There is virtually nothing posted by the rabid right-wingers here that
deserves a tempered response. I'm constantly amazed at your good nature
in this things, Chuckster, but my feeling is that if you "debate" the
hardline right-wingers on anything, you give them some credibility
they'd never have on their own.

Screw them.



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

I don't know any of the right leaners here 'bout, so it would be silly for me
to comment on whatever personal attributes or defects each might have.

I wouldn't recgonize most of the right leaners if I met them. It's pretty easy
to recognize dangerous ideas, however. It is the dangerous ideas, (not the
unwitting victims of a powerful propaganda machine), that must be countered.
Each time a dangerous and ill considered idea is advanced, somebody needs to
point out why the idea may not be as beneficial as first represented.

There's a difference between legitimate criticism of an idea based on logic and
facts and ciritcising an idea only because
Jim, jps, Harry K, Noyb, Gould, or California Bill has expressed it.

That's fair, and works from both ends, as it should.

Some of the ideas from the left are dangerous too. I drove past a highly
energized "Impeach Bush" rally this afternoon. Bad idea. Look at his successor.

Like I say, civil debate is a natural consequence of conversation. Flame
throwing is a waste of time. But that's just my own opinion. I'm entitled, and
other opinions will vary (as they should).