Reply #56: I didn't find it

[pipi_k]

"Rush Limbaugh-ish" at all.

In fact, I found it to be a pretty accurate picture of what I have seen around this place on occasion.

For example, what is wrong with telling people that screaming and yelling at others instead of engaging them in a calm rational manner will not get you what you want?

If you are the type of person who will sit and listen to someone screeching at the top of his lungs at you...or two people screeching at each other, then be my guest. I would prefer dignified, adult conversation. And that was one of the points presented in the article.

And point #2...in order to get a progressive government, you need a progressive populace. Is there something blatantly false about that? I think not. It makes sense. If you can't convince someone with science, then go for the personal approach, as it states in the article with regards to climate change.

And point #7..

"It’s really simple; it’s been 32 years, and the neocons are still in office, and still dismantling the mechanisms we built back in the first quarter-century after the war. Despite the fact that we know how to fix the economy, because we did it before, the wingnuts are still pushing the same tired crap they’ve been pushing for 30 years. And they get away with it because a large portion of the left side of the political debate likes to SAY they have principle, but they really don’t. The fact of the matter is, supporting someone who says everything you want to hear, when that person has neither the intention nor the ability to actually get into office and do what he or she is saying makes you gullible, not principled.

If the person who says what you want to hear has absolutely NO chance in hell of being elected, then you're spinning your wheels and making it possible for Neocons to keep pushing their crap. Does this look like something a Rush Limbaugh would say? Yeah...to the Republicans, maybe...who, stupid as they may be, do not have a tendency to cut off their own noses to spite their faces by voting for some Third Party asshole who has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected.

There are so many things I see far Lefters do to sabotage the entire party.

As for myself, even if at times I have to hold my nose, I will vote for the Democrat...not some Third Party or write-in candidate just to make a point. Because once a Republican gets in, you can write letters and make phone calls till you're blue in the face, but a Republican isn't going to give a rat's ass what a Democrat wants from him. I think it's far better to get the Democrat in and then hold his feet to the fire.

That is what I understood from that article. And unless I'm absolutely and totally mistaken, that is NOT something a Freeper would care about...how to make the Democratic party stronger.