Being inclusive is myopic while limiting complaints about politicians not answering questions to just the politicians from one party is not? myopia |mīˈōpēə| noun nearsightedness. • lack of imagination, foresight, or intellectual insight : historians have been censured for their myopia in treating modern science as a western phenomenon.
Sorry but there is no myopia here. ALL our politicians need to be held to a higher standard and should be punished for failing to uphold their oath of office. -- Brian Lawson On Aug 25, 2010, at 3:44 PM, richardsan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Brian Lawson <[email protected]> wrote: > Obviously but it should be. If you're going to bag on politicians for being > felons, why limit it to just one political party? Or is it a case of don't > confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up? > > that's very myopic...and again i remind that the article and the list aren't > part of a comparative dialog. nearly every time i try to listen to a > republican answer a question about the ills of the gop, they [nearly] always > divert attention elsewhere. no straight answers...never address the question. > how about...staying to the subject and not dilute it. it's just that i find > it very odd, that women support vitter, apparently even after considering his > past; his criminal associates. the real question, is why do they overlook his > obvious misogyny? > > telling david vitter or any other two faced individual to be more like jesus > doesn't work for people like that...there's the reply to comparative > dialog....... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en.
