Why are people so afraid of what the Right thinks of us?

[playahata1]

If we are that concerned about Limbaugh and Hannity and Boortz and Carlson and Sullivan, et al, and what they say, then perhaps we are not exactly secure in our beliefs.

[Servo300]

1. I'm not concerned about what any of them think....

[noiretextatique]

29. ditto

no amount of decorum and/or etiquette will make the slightest difference in their assessment of "the left."

[ElectroPrincess]

42. Some heartfelt advice ...

I never have felt comfortable with "putting on airs" and subdued, rather than genuine human expression. When controlling people force me to satisfy their self-righteous personal view of morality, my backbone stiffens, and I reply with "back off!" Guess that's why my FAV Political commentator is overwhelmingly James Carville.

Anyone who's ever served in the military knows the harsh fact that those who consistently complain about others' behavior (moralizing whiners) get the crap beat out of them figuratively as well as physically. Why? Because they are not helping better the situation or supporting their team (unit). But of course, that's not going to happen with us because, by definition, liberals are tolerant souls. Hell, even when we try, very few of us can attain the highest levels of vicious attack mode rhetoric of the right wing's sainted Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.

I ask anybody who thinks that certain other members are distasteful, to please CONSIDER (yes, just kindly consider) not *sharing* that with the rest of us? Send a PM to the party whose prose offended you rather than air our dirty laundry ... perhaps you can both learn from each other?

IMHO, all that's truly important at this point in the election cycle is supporting John Kerry. Anything that degrades anyone here at DU is a distraction, and potentially a roadblock in our mission. Yes, many of us are "on a mission" (from God? lol) because that's what it will take.

Although, I don't participate in the true RW leader character assaults, I admit to a sense of *deep pleasure* each time one or more intense and talented DU members piss-off Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. Having them angry is beautiful because when they implode, our dear swing voters will see their "true colors" of greed and self-promotion.

I could be wrong, but I believe that the vast majority of Democrats here are pissed as hell that the 2000 election was stolen and BushCo. illegally invaded Iraq ... remember this = He did these acts in OUR (Americas') name.

I cherish each week's edition of the Top Ten Conservative Idiots. It's time for the folks who think it's their position to play our MORAL compass, to please consider refocusing on themselves and children instead of, in essence, playing the disruptive role that impress the freepers, i.e., in fact many pooh pooh, "let's be nice little democrats" are HONORED by name on the freepers' radical right web sites.

Every time the DU moralists self-righteously proclaim what THEY fear ... that the REST of us are not civil, they are helping the right wing radicals and talk show hosts DEGRADE our site.

The rabid right wing considers this Presidential election an outright figurative WAR and DU is "the enemy." Therefore, I request that our "actively censoring moralists" cease with such destructive behavior. I know that you mean well and in a perfect world we would accommodate. This election is hell on earth, I'm willing to be cruel (but honest) to help Kerry win.

I respect DU members like MoPaul and all the courageous Liberal Publications' writing staff. These people are our ground troops in our war against the Right Wing Scum of the Earth. We all should respect them and join the team. Never should any of us apologize for telling the TRUTH, no matter how tacky. Bless John F. Kerry and pass the Ammunition (truth about the radical right wing's corruption). No regrets. ;)

[playahata1]

47. Thank you.

I could not have said it any better. Peace.

[ElectroPrincess]

51. Awe thanks <blush>

Thank-you. I'm not near as feisty as how I type. My hubby calls me his pushy-broad electronic princess. But we both must have been doing something right because we'll celebrate our 22nd wedding anniversary this Friday. :-)

I hope we can set aside our differences and pull together. Some folks are a little to the left and others are to the right of me in the Democratic Party, but never have I felt more of a need to help get our precious country back from the heartless neo-conservatives.

[evil_orange_cat]

2. I was just thinking the same thing...

Personally, I could give half a shit about those stupid mouth-breathing dopes and their freeper followers.

[playahata1]

3. Is that part of the Oakland Raiders logo,

or just any generic skull and crossed swords?

[evil_orange_cat]

18. I'm not sure...

I chose it because I thought it looked bad azz... ;)

I live in Chicago, so I'm not a Raiders fan. I suspect it is a generic skull and crossed swords.

[No2W2004]

33. logo

[playahata1]

36. OH, YEAH!

Not a full-fledged fan, though. But I LOVE the attitude, the mystique.

[dedhed]

4. I wouldn't say anyone's afraid...

The Right-Wing talking heads, particularly the ones involved in mass media (Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc.), consistently and purposefully lie through their teeth to spin and misrepresent Left-Wing philosophy... and they're so f**king obnoxious while doing it!! I, for one, tend to take it personally, and will go out of my way to rebut their nonsense. That's not fear... that's anger.

:bounce:

edit: 4th-grade spelling

[tom_paine]

5. Good question: But Nazis will ALWAYS say bad things about Jews

and liberals and homosexuals.

Yet another fine similarity between Bushevik Brownshirts and Grandpa Prescott's Business Partners, the Nazis.

[Warpy]

16. Right, they're making hatred of anyone who isn't fascist

respectable. They're trying to make it seem like the majority of the American people are aberrant, traitorous, sinful, and should be exterminated.

We need to take this stuff seriously. It's been said before about other groups (Jews, Tutsis, to name only 2) and the result has been the wholesale slaughter of these groups.

I sincerely hope Kerry's first act is to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. We need a one-on-one antidote to all this poison. If we don't get it, we are lost.

[tom_paine]

21. You may well be right.

With the media reduced more and more to either Enslaved Weak Corproate Pravda or Bushevik Party-Loyal Sub-Media, this may well be true.

Maybe we can win first, and THEN retore the Fairness Doctrine and such.

Not sure which cart precedes which horse, and I'm not worrying about it either.

Kerry in November! To all Restoration of the Old American Republic, this is the first step.

[salinen]

6. I am concerned

Because of the herd mentality, many would rather go along with the common perception that they deliver. That means that the 80% non thinkers will respond to the common perception, and the RR owns the voice.

[playahata1]

9. herd mentality=afraid to think for themselves

You got that right.

[LTR]

7. I think it's disgusting on their part

They're using the memory of a man who they worshipped to do their typical liberal bashing. Not very respectful, is it?

We all know the real reason they're doing all this, right?

They're exploiting the whole situation of Reagan's death.

I'm appalled!

[wndycty]

8. Do you think that someone. . .

. . .who asks DUers to carry themselves with dignity cares so much about what the right thinks or what we think of ourselves. I love being a liberal and the DU a lot more than I hate the right. . .hopefully you are sophisticated enough to understand that.

[Cocoa]

11. you hit it on the head, imo

I think all thinking people are constantly reevaluating their own positions, even people that are very committed.

I'm so glad that so many people here at DU are protesting the hate here. If I concluded that that's what liberalism was about, I'd have to quit being a liberal.

[wndycty]

14. Trust me. . .

. . .everytime I hear a tribute to Ronald Reagan I want to puke. . .but the man, his family and friends deserve their time. More importantly I refrain from the reckless attacks to preserve my own moral ground.

[playahata1]

28. This is not about Nancy, or Junior, or Patti.

This is about what her husband, their father, has done to this country, to other countries, in the name of building that so-called "city on a hill." As far as I am concerned, there is no blackout period, no statute of limitations, for speaking the truth about this.

[Kickin_Donkey]

60. Ronald Reagan was a public figure ...

in fact, the most public figure in the world. As such, there are a different set of rules, not the least of which are legal precedents, for criticism. The occasion of his passing is the most opportune time, outside of his being in office, to assess his policies, however vitriolic. If it's not done now, when will it ever be done? Life is not so neat as to hold off attacks against him for a clearly specified time period.

[playahata1]

25. Then how do you define "liberal?"

If it means fear of, being reluctant or hesitant to speak your truth, offer LEGITIMATE criticism, under ALL circumstances, then perhaps I may be a little too radical for some people in this forum.

[salin]

31. distinction is around legitimate crticism

vs vitriol for vitriol's sake. For example, the thread up on Boortz now - vitriol for vitriol's sake. Most folks not thrilled with it have no problem with legitimate criticism. So the only distinction between our positions is the image portrayed within hours of the death that focuses on pissing on graves rather than poignantly stating why one isn't joining the mourning chorus. Both can set the state for real criticism. But tone is very different. Both can be very forceful in points made. But the tone is different. And in the end - the two will meet very different ends. Self serving/gratifying venting... vs. possibly opening dialogue and minds to another point of view.

[progressivebydesign]

43. You consider "pissing on his grave" to be legitimate criticism? N/T

[playahata1]

50. Aren't liberals supposed to be INCLUSIVE?

As far as I am concerned, MoPaul, Walt Starr, and Forkboy have every right to say that, no matter how extreme or intemperate. What will we do if Rush, Boortz or anyone else does the same with Carter or Clinton? They did it to Wellstone, and what did we do? Nothing.

[Kickin_Donkey]

61. Probably less than 2 out of every 100 anti-Reagan posts ...

have pissed on this grave using those words or by implication. The other 98 express anger at the man based on his actions and policies as president. The phrase "pissing on his grave" has become the all-encompassing phrase used by some self-righteous DUers to categorize any negative posts about Reagan, no matter how legitimate. It's way overblown.

[greekspeak]

52. Decorum does not make one weak

I am not concerned about what the right thinks about us. Who gives a rip roaring fart? However, there is a double standard right now. Every nasty thing we say about Ronald Reagan, how people want to piss on his grave and how glad they are that the SOB is dead, looks hypocritical. In a way it is. Liberals should be above the tactic of beating a dead ex-president right after he has died. Its so right wing.

I have said it before, and I will say it again...I despised Ronald Reagan, and I do not like him in death any more. I am not mourning his passing; I am using this time to think of all the people who died during his administration because of his mishandling of the job. AIDS might be a memory, or close to it, right now if not for Reagan's ignorance of the issue. More people who were homeless would have lived longer. Unions were broken. Countless people died in wars he egged on with his policies. It is these folks we as liberals should be remembering right now. I agree that legitimate criticism should never go away.

But those who could care less if the president is a puke or a dem are not going to get a warm fuzzy from liberals/democrats who wish to dance a victory jig around Reagan's barely-cold corpse.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. what HE said

[wndycty]

17. She?

Hey I am a he!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. edited to avoid a gender identity crisis ;-)

[wndycty]

20. LOL

Thanks

[salin]

22. what THEY said

*gender neutral*

[ElectroPrincess]

49. that's not the point

When you criticize a DU member(s) in open forum you are lauded by at least 3 right wing freeper sites as their "hero." The right wing isn't sophisticated at all. Please consider saving the harsh EVALS for PM not open forum. It's cool, if you don't want to change. However, be advised if we lose this election because of apologists who fuel the giddiness of the radical right, many loyal "democratic team players" will blame people that personally moralize and refuse to cooperated with the party, as those to BLAME for the loss of this election.

Really, we don't have to turn into lock-step republicans but we are going to get our figurative political a**es handed over to us IF we don't start keeping our over moralistic opinion to ourselves or working it out via PM. I'm afraid that, if we want to win we MUST pull together.

[seabeyond]

10. because we have an election, and this talk can lose votes

not a tough one. also it feeds the anger, that they are so good at. the declaring war on osama was just what osama wanted, fed to recruitment

this, us becoming allows them to say they are not morally higher than us, they are no better than us, we can do this in the gutter adn it wont be just us, will be both sides.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. I've never understood that particular sentiment among some DUers

So the RW thinks we are nuts, and we think they are nuts. :shrug:

[Career Prole]

13. Honestly, I wouldn't know what Limbaugh, Hannity et al. thought of us

if some folks here weren't constantly posting links and quotes and what-not from them here at DU.
If I gave a s**t what they thought about anything I'd listen to 'em myself.

[LoZoccolo]

23. Depends.

If they're not gonna like us, I want it to be for something important, like where we do something right that they do wrong, not that we can make fun of a guy with Alzheimer's.

[LoZoccolo]

24. In other words...

...if they're gonna go off on us, I want that to make it more obvious how wrong they are, not how wrong we are.

[wndycty]

26. Very good my brother

:kick:

[salin]

27. Now that would just be too strategic

[mopaul]

30. reagan killed 10's of thousands of innocents....mo paul.....none...n/t

[salin]

34. self edited/deleted

not even worth the response.

[mopaul]

35. so i'm ralph nader now? so 'I' am throwing the election now?

git over yourself, and i'll get over mine

[salin]

38. as you keep downplaying your schtick

I did edit it - because I realized it wasn't worth continuing. Sorry about that. But this whole self promotional crap - does have a possible negative outcome. I live in one of those captive media markets. Nothing else on during certain times. This is the way to take hohum viewers of Boortz and others (nothing else on) and "shock em" into buying exactly the caricatures that wingers paint of us. So yes - very good chance that you did start swaying some votes now that you solidified that view of liberals, democrats... etc. AND that has NOTHING to do with being critical of Reagan.

note: I did the self-edit before I realized you had responded. Again I do appologize for that.

[playahata1]

32. A little reminder.

Many people regard Martin Luther King as this apostle of love and forgiveness and peace. Eventually, though, he realized that love and forgiveness and peace can only go so far under certain circumstances.

Here is what I wrote on another thread from yesterday:

<<<King, near the end of his life, concluded that the nation's conscience was not going to be swayed by expressions of love and non-violence. He saw what happened with Watts and all the other urban uprisings. He saw what happened to Medgar Evers, Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman, Malcolm X and others. He saw what happened to the people marching for freedom, justice and equality to whom he'd preached non-violence. And of course, we all know the price he'd paid for his beliefs.

<<<When he died, King had gone beyond the idealism and optimism of his "I Have a Dream" speech. We, too, need to get beyond the idea that by being "nice" and "proper" and "politic" we can change those who have no love for us. In this day and in this climate, we are THE ENEMY, and the Limbaughs, O'Reillys, Sullivans and Hannitys of the world do not hesitate to use VIOLENCE -- VERBAL AND RHETORICAL, that is -- against us. It is past time we answered them back in kind, or else we will have NOTHING to defend ourselves against the LITERAL violence that certain parties in this country would no doubt hesitate to use against us, given the opportunity.>>>

[Redleg]

37. I care about the lies those bastards tell other people.

We should not ignore the right's power to influence how people perceive the left.

[progressivebydesign]

39. I'm not concerned with what THEY think.. HOWEVER!!!

I AM concerned with the millions of voters that hear their messages. And how Democrats are portrayed, based on the knee-jerk (mostly jerk) posts on here that become part of the public's perception of the party that is trying to unseat King George the W. Candiates and parties pay millions each election to hire people to make sure that incredibly stupid things, as those I've read here since Reagan's death, are not even uttered within 10 feet of their candidates. They're intelligent people. Unlike some people here who feel the need to vent their most vomitous personal feelings at the risk of losing the 2004 election. As we witnessed in FLorida in the last election. All you have to do is turn off 1,000 voters from the Democrats, and we could have George back in power again... But I guess that type of thinking is too cerebral for some people here.

It's called assisted political suicide. The airwaves and the internet is burning up today with links and quotes from DEMOCRATIC Underground.. far be it from an average voter to be able to discern between the actual DEMOCRATIC PARTY, and this website. You're asking too much of them.. but dammnit! We NEED those people. Those stupid posts truly risk turning off thousands of swing voters.. But, those posters that are posting the truly vile things are probably going to vote for Nader again this time, so what do they care?

[salin]

44. starting to realize

folks like it that way. We are in the minority here. The self-gratifying vile vent is more valued than the thoughtful critical essay (like Pitt's) that gets people to think. And somehow the latter is spineless... is giving in to repubs.. and according to one key player in this... like being a "loser."

[buddhamama]

40. i asked a question earlier that went unanswered

a question concerning civility and social graces.

venom and vitriol are one thing, an honest discussion of the man is another.

it was implied that to speak ill of the day so soon
after their passing was being uncivil, lacking social grace.

members of this board have stated lies about the man ie. Reagan shrunk the Federal Government- lie.
imo, it is imperative that we correct misconceptions and address the lies.

i did not respect the man and i'd be major phony
if i were to pretend otherwise.

i haven't spewed hate.
i've reflected on the man, his effect on the country
and the world.

i did search this morning through the archives
and know what, i didn't find the same reaction to the venom and vitriol that was spewed when Strom Thurmond died or Rachel Corrie...i didn't find comparison threads of DUers to Rev Phelps in the case of the other deaths.

was it Reagan's station in life that dictates deference?

would the calls for civility be non-existent if say,
it was Arafat or bin Laden that had passed?
you betcha!

[salin]

56. I spewed no hate at those times either

I have offered no lies about Reagan nor cover for those offering lies.

I think the comparison to Phelps wasn't for criticism - it was for the level of HATE... including a thread pushing the virtue of hate and hatred. Perhaps if there had been threads touting the virtue of hatred (ignoring all that comes along with it)... there would then, too, have been similar threads. I will say that the death of Osama would challenge me more than the others. I can not recall ever celebrating death and I doubt I would do so then - as it just isn't within my makeup. I think in the case of Arafat, Castro and others somber discussions of what happens next... what occurs in the vaccum and how that effects citizens of those nations/regions... would be called for more than grave dancing. But of course in these forums there ae more mixed emotions around these figures (except perhaps Osama), and I don't think we would see the full throttle effect that we saw on Saturday and are still discussing today.

I honestly am starting to believe that discourse no longer matters here. That vitriol is the key to attention - and getting discussions going. That issues and policies and debunking the news no longer matter. That figuring out why this myth was created and discussing the flaws in the myth - and strategizing on debunking the myth.. all that.. not important. If that's the case... perhaps I really have nothing to offer this place.

It is frustrating that everything is turned into binary.. that calling for civil expressions of criticism rather than straight out vulgar vitriol.. somehow gets morphed into supporting lies being told of reagan, being against criticizing reagan, this is simplification.

peace

[buddhamama]

57. it's not the calls for civility that concern me

it is the situations when civility is called for and when it is not.

on 9/11 and afterward there was a lot hate being spewed here.
toward bin Laden, "muslims", etc.

it took some time for actually discussions to begin to take place.

i think it is legitimate to discuss the hatred
and why, people hate.

when we came out of the fog and daze of 9/11
we began to ask, Why do they hate us? What are the roots of terrorism?
legitimate questions, to be sure. those who were not blinded by hatred were demonized then, as they are now, and we were labeled terorrist suppoters whatever.
we need to do the same thing now.
rise above our anger and hatred(to be frank though, i think the majority here were reacting to the situation, emotionally. i don't believe they actually feel hatred)

there aren't degrees to hatred as there exists with anger.
did the anger morph to hatred? and if so, why?

we need to understand what would make otherwise decent people
cheer or celebrate the death of Reagan, or anyone for that matter.

i have theories has to the hatred and, the celebration of death.

i think most of what was said or displayed
was reactionary.
in death there is release.
a release of emotions and Reagan engendered strong emotions in people. it seems you either like or dislike the MAN, very little in between. it all came rushing out on word of his death.
He represents all that "we" see wrong with this country and our place in this world.
We're in the middle of a war that i truly believe could not have been
come about if not for Reagans' yrs in office.

Lastly, people in general are angry right now.

hate is an easy emotion.
it takes nothing to hate someone.
and yes, for some unfortunately, it makes them feel better, feel good about themselves.
examination, introspection of feelings is needed, imo,
and what exactly was the cause.

[salin]

58. thank you for the thoughtful response

may we some day get to the point where we can discuss the hatred that lies within us.

I didn't arrive at DU until a few months after 911... as I sought for better, more real news coverage that was lacking during the early days of Afghanistan. I was in a unique situation at the time - not working among many people (working on a massive proposal) thus the initial grief was expressed at home - with a pacifist (a mantle, in the truest sense that I can not claim.) There was no expression of hatred - generalized out to others. Just exteme and profound grief. I state that as in these recent times, as I have become much more aware again of the larger picture, I was in a bubble at one of the other apexes of heightened mass emotion. Your description and use of it as an analogy is helpful.

[Commendatori]

41. Since when are people concerned to begin with?

Are you referring to anti-Reagan posts? If so, I'm with you - I've said at least twice on this board that people should say what they want and let the mods sort it out.

[playahata1]

48. Exactly.

Both those that offer legitimate criticism and those which are deemed too intemperate for some people.

[Az]

45. The long term effects of demonising liberals

Since Nixon the right has made a concerted effort to own the airwaves. They have continually placed their spokespeople in the media speaking up for their point of view. Because the left did not keep pace with them they were able to dominate the media in short order. They began dismantling liberal points of view and once they really got going they painted liberals as monsters.

Once this occurred any liberal trying to get their point out practically had to genuflect before saying anything. There is a constant chorus of neocons ready to take issue with anything any liberal has to say. Thus the left became scared to speak up. Fear that anything they might say could be used as ammunition by the right took hold of their voices. We became embarrassed to be liberals.

The first instinct is to stand up and say "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore". Do that. But then sit down and think what has to change in order to take back the message from the right. They control it and all the shouting in the world is not going to change that. We have to figure a way to take it back from them. We can plead for all the centerist votes in the world and maybe even win a few elections. But if we do not take back the message then this entire country is just going to continue to slide off to the right.

[Southsideirish]

46. I agree 100% - I only wish the Democratic party felt the way we do.

Screw 'em - you will never change their minds - their brand of "conservative" politics is really some kind of psychological aberration tied up with strong authority figures and personal fear of change.
We will never change them and they will hate us no matter what we do or say (BTW, they are the ones that began this "hating" stuff - if you don't agree - just try to have a regular "how are things goin'" conversation with one. As soon as they sniff out your politics ((and they are always sniffin'!!!)) they lose control of themselves and have to start up with the provocations be it about Clinton, Iraq, Bush or whatever.)
I wish the media and the Congressional Dem leadership would wake up to this fact - ignore the crazy Republicans and their echo chamber just do what you think is right!

[ElectroPrincess]

53. We must play their game because it works

The sad fact is all the propaganda talking points that Rush feeds the converted works because it's simple and they sing with one voice.

No, if we do what's right, our Country is lost to Democracy. We must *fight* the republican hate machine with our own TRUTH. Make it harsh ... make is ultra-cruel. Show the swing voter's what PIGS these right wing radical leaders are and how they are gutting our government.

Damn, no way we will get our reward on earth if we ultra-moralize and act like school marms. I'll risk doing a few extra-eons in purgatory (sincere) to fight these nasty criminal right-wing leaders.

You folks are free to do "what's right" because I'm going to do everything legal within my power to do "WHAT WORKS."

Like my teenage Idol, "Alice Cooper" sings "No more Mr. Nice Guy." :P

[Az]

55. Its not really the swing voters we need to target

We need to target the entire US populace. We need to counter the rights machine with our own voice. We need to consolidate the lefts points into understandable ideas and then push them into the social medium. We need to dominate the dialog. In this way we will change the course of the nation and then the votes will simply be in support of the position. No more chasing after votes. Make the votes come to us.

[checks-n-balances]

54. Here's the thing: I'm NOT afraid of offending them just to be sensitive..

but we're not dealing with a group that's known for being rational. (i.e., when you're visiting the "funny farm" you've got to use your wisdom and proceed with caution.)

People used to think I was paranoid when I talked about things like Armageddon theology being dangerous, how the rise of obscure hate groups was dangerous, the signs that the media was subtly shifting to the right, etc. But now our worst nightmares are coming true!

How many of you remember in 2000 how twisted and out-of-context the crap was they were peddling about Gore being "insane" and a "pathological liar", etc. from a one or two tiny quotes (actually, misquotes), etc.? Don't you know by now that the hard-core RW will do ANYTHING to get the political upper hand? They will use any tool to keep their power, especially by twisting the truth. So we should TRY to use restraint when possible so as not to hand them ammunition on a platter.

It's kind of like the whole third-party issue on a smaller scale. This is not the year to try and reform the electoral two-party system just because we're so sick & tired of waiting for it. As Bill Mahr has said, dealing with it directly and making it an issue right now is a LUXURY we can't afford right now. Or as Arianna H. says, you don't proceed with your dream of redecorating when the house is on fire! This is not the time to push the principle of free speech to the limits just because we can or because it feels good at the moment. If the RW wins in 2004, I wouldn't put it past them to be vindictive with their enemies about free speech - among other things.

That RW noise machine is in full force, and even though we don't want to stifle free speech, let's don't squander it away just because it feels good to be able to say whatever comes to our minds at the moment. We don't need to be inflammatory in the same ways as MAnn Coulter, Rushtycontin, Hannipants, etc. I think we're going to have to be vigilant about EVERYTHING and not let up before the election.

The freeper mentality is a dangerous thing and let's try not to bait them needlessly - politically, we don't hold a candle to the master stealth guerrilla fighters when it comes to mind games, manipulation, and propaganda. Yes, it was a BIG mistake to sit there and take it from them in the past. That's not what I'm saying.

Two final thoughts:

1. William Rivers Pitt's piece today was quite truthful without being inflammatory. As someone already said, it's straightforward and not insulting so even a conservative person can rationally read through it. Sometimes it's the WAY things are said that make the difference.

2. Anyone read "Blinded by the Right?" In it, David Brock says he was a young liberal thinker until he observed the rude reception that Jeanne Kirkpatrick got during her speech at UC-Berkeley. Brock had such a visceral reaction to it that this ONE INCIDENT caused him to go over to the right. It wasn't because he liked what she was saying; it was because he found the audience's behavior offensive and causing a defensive reaction within himself.

YOU NEVER KNOW HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO REACT TO THINGS, ESPECIALLY ON A VISCERAL LEVEL.

JUST DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THESE PEOPLE!!

(end of rant - I'm prepared to be flamed)

[salin]

59. well said.

[Seabiscuit]

62. Upset????

I could give a flying *bleep*!!!

:silly: