasoned and cogent analysis. Actually it pitiful and pathetic rationalization

You: Let's see if I understand you. When you say something, it's reasoned and cogent but when others disagree, it's ascribed to being a pathetic, rationalized, party line view. Is that what you're saying?

No, I believe that the majority of PartyLiners are thrusting the view you ascribe to me. The rationalization I see is coming from some conservatives who believe one thing and then instead of criticizing an action, invent reasons (rationalizing) why it is now such a good idea. (Grand chess master rationalization, had to do it to win rat., the SC will handle it rat.) That is pretty clear.

The personal attacks are coming from the PartyLine side (bashers, bashers all), as they say.

[rbmillerjr]

...Perfect example is post #30,39,,,,,,we who disagree with Bush are misguided, seeking personal gain, to be viewed with suspicion, contributing to the loss of the war, basHers, dividing the base, should get with the program, should "understand" where the priorities should be, and glory be we should CALM DOWN AND THINK.

Now, who is stating who is unreasoned in this debate?

[Howlin]

When you say something, it's reasoned and cogent but when others disagree, it's ascribed to being a pathetic, rationalized, party line view.

I believe you got it. :-)