PELOSI: Democrats are shaking up the status quo, reaching outside the Beltway for ideas and direction,

hehe! That part cracks me up. They're "shaking up the status quo".

"It will take a Sister Soulja speech straight to the black heart of the anti-war left."

To cut striaght to the heart of the matter, it isn't just a matter of the "anti-war left" anymore. It's a matter of the "anti-American" left. Because there were plenty of folks from the right who were "anti-Iraq war". Frankly - they are not really the problem. We all know where their sentiments lie. We're dealing with something much bigger here. That bigger something is anti-American/anti-Israel hatred combined. It is undeniable that "transnationalism", in this global age, has pitted the US/Israel against an overwhelming propogandistic (is that a word?) force from Europe (having been "Palestinianized") along with the left in America. Sorry to say - but it appears that even Bush has bought into it to some extent (forcing Israel into apparently suicidal concessions). How does one stand strong against the entire force of the world (that means the UN, the international press, the American democratic party and so on). Warren is spitting into the wind. Does he realize how many Jews are against him? None of it is an accident. Go look up frontpagemag's interviews with Ion Pacepa - head of Romanian intelligence. The West (including Israel) has been the subject of the most virulent propoganda by the KGB for several decades now (much of it channeled through the political left). Now we see the cumulative effects of several decades worth of Saudi money - combined with the anti-semitic/anti-US propoganda coming out of the Muslim ME and the KGB - coming to fruition. No truly democratic society can compete. Propoganda is basically anathema to a democratic society. We see that fact every single day in our papers. Truly democratic societies are forever at a disadvantage on that score. What exactly does it take for truth to overcome lies?

That's a beautiful, heartfelt, impassioned rant from Warren W. If I understand this correctly, the Pelosi letter came first, right, and his letter was a response to it? The reason I ask is that, from my experience, the Pelosi letter could just as easily have come after his, and been a reply to it.

I went through a period of sending outraged letters to various Democratic and media organs (although none of my missives were quite as good as Warren's, to tell the truth), full of the pain of a betrayed lover, saying "O Democratic Party of my youth, how could you?"

One letter that I took particular pains with was a lengthy tome outlining exactly why I, a twenty-one-year member of Amnesty International, could no longer stomach the organization. What did I get back? A form letter thanking me for my support. I sent off another one, angrier than the first, angry at the added injury of having my first letter ignored. What did I receive in reply? A request for money.

After many efforts like that, I simply gave up. They don't want to hear, they don't want to reply, they don't want to face it, they don't want to be challenged, they don't want to think. I can only imagine that they're saying, "So long, don't let the door hit you on your way out." They don't really care if us old ones leave, since they know they'll always be getting a new infusion of fresh young blood to replace us.

Odd. The way that link is interspersed with the text reminds me of the emails I get from Democracy for America.

Warren,

Any chance on considering that a lot of the rest of the Democratic party's positions are wrong?

Come on, tell me you wouldn't get a kick out of seeing your friends react to the statement that you're pro-life. :)

Yes, I'd be the first to admit Howard Dean may very well be the last thing we need...that he empowers the anti-war left...that he panders to the worst post-modern elements of a stale and outdated version of liberalism forever stuck in the 1960s. But, hear me out, he might just be a blessing in disguise.

The author says Howard Dean legitimizes a set of views that even he likely doesn't believe in. Well, regardless, the anti-war crowd believes in this guy. Because of him, they feel less marginalized, they go home happy at the end of the day, AND THEY SHUT THE HELL UP ONCE IN A WHILE!

Assume Hillary Clinton continues running to the sane and productive New Dem center. When the primaries come around, do you think the anti-war crowd will be more willing or less to accept such a candidate now that Howard Dean is their chairman? My bet is that, as their crowned king Howard moves to enthusiastically give her his support, so will they. My point is to say, one way or another, the anti-war left has to be dealt with. You can either further enrage and alienate the pacifist left, or you can pacify the pacifists. It's best to pacify the pacifists, and Howard Dean may just be the man to do it.

Democrats: Let's at least give the guy a chance before we absolutely tar and feather him. The fact he's now the chairman means he won't be running for President, again. This is, in no uncertain terms, a very very good thing. Let's see how he does.

I'm certainly no fan of Dean, and he's well to my left, but comparing him to the likes of Chomsky, Churchill, and Amiri Baraka is way over the top. I've gotten no indication from anything Dean has ever said or done to indicate that he hates America, hates Isreal, or anything like that.

And let's not pretend there aren't crazy people on the fringes of the GOP either.

Grant,

Good call. I live in a state whose Democratic governor won by an even larger margin than the 13% that Bush won by here and he's already 3 steps ahead of you. Many on the left would call him a Republican, but he just ignores them and is by consequence hugely popular.

what is your emotional reaction when you see some old line neo-Stalinist geek or some don't-know-any-better young protester carrying a sign that says, "Zionism is Racism", or "Smash the State of Israel"?

Profound embarrassment, followed by the realization that even the most stopped of clocks is still right twice a day.

It's like I've said elsewhere on this blog, though -- if you're a one-issue voter, and that issue is invading Iraq, you've got your Party. I haven't the faintest notion of what this has to do with a center-lefty Governor of Vermont, but it sounds like this letter is a whole lot of verbiage around, "I don't agree with the Democratic base that the war was a bad idea, and this issue is more important to me than all the other issues facing America combined, so I'm not going to be a part of a Party which has a person who opposed the war as its Chair." The rest of it is psychological window-dressing and the projection of (for some reason) Kucinich's supporters onto Dean's candidacy.

Here's what we see when we see Dean - Howard the Scream. He comes across as feisty, sure - but also unbalanced.

The Democrats need someone who's dull but a good fundraiser. They got someone who will be a fundraiser - for the Republicans.

Dean + Hillary == hundreds of millions for the Republicans.

Yeah, now that you know not all republicans are scum you may want to question some other stances.

Like social security. There is no money in the trust fund. They spend it and put IOUs (re: bonds) in the account.

The dems official response is 'there is no crisis, economists say it will be solvent for decades'. Translation, twenty years until it needs to start drawing on the bonds and need to draw on the (already in deficit) general fund.

Then there is Medicare... but we need to start somewhere.

Great points, Grant. You and I agree for the most part (big surprise, right?), but I understand where Warren is coming from at the same time.

Nancy Pelosi, I think, is more of a nut than he is.

"Like social security. There is no money in the trust fund. They spend it and put IOUs (re: bonds) in the account."

If that was the issue, there's an easy out for social security. Sell the bonds -- this month -- and buy commercial bonds, and/or british-government bonds, german bonds, japanese bonds, indian bonds, etc.

Commercial bonds give a better return because there's a risk they'll fail and not pay anything. If the government bonds are going to fail why put up with them? And the bonds of other major nations aren't in any danger of failing -- it's just us.

Social security could be out of US bonds in a month if they had permission, and after the one-time hit of selling the things social security would be holding no further risk.

It's the US federal deficit that's the problem. And why do we have that deficit? Because Bush cut taxes and increased spending.

Social security isn't the problem. Bush is the problem.

It follows that letting Bush get rid of social security is not the solution. That's kind of backwards....

Thomas,

I've known former democratic voters who, upon seeing the cliff that the rest of their party is willingly leaping over, have reconsidered other issues aside from the war in Iraq. While this hsan't transformed pro-choicers into pro-lifers, it has opened them up to seeing the absolute lunacy of things like political correctness. Questining one thing leads to another. The universities exalt political correctness at the expense of dead white men, and so now a lot of former liberals are rediscovering the wisdom of the ages from these dead white men, all as a counter-reaction resulting from the Iraq war. A lot of conservativism lies in the wisdom of the ages (in fact, that's what it means), so there's hope.

People are dreaming if they think Hillary will get anywhere. She's disliked by the base, intensely, and can't raise money anymore now that Bill is not in the White House.

Kerry, Dean, and heck even GORE all have the old Internet/Hollywood/Trial Lawyer magic. They can raise tons of money and win the hard-left primaries. Not Hillary.

Dean? He's the candidate of choice (and money) of MoveOn, Daily Kos, the other internet crazies and big money Hollywood/Wall Street types. I would be very surprised if he did NOT run in 08. Particularly if he sensed he could knock off Kerry or Gore. Reagan ran and lost in 76. He ran again and won the nomination and the general election in 80. It can be done if you have the core of the party faithful behind you and right now that's DEAN. Not Hillary. Or even Kerry or Gore.

Howard Dean is not a stupid man, but the bottom line is that he's not even close to being done with Politics and MoveOn put him where he is today. MoveOn is about ten centimeters to the right of ANSWER. So yeah the Lunatics HAVE taken over the asylum. It's like putting Pitchfork Pat Buchanon in charge of the Republican Chair.

MICHAEL...

Oh, believe me, I too know exactly where Warren is coming from. You know me, man. I'm a Cold War Liberal born 50 years too late, so I definitely sympathize with alot of what he's saying. And, yes, Nancy Pelosi is kinda nutty (not to mention just downright creepy looking).

I'm just saying, maybe the best path to a decent Democratic Party isn't openly beating down the anti-war wing as much as it is giving them the velvet glove. This is a new theory of mine and I'm still not even completely sold on it, but hear me out.

The situation in Iraq is still looking pretty shaky in spots but, though I'd still say the verdict is out on that one, the verdict is definitely not out on the effort to democratize the greater Middle East. Mubarak is caving. Syria is under fire. Lybia is scared shitless. There seems to be a pretty undeniable trend here and you'd have to be a fool not to realize our efforts in Iraq are largely responsible. Yet, the anti-war crowd could care less. They're not going to convert to the cause. Morality is relative, America is imperialist, and Israel is to blame for everything else...they're not going to abandon these beliefs anytime soon, I'm convinced. Not in the face of world events. Not in the face of anything.

If that's the true state of affairs, if the anti-war movement has developed into a faction that's here to stay, then the challenge facing the Democratic Party today lies in how best to go about marginalizing their influence. Howard Dean is still not fully just the anti-war candidate everyone makes him out to be. He was once a centrist governor with the backing of the NRA. If there's any amount of consistency to the guy's past, it's in the fact he has been all too willing to play whatever role he feels is necessary to acheive his goals. Is it too much of a stretch to say that maybe, just maybe, he's assuming a new identity or role within the Party today? That he might just be playing anti-war-hero to those people in an effort to shut them up, in an effort to try and drag them kicking and screaming into supporting a much more mainstream agenda in a way that only he could? When he was running for Party Chairman, a funny thing happened that went largely unnoticed by the media: A surprising number of moderate to conservative Democrats backed his campaign from the get-go. Stop and think this idea of mine over. Given Dean's extremely pragmatic history of chameleon-like identities, is it really all that crazy to assume their might be some merit to this?

Think about it this way: Hillary is moving hard to the Center in a much bigger way than John Kerry ever did (or could, for that matter). If she keeps it up, she'll start alienating the base in a potentially disasterous way. If all hell breaks loose within the Party at some point leading up to 2008 because of it, Howard Dean is the only one who really has the power to keep that leftist fringe in check...and I think Hillary knows it. I could be wrong about this, but who knows? The latest polls have her in a statistical dead-heat when paired up against either Rudy Giuliani or John McCain in a two-man race. She's definitely come a long way.

Jim, no offense, but you're way off...

1. Hillary is loved by the base. The nomination is hers to lose.

2. Hillary is every bit as masterful a politician as Bill. Also a hell of a fundraiser.

3. Dean isn't running. Period. He already has a job and it isn't going anywhere, anytime soon.

4. Hillary is polling nearly even w/ McCain and Giuliani, and neither one of those guys is getting the Republican nomination. I'd be scared shitless of this if I were you.

5. And, finally, yes she could win the primaries. She's freakin' Hillary Clinton! Who the hell is gonna stop her?

People like my sister (lesbian, on the left) will support Hillary even if she morphs into Margaret Thatcher, because they'll think she's pulling a Trojan horse, in other words faking in order to get past the flyover rubes.

I think I'm going to copy, paste, print and frame in gilt Warren's letter.... And I BELIEVE that Pelosi's letter came second, it's just the kind of dumb s*** things politicians do. I once wrote Clinton a letter calling him on something or other and got back a "thank you for your thoughts, send money here" return kind of letter.... Sheesh, politicians can be awfully dense.

Sydney Carton: While this hsan't transformed pro-choicers into pro-lifers, it has opened them up to seeing the absolute lunacy of things like political correctness.

Believe me, Sydney, most people my age have known all along about the absolute lunacy of political correctness. We ran smack into it at college. Almost every one of my friends is a liberal or leftist and hates pc as much as you do. It's a Boomer thing, and a campus/activist thing, and that's it.

Great letter by Warren; whether in response to Pelosi's or getting Nancy's form letter in response.

The anti-War Left is fueled by a feeling of injustice. The injustice of poverty. Of poverty existing in a country of such wealth. Of poverty existing when so many rich men are getting richer.

Injustice is always the spoken basis in support of violence -- every justice system is based on force. And the violence, justified by the injustice, in reality gets redirected by envy.

Envy is that sinful emotion that wants the destruction of something good which somebody else has. In America, "envy" has been nearly tamed into "admiration" and a desire to emulate, to copy. In Europe, envy leads to destruction. The Left is learning envy the way Europeans know it.

See Bush hate, Jew hate, Success hate

J Thomas says the problem is that Bush cut taxes (he wants to PUNISH the rich!) Nope -- the problem is that rich (home owning) Americans continue to vote for more gov't cash, and the Reps are now porking out as much as the Dems used to.

The Left is not as much "anti-American", as they are "anti-rich capitalists". They are also increasingly becoming anti-Christian. But they haven't yet pushed to cut any gov't boondoggle spending, just the military.

Sorry Michael, liberals who don't hate PC enough to support Bush over PC Kerry should admit that their feelings are only disapproval against PC. The whole Dem campaign was, essentially, PC against Bush. (Was there any Kerry position that wasn't PC? -- that would be an indication I'm wrong.)

Grant and Michael -

I come from a Roosevelt Democrat father, a JFK styled liberal and a lot of excellent liberal social studies high school teachers, great teachers, the old style who love America.

However, I get the impression that you guys are actually pulling for Hillary. I'm not.
And thank g-d Bush won the last election.

What's going on in the Middle East, the UN, with China, Russia and Iran and the EU, NATO, the Euro etc... are all at a critical juncture.

The only way you convince me Hillary has any advantage is by saying she could get more concessions from Koffi and the EU due to the 'Clinton' persona, but I don't even buy that now... the lines in the sand have been drawn and fully exposed. The old fantasy days, were just that, a fantasy of naiivete...

The world needs an additional 4 years of Bush foreignesque type policy....
So would I vote for McCain or Rudy, yes..
Would I vote for Hillary, no... just to have to listen to her and the yentas in Hollywood again, would makes me instantly nauseous.

Do I think that stem cell research is being held up? CHECK Am I for Religious right jugde NO but I don't think that's who's been getting approved anyway.
As far as I'm concerned the ACLU is more dangerous than the judge who just wrote a book about the 10 Commandments being taken down.

As long as the radical left is still there, just like Warren I CAN'T/WON'T vote Democratic...

And people like Pelosi, Kennedy and others have no ability or clue as to dealing with the reality of Militant Islam and its gaining strength in the institutions of this country...
Their view is either that of Michael Moore's or simple passivity. AND THAT AIN'T MY VIEW...

COUNT ME REPUBLICAN IN 08.

Mike

So every issue breaks down into only two stances...

PC and anti-PC?

I'd love to hear your take on this, Tom, and I'm not being sarcastic when I say that. I've never thought about it like that before.

The democrats are anti-Israel? Give me a break.

And-- I hope poor Warren isn't crying about not getting a hand written response from Pelosi.

Militant Islam gaining strength in the institutions of this country...

Um, what institutions are you talking about? Wanna back that up with something? Seriously, I'm baffled. If anything, the culture in this country is moving in a more secular-liberal direction as it has been for the past 40+ years. I think there's kind of been a nascent Christian conservative backlash to it all as of late, but it's hardly the stuff militant Islamic dreams are made of (hardly as strong a backlash as Osama would prefer I imagine, but then I'd kind of be saying that Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists are fighting on the same side and we wouldn't want that now would we). The moment Pat Robertson comes out in favor of the hijab, do let me know.

Sidney Carton,

Well, Sidney, you're right. The Democratic Party position on the war was the opening wedge, and now other ideas are slipping through. If you tell you're girl friend, "Yeah, sure, let's wife swap/swing with Clyde and Josephine," don't be surprised if your girl friend starts taking Clyde more seriously than you'd like.
If you had told me in the year 2000 that within three years I would be taking out a subscription to The Weekly Standard, and looking forward to getting it in the mail every week, I'd have said you were crazy. The National Review's $75 subscription is a little pricey for me right now, but I do read their online edition religiously. I don't agree with a lot of their ideas, but I'm definitely more open to them than I would otherwise have been.
And who's to say that the Democrats agree with the pre 9/11 me anymore?
1. Gay rights-never mind gay marriage, lets just talk about gay acceptance and tolerance-Okay Mathew what-his-name gets murdered in Wyoming by some punks. Except for that over the edge "clergyman" from Wichita, do you know of ANY even extremists in the USA who are okay with murdering gays? of course not.
Israel is light years ahead of the Arab Middle East regards, let's seek concensus here, gay acceptance and tolerance. They have an annual Gay Pride Parade in Tel Aviv, and an out of the closet gay on the Tel Aviv city council, for cryin' out loud. Do the over the edge lefties even say, "Look, I acknowledge that Israel is light years ahead of the rest of the Middle East in terms of Gay rights, and I'm always going to to hold that in their favor, but still, their actions in the West Bank enrage me" (They don't enrage me, but this is a position I could respect) Nope! It's, "We've got to smash them Fascist lowlifes". Scoring brownie points with the Cult of the Third World Boys With Kalashnikovs trumps gay rights. Now THAT is enough to drive a man to the subscription department of the Weekly Standard.
If you want, I could spend a couple of hours looking for a link to an article in
The Front Page Magazine about a conference held at Duke University by some pro-Palestinian group WHICH BANNED ANY PRESS COVERAGE. A Front Page guy snuck in. One of their positions was to boycott the next Gay Pride festival in Tel Aviv. Yep, when the needs and the agenda of the Gay Rights Movement conflict with the needs of THE CULT OF THE THIRD WORLD BOYS WITH KALASHNIKOVS, The needs of the third world boys with Kalashnikovs wins out. The Liberal mainstream reaction is, "Ho Hum."
2. Women's Issues. 30 honor killings a year in Jordan and the West Bank. 3 honor killings a year in Pakistan. Never mind the exotic, first world only tempest in a teapot brouhahas over being admitted to Augusta National Golf Club, or giving Susan Estrich a column in the L A Times. Honor killings seem pretty fundamental and basic to me. I'll keep this on a level that won't offend any conservatives or Republicans here. And of course, there's always UN peacekeepers raping Congolese teenagers and Rudy Lubbers-a "trusted right hand assistant" of Kofi Annan's sexually harassing at least 20 or so UN woman bureaucrats-five years ago, this issue wouldn't have gotten any publicity at all. It's getting traction only because Kofi is now vulnerable.
In short, you don't have to be Republican to be disgusted with current P.C. Give me a break, guys-can't I be alowed to have a problem with P C, even if I do have liberal tendencies?

The Original Warren

Hehe...

Warren, you're a Cold War Liberal if there ever was one. Nice to make your acquaintance. Welcome to the fold!

PS- Abandon the Party if you must. It's not my personal choice, but I can't say I blame you most the time. The neo-conservative Republicans are now the ones pursuing an unabashedly liberal foreign policy and I wish them all the best. If they would only dump the Christian Right for a far more liberal stance on social issues and morph into fiscally responsible neo-Keynesians somehow, I could become a Republican too!

PPS- Ever read the New Republic? You should.

Grant,

Actually, I've been reading New Republic for years. I love it! I'm a subscriber to their internet edition, and next time I get a loose $40 or so, I'll re-subscribe to their print edition-I had hit a financial rough spot and had to let the print subscription lapse, but I still have my internet edition priveledges.
Republicans & Democrats: Having Arnold Schwartzenegger around has really changed things around here. I was against the Grey Davis recall, but now I see it was the best thing that ever happened to California. I haven't regestered as a Republican, I'm still registered as a Democrat (how else would Nancy Pelosi have reached me?). It's nice to know that, hopefully, if this anti-gerrymandering initiative gets through, you won't have to be Bruce Hirschensohn or Bob Dornan to get anywhere in the Republican Party. Whenever there's an open primary ballot initiative, I ALWAYS vote for it. I can't say I'm holding my breath for another Tom Campbell or Pete McCloskey, but IT'S NOT UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE NOW!

The Original Warren

Correction:

That should have read "3 honor killings A DAY in Pakistan", not "3 honor killings a year" in Pakistan.
I'm not advocating a Quitotic invasion of Pakistan-to be pragmatic, we have to put up with them, but I'll be damned if I'll go along with throwing a country that's light years ahead of its neighbors in terms of (concensus building here) gay safety, and women's safety and right to participate in society over the edge just to please THE CULT OF THE THIRD WORLD BOYS WITH KALASHNIKOVS and their PC blinded apologists.

The Original Warren

Grant, help me out here. Suggest some political issues that you think are NOT PC vs non-PC.

Abortion (the BIGGEST one): PC - YES! NARAL has never seen an abortion they don't totally support! Yet Hillary is making noises to staunch the flow of pro-life Catholics towards the Reps. At still 48%, when the Catholic vote drops to 30% the Dems lose lose lose. The Pope is pro-life, anti-war. (funny how quiet are Hitler's Pope critics, who thought the WW II Pope wasn't anti-Hitler enough, when today's Pope is also not so anti-Saddam.)

School Vouchers: PC - NO; even if it means poor black kids read better, the ONLY solution is more gov't money for gov't schools, like in 72; in 76; in 80; in 84 ... more gov't for ONLY gov't schools, 88; 92; more gov't for more gov't; 96; 2000. (When will blacks want results?)

Gay Marriage: PC - yes. Forget children, fudge AIDS (aren't those with AIDS victims? of being infected? by "criminals" who infected them?), FORCE society and Christians to fully accept the gay lifestyle, and anybody calling it sinful will be guilty of Hate Speech and sent to jail. (This is NOT NOT NOT imposing any morals. It's NOT. Because we say it's NOT. We are the PC who say NOT.)

Gov't Spending: PC - yes, to almost every program.

Military Spending: PC - no, to almost every program.

One not quite PC issue is immigration. It's about to be, illegal immigration: PC -- ok, with "they shouldn't be here," but any attempt to deport them is opposed.

Operation Iraqi Freedom: PC - no! (That's almost what Michaels' whole blog is about)

As it exporting democracy bbecomes "successful", perhaps after 2006, I expect the Dems to almost totally switch, and become very pro-democracy. Big military. BIG. Big enough to impose PC thinking on dictatorships that aren't PC enough.

If you can tell me a non-PC issue, I'll be interested.

Grant McEntire: "Because of him, they feel less marginalized, they go home happy at the end of the day, AND THEY SHUT THE HELL UP ONCE IN A WHILE!"

And: "That he might just be playing anti-war-hero to those people in an effort to shut them up, in an effort to try and drag them kicking and screaming into supporting a much more mainstream agenda in a way that only he could?"

Michael: "Great points, Grant. You and I agree for the most part"

I have to disagree with Grant and your agreement with him, Michael. The idea that the antiwar/antiAmerican left gets more silent when appeased is unsupported by the evidence. Have the Kossacks gotten more or less vitriolic since Dean was chosen as DNC chair? Did MoveOn get more or less shrill as it became mainstreamed to the party?

Appeasement does not work. It emboldens.

Or maybe we should give Zarqawi what he wants in Iraq, and that will get him to stop...

Hillary Clinton will pick up votes from the left, except for the moonbats, for the simple reason that she can win! The House is gerrymandered into near submission. After 2010 and a new census (not to mention changing some Democratically gerrymandered states in the south) there could easily be almost enough guaranteed Rep seats as to end most debates.
The Senate Dems have a tougher row to hoe in 2006. Lots of Dems running in Red States. Santorum and Snowe about the only Reps in similar straits.
Therefore, if the Dems are to have much influence at all they need to win the Presidency and the moonbats will make it very tough. So any who retain sanity will want someone in the center.
Many on the left retain their positions because the press covers for them. If the stupidity of many of their positions was trumpeted, they might well lose. But it's covered.
I knew three of the Swiftboat vets. They hated Kerry not for what he did when he was with them (although they snicker about the medals)- they say he did his job then. They hate him because he went around the country accusing them of committing war crimes (none of which he talked about when he ran for President). Actually, he was a useless Senator, had been Lieutentant-Governor of Massachusetts before then. His accomplishments were more like "Alfie"'s from the movies. He married rich women and looked good. Yet the media preferred him.
The more bloggers look at things; the more issues are exposed, the better for the anti-moonbats. Remember how the media told us about how bad the Iraqi elections would go? They don't mention how wrong they all were.
Many of the moonbats were ardent defenders of the communists. No one ever calls them on that. They were wrong, so wrong, for years. And they're doing it again.
As for Israel, note that these same people who talk about "justice" for Arabs had no problem with Saddam killing them off, or the Syrians, or just about anyone. These people are not focused on Arab victims but Jewish actions.
Warren: I've found the simplest thing to do with those particular people is to ask what they really think we should do? And then I follow up on their B.S. answer, "So we should follow in the footsteps of Adolph Hitler?" If they protest, I ask what the difference would be if Arabs do the killing or Germans. I have heard a few answers but none that wins the hearts and minds of rational beings.

At 1:19 AM a blatently anti-semetic posting was made. It remains up while I type this. Does Michael Totten support anti-semites in his comment section?

Nice try. Warren's screed is straight outta Linda lovelace's book. Try to portray yourself as one of them, spurned, but someone who was as warren claims, if for the war, cd probably use better reasons than "promiscuous, intellectually and morally slutty Anti-War Movement".
David Horowitz would be proud. Of course, this means that there were probably no solid moorings to begin with.
Warren- if what you say is true, and you're not just shilling ala Lovelace, why don't you drop the Dems and Reps and actually go find a party that stands on principles.
I am very much anti-war, but revile the PC Left, too. But the Right is living in utter fantasy land, and you see as much posted on sites like this.
Not all 3rd Parties are filled with wackos, and its ping-pongers like you that allow the Dems and Reps their death grip on politics. Free up, my man. It's liberating!

No question about it.

Howard Dean's election to chairman of the DNC has to be the work of Karl Rove. How else can you possibly explain it?

Grant McEntire:

"Militant Islam gaining strength in the institutions of this country..."

Um, what institutions are you talking about? Wanna back that up with something?"

How about this?

Saudi Fifth Column

And how about this?

spreading Islam in public schools

And this is what happens to journalists who try to trace the Saudi money:

The Saudi buck stops here

Anyone who compares Dean to Chomsky, Said and Churchill is not even worth engaging in a serious debate. This man is just happily ranting away rather than actually learning anything about Dean.

That said, Pelosi's response is pretty embarassing.

Why is it so hip these days to attack Christians while ignoring all other religions? Is it because Christians are easy targets much like the Jews?

I mean it is perfectly acceptable for Muslim school children to pray five times a day while in public schools yet school children are banned from uttering the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I thank God the voting box is private. At least the Christian haters cannot attack there.

I thought this country was founded on the right to FREEDOM OF RELIGION!!!!!

Yet, it is turning into a country which is dictating freedom FROM religion which is the first step towards erecting a totalitarian state.

And as I stated further up the thread - the US and Israel have also been subjected to massive Soviet propoganda over the years, as pointed out in this article:

The Terror War

From the article, a quote by Ion Pacepa - former head of Romanian intelligence:

"History always repeats itself, and if you can live two lives, you have an even greater chance of seeing that repetition with your own eyes. During the last six years of my other life, as a Romanian intelligence general, the main task of the Soviet bloc espionage community was to transform Yasser Arafat’s war against Israel and its main supporter, the United States, into an armed doctrine of the whole Islamic world. America was our main enemy, and a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on it than could a mere one million. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep. Our task was to convert its historical hatred of the Jews into a new hatred of the United States, by portraying this land of freedom as an “imperial Zionist country” financed by Jewish money and run by a rapacious “Council of the Elders of Zion,” the Kremlin’s epithet for the US Congress.

According to KGB theorists, the Islamic world was a petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hate. Islamic cultures had a taste for nationalism, jingoism and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch. Terrorism and violence against America would flow naturally from their religious fervor. We had only to keep repeating, over and over, that the United States was a “Zionist country” bankrolled by rich Jews. Islam was obsessed with preventing the infidel’s occupation of its territory, and it would be highly receptive to our dogma that American imperialism wanted to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom.

Before I left Romania for good, in 1978, the Soviet bloc intelligence community flooded the Islamic world with Arabic translations of an old Russian, forged, anti-Semitic tract entitled Protocols of the Elders of Zion, along with “documentary” materials, also in Arabic, “proving” that the United States was a Zionist country governed by Jewish money, whose aim was to extend its domination over the rest of the world. We also infiltrated the Islamic world with thousands of Soviet bloc Islamic citizens recruited as intelligence agents and tasked to implant there a rabid, demented hatred for American Zionism. They were to portray everybody and everything in America as being subordinated to Jewish interests: the leaders, the government, the political parties, the most prominent personalities—and even American history. Most of these agents were religious servants, engineers, medical doctors or teachers, and they had excellent credibility.

Although we now live in an age of technology, we still do not have an instrument that can scientifically measure the results of a sustained influence operation. Nevertheless, it is safe to presume that over the course of the further twenty-plus years—until the Soviet Union buckled—the combination between spreading hundreds of thousands of Protocols within the Islamic world and portraying the United States there as a criminal Zionist instrument should have left some trace. The hijacked airplane was launched into the world of contemporary terrorism by the KGB and its puppet Yasser Arafat, and it is significant that this became the weapon of choice for September 11, 2001."

Put the Soviet propoganda together with the Saudi propoganda and I'd say we have a pretty good explanation as to how the American (and European) political left has come to be so virulently anti-American and anti-Israeli. There are other ingredients that would have to be added to the mix - the notion that America's affluence is directly CAUSALLY responsible for the 3rd world's poverty, the guilt attendant upon that assumption which breeds a self-hatred and so on. All of which makes the west quite susceptible to a massive rewriting of history which is currently underway in our schools (and is blatantly applied to Israel). One would have to be nearly blind not to see how it all comes together as a prescription for western suicide. Of course the press is utterly complicit in it all. The bottom line is that the west is to be dragged down to the lowest common (global) denominator.

Great letter, but I'm confused by this part:

"Back in the 50's and 60's I rejected Bull Connor, Orville Faubus, George Wallace, the White Citizen's Council, the Ku Klux Klan, and all the other people who murdered Condi Rice's childhood friend in the Birmingham church bombing of nineteen sixty something or other. The Civil Rights Movement more than anything else drew me out of my Goldwater Conservative family into the Democratic Party for a generation (at least 35 years, anyway)."

George Wallace and Bull Conner were Southern Democrats. The KKK had been (for all that time) a pro-southern democrat organization. How is it that the bad behavior of democrats caused you to switch from republican to democrat?

Please note: this is not about which party is more pro civil rights NOW. I'm asking about then. I was born in the early 60s, so I don't remember this era. I don't understand how this would cause you to become a democrat.

Whatever... Warren's a dumbass, as well as all the other people lamenting about Dean. I'm from Georgia and I can tell you Dean drew a lot of his support from disaffected republicans who looked at his record in Vermont and the words coming out of his mouth. You may not like it but he drew from the center, and from the edges of republican support. What other primary candidate did that? Lieberman? Puhhleeze. I like him just fine but he wasn't drawing crap for support.

People think the hard left supports Dean because of his anti-war stance. I think that's an over simplification that the right would like for you to believe. Most of the people I know who supported Dean (myself included) were much more interested in in his candor and no b.s. attitude.

Not everyone against the war was a Democrat either(gasp).

Grant — I'm skeptical that Dean can drag his far-left supporters back to the center to support a MOR Hillary. And if he did, it would catastrophic for her run. Imagine the "look who supports Hillary NOW" ads the opposition would — and should — run...

I think the writer of the letter is completely mistaken in confusing Dean with the anti-American and anti-Israel left. I have never found Dean either of the above. And considering the mess that we are in in Iraq, with no good options, I think Dean had a lot of foresight in his opposition to the Iraq war.

As for Pelosi's letter, it is disgraceful. It is just a bunch of blah, blah, and never addresses the concerns of the first letter.

Lee, assuming you're actually asking as opposed to grandstanding, which I think is true, in the election of 1948, the process (which was all but wrapped up in 1964) of the parties aligning themselves on opposite sides of the race issue began.

In 1948 a group of racist Democrats, led by Strom Thurmond broke from the Hurbert Humprhy ticket due to an anti-segregation speech he gave. They founded the States Rights Party, and split the Democrats. The party quickly folded. In 1964, hyperconservative Barry Goldwater, had appeal to the racist elements of the country due to his voicing his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While the anti-racist party prior to 1948 was clearly the republicans, there was an ideological shift that came somewhere between 1948 and 1964, when Strom Thurmond official switched to the Republican Party. Other notable members of the States Rights party, and their later affiliation were Byrd(D) and Helms(R-).

Somewhere in the 1970s (I would argue late, if not into the 1980s or 1990s even, but it's debatable), the sides again became unclear (Republicans would argue that the Democrats are reverse racists for supporting what they would call racial prefrences, Democrats would argue the converse.)

Tom Grey wrote, "J Thomas says the problem is that Bush cut taxes (he wants to PUNISH the rich!) Nope -- the problem is that rich (home owning) Americans continue to vote for more gov't cash, and the Reps are now porking out as much as the Dems used to."

Sure, the republican congress is doling out the pork even more than before, though I don't see an organised home-owners' movement coercing them into it. I think we might have something more like what japan got into, after the stock market bubble there was no place to turn to create the illusion of prosperity but the housing market. People can figure their houses are worth a lot of money -- provided they don't try to cash in.

And the social security thing might give us another stock market bubble which could give the illusion of a couple more years' prosperity.

In short -- nothing really new except the expensive foreign policy.

We desperately need a reform movement and we can't get one for four years. And it will probably have to be a republican reform movement, the democrats don't look like they're up to the job.

At this point I'd gladly chuck the democrats and republicans and let the libertarians and the greens figure out how to horse-trade with each other. What we have now isn't working.

Why is it so hip these days to attack Christians while ignoring all other religions? Is it because Christians are easy targets much like the Jews?

Because Libs believe it's courageous to attack Christians, even though there is zero risk of consequences.

Christians aren't going to issue a fatwah on them, christians aren't going to hunt down a Lib and saw off his head like happenned to that family in NJ.

Plus, we know that when a Lib attacks a christian, he's attacking the white redneck variety of christianity, and white folks are fair game to Libs. Also, christianity is considered Western, and that's fair game too.

Other religions, like islam, are non-western and "brown", and therefore sacred and protected. It's that simple. Libs aren't that nuanced once you figure our their formula.

Syn: "Why is it so hip these days to attack Christians while ignoring all other religions? Is it because Christians are easy targets much like the Jews?"

Read it and weep...

America's secret madrasses

Is it the political right in this country that is responsible for this? Why do I doubt that? Regarding the issue of how much the left-right dichotomy in politics these days has to do with PC? It has EVERYTHING to do with PC and multiculturalism. The entire left of the political spectrum (and sadly G Bush himself with his "Islam is peace" mantra) is implicated. of course, if one supposes that there is no difference between Islam and Christianity, if one supposes that Islam represented a great era in human history (instead of being a parasite that sucked its non-Islamic cultural hosts dry) - then there is nothing to worry about. But as long as one thinks there is something to worry about, as long as one rejects cultural relativism based on misappropriated western guilt - one will steer as far away from the left of the political spectrum as is humanly possible in the foreseeable future. And that means not being intimidated by secularists who try to imply that Christianity in the US is as frightening as Islam. (witness the spate of post-election editorials fretting about "Jesusland"). These days, noone frightens me more than the ACLU.

Carlos: "Other religions, like islam, are non-western and "brown", and therefore sacred and protected. It's that simple. Libs aren't that nuanced once you figure our their formula."

Ain't that the truth. The question is - how did this happen?

FC,

Thanks for the clarification. It makes more sense now.

Lee

The funny thing about Dean is that he began to sound a lot more electable (for want of a better word) once he'd quit his campaign? Not quite the moonbat he had been projecting?

But no matter what Dean says or does himself, clearly it will be the kind of personal, heartfelt response so eloquently returned by Ms. Pelosi to "Dear Warren" that will save the Democratic party in future?

That Frontpage article, and the BS it links to are a demonstration that some fundamentialist Christians in America want their children to remain ignorant. Islam exists, and studying it is not wrong.

That the district made a few mistakes in the study thereof does not make the studying wrong. From the primary source they point to: "Why do you think the Arabs and others in Southwest Asia would have been attracted to Islam? Explain your reason. Pg 64"
"This is nothing short of brainwashing!"

Also:
"Christians are not to seek knowledge of other gods"

This is who you trust to give you your news about educational practices? Not me. Stop reading Frontpagemag, it lies to you.

Islam exists, and studying it is not wrong.

FC,

the issue is not whether fundie christians want to remain ignorant, the issue is how Leftists in public education are selectively promoting one religion over another. The Leftist agenda is the issue here, not fundie parents.

Christian symbols are systematically being removed from the most unlikely places because it "offends" Leftists, yet FC defends the teaching of islam because it "exists"? Dumb and disingenous.

Christianity most certainly exists, does it not? And yet far from teaching it (because "it exists"), you would seek to extinguish it from our memories. Is it not the ACLU which has sued to remove a tiny christian symbol from the L.A. county seal because it's "establishment of religion"? Is it not a Leftist who sued to have a WWI memorial removed because it contained a cross? The list goes on and on and on. Does christianity not "exist"? Only Islam "exists"?

Get your goddam story straight.

From the post: ...yes, sigh, the home of "Let's burn the Israeli flag" Corrie What's Her Name

Rachel Corrie burned an American flag, not an Israeli one. Reportedly, she was given one to burn, but she did not want to burn it as it contained a religious symbol, and it wasn't her flag.

Yes, I know, probably makes no difference to anyone, just wanted to set the record staight.

Everything carlos said plus to FC:

And does this education regarding Islam explain who precisely Muhammed was? Does it explain that he ordered the beheading of hundreds of Jews? Ordered the chopping off of various human appengages? Does it explain that he financed the militant spread of his "religion" by robbing caravans? Does it explain the he married a 6 year old girl and had sex with her when she was 9 years old and also had numerous other wives? Does it explain "taqiyyah"? Does it explain "jihad" and the concept of abrogation of earlier (peaceful) islamic verses by later (violent) ones?

Somehow I very much doubt it FC or Islam would be widely recognized for what it is - the bullshit ravings of a violent lunatic. And THAT is what would be taught in our schools if they were at all interested in EDUCATION rather than PC multiculturalist bullshit. There's no doubt FC that you are more clever than me by half. But cleverness ain't all. I'll settle anyday for the simple perception of an uneducated peasant who can spot lies a mile away. What the hell is all this expensive western education for if it merely leads to so much intellectual masturbation that people are incapable of seeing what is staring them in their effing faces?

Christian symbols are systematically being removed from the most unlikely places because it "offends" Leftists, yet FC defends the teaching of islam because it "exists"? Dumb and disingenous.

I know what you mean. I've been trying to get some Satanist symbology on our city's seal, and people keep objecting. Bigots.

I may get flamed for this... if so, please direct them to my email and don't clog up MJT's board.

---
Syn: "Why is it so hip these days to attack Christians while ignoring all other religions? Is it because Christians are easy targets much like the Jews?"

Based on my perception of the situation, I would advance the idea that sombunal democrats/left-wing/liberal/statist type people seem to be semi-religious, non-religious or somewhat anti-religious. Let us say that perhaps they have a greater number of lassie-faire christians and many agnostics, pagans and athiests. While in the past several years, sombunal Right/Conservative/Republican groups have seen a marked increase in active Christians, including some very loud evangelicals.

Now, if we consider the possibility that some individuals who are not particularly religious, or at least not christian, have been made uncomfortable over the years by a minority of loud extremists, it might be easier to understand their dislike of the faith.

Many people got turned off by the Democrats because they are now seen as associated with the extremist anti-war left. Sombunal non-christians get turned off by Christians because they are associated with the people who are screaming in front of abortion clinics, weeping and gnashing their teeth over a statue of some old tablets, publicly damning gays, fornicators and anyone else who doesn't conform to their perception of what is right (much like the anti-war left screams in front of Statehouses, weeps and gnashes their teeth over the destruction of some mosque that was being used by rebels as cover, and publicly damns all pro-war, pro-bush, pro-isreali people).

I think that since Christianity is THE religion in the States, it's THE religion that non-religious people tend to identify as opressive. Sombunal Democrats realize that Islam extremism is just as dangerous as Christian extremism, or any extremism (and currently much more dangerous than our dear evangelicals here at home).

However, for many people, the potential horror of Islam is thousands of miles away. The constant push by the Religious Right, most particluarly the evangelicals, is what they see every day.

For many people, its easier to hate and fear the extremists who are in your face daily, as opposed to the dangerous shadowy extremists who have never directly affected your life.

For me, I think that people should be religious if they want, and people should be non-religious if they want. If Christians want to evangelize, I say let 'em... Eris knows I spent 20 years knocking on doors, talking to people about the Bible and I think that every American has that right.

Now, here's the kicker, there were many times that I had doors slammed in my face or loud angry fat men telling me that I should be put on a slow boat to china (and sunk half-way) because I wouldn't join the millitary. You want to talk hate? How about being six years old and having your pregnant mother shoved off of a porch by a 'good christian woman'? Or perhaps you'd prefer to have dogs set loose on you by the Lay minister of the local Lutheran church? Not your cup of tea? How about seeing an old farmer with a corn cutter beating on the windshield of your car, telling you that he won't have a nice day and how he'd love to get you out of that car. Ever been shot at because of your religion? How about tarred, feathered and tossed off of a tressel, by a mob? How about raped? I've experienced, or were close friends with people who experienced all of those things, right here in the States, most to me and the last two to close friends of mine who were JW's during WWII).

Why do people hate Christians? I dunno, why do so many Christians hate Jehovah's Wittnesses?

The answer may simply be, Human beings seem to be prone toward hating people who don't agree with their view of reality.

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
Muncher of The ChaoAcorn
Chatterer of The Words of Eris
POEE of The Great Googlie Mooglie Cabal

As the token raving moonbat leftist socialist here, can I just pop a strawman and say I have no problems with Christians? Among my close fiends, I count evangelical Christians, Catholics, and Jehovah Witnesses. I don't hate Christians, nor do I know any leftists who do.

I do, however, hate people who shove a Bible in my face, infringe on my freedoms because of their beliefs, or, most despicably, try to affect the beliefs of children in schools. Those dicks can kiss my ass. But that feeling isn't restricted to Christians.

Me: Among my close fiends, I count evangelical Christians, Catholics, and Jehovah Witnesses.

That should be "friends". My close fiends have different beliefs.

Yeah, I'm not convinced that Islam is entirely evil. Wahhabism? Yeah, no doubt and I'd like to see that sect wiped from the face of the earth. But I'd like to think that some Muslims use their brains and reject any notions of preteen marriage, violence, and Sharia.

Let's be honest...is there any difference between those on the Left who would criticize and condemn Christianity and those on the Right who would criticize and condemn Islam? Both religions have their fundies and both have their sensible adherents as well.

Tosk: "Ever been shot at because of your religion? How about tarred, feathered and tossed off of a tressel, by a mob? How about raped? I've experienced, or were close friends with people who experienced all of those things, right here in the States, most to me and the last two to close friends of mine who were JW's during WWII"

Tosk - I can't imagine why you think you'd be "flamed" for your post. Everything you list above is abominal! There's no doubt about it - and no doubt also that Christian intolerance in the west has historically fueled many leftist/secularist anti-Christian sentiments.

But Hell how I wish that was all we westerners had to deal with any more! We western liberals could all join together and fight the good fight against homophobia and all the rest of the archaic bits of our historic Christian past. Man - would I love to go back to the simplicity of those times!

But what is wrong with people? Where is the sense of PROPORTION? Why don't westerners - LIBERAL westerners especially - see the vast difference between even moderate Islam (let alone Islamic fundamentalism!) as it actually exists and is practiced in the world today - compared to Christian fundies in the west? This is sheer lunacy isn't it? This moral and even practical equivalence? What don't people get here? Especially the educated? (that includes our MSM, our institutions of higher learning etc). Count on your hand the number of abortion doctors who have been blown up in the west. Throw in Matthew Shepherd to up the ante. But open your newspaper every single damn day of the week to see what is happening in the name of Islam. Again - where is the sense of PROPORTION?

Caroline- EXACTLY!! Thanks for your rational plea for proportion. Last time I looked, conservative Christians don't advocate killing nonbelievers, denying educations to their female members or lopping hands off of petty thieves.

A nonbeliever myself, I live in a cul-de-sac surrounded by radical Catholics. I have a misplaced sense of feeling, dare I say, SAFE!

Shawn: "Let's be honest...is there any difference between those on the Left who would criticize and condemn Christianity and those on the Right who would criticize and condemn Islam? Both religions have their fundies and both have their sensible adherents as well."

Yes - a vast vast difference. I am practically tearing my hair out that modern western "intellectual" liberals are apparently incapable of seeing what that difference is.

In other words, anyone who takes it upon themselves to criticize current western Christianity for its CURRENT abominations OUGHT to be downright APOPLECTIC in comparison - about Islam.

Anyone who can't figure that out has IMO - wasted big big bucks on their education. The damned diploma is worthless.

What the heck does 'sombunal' mean?

Warren W.

Re: Dukakis '88. That was Bernie Shaw of CNN not Tom Brokaw.

"most despicably, try to affect the beliefs of children in schools."

Actually, a great deal of the PC resistance from all quarters comes from this very concern. Let's consider for a moment who it is that controls the schools in our country. Sure ain't the fundies.

Carlos, the issue that I intend to address is fundie christians choosing to remain ignorant. As such, that is the issue. That is what the genesis of the "conflict" over the Californa school is, as demonstrated by the primary sources linked to by the paranoid article that was linked to.

I would not support the display of islamic symbols of faith the same why I do not support the display of of xtian symbols of faith in public places. As such, your entire argument is straw.

I do support the teaching of Xtianity as history and sociology in our public schools, as does the ACLU. I know you have a hard time distinguisihng between Bible Study and studying the Bible, but there is one. The second is a valid educational study, the first is religion, and thus not the domain of our public schools.

Carloine - propaganda has no place in our schools the same way it has no place on this comment thread. As such, I decline to respond to your ravings. Islam is not the "bullshit ravings of a violent lunatic." Anyone who would attempt to pigeonhole centuries, if not millenia of religion and culture into those particular six words should look to their own house, for it needs cleaning.

I've gotten no indication from anything Dean has ever said or done to indicate that he hates America, hates Isreal, or anything like that.

He's certainly indicated he hates half of America: "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for."

And let's not pretend there aren't crazy people on the fringes of the GOP either.

Fringes, yes. RNC chair? No.

Let's be honest...is there any difference between those on the Left who would criticize and condemn Christianity and those on the Right who would criticize and condemn Islam?

One difference is those on the right at least make no bones about being bigoted. Those on the left try to whitewash it with claims of 'tolerance' and 'diversity.'

Note: I'm not defending either position. A bigot is a bigot is a bigot.

Caroline,

Well, in my opinion, based on the the way I understand humans, I'd guess the answer to your questions is programming. Every one of us are programmed to some extent, its what causes us to react in particular ways to some stimuli (what's commonly known as "pushing my buttons"). People who are religious are programmed with whatever beliefs their religion teaches. People who are anti-religious have their own programming as well. Asking why some non-christians are still busy hating Christians, may be as simple as "they're following their programming". Programming in this sense doesn't necessarily mean brainwashing, it seems more about having a preset view of reality and trying to fit everything into that reality. It's the Aristotlean influence of "is and is not" as the only two options:

"Christianity IS full of people who hate me"
therefore
"Christianity IS bad"
"Islam IS NOT Christianity"
therefore
"Islam IS NOT bad"

It's a lot like:

"Democrats ARE full of Traitors and Moonbats"
therefore
"Democrats ARE bad"
"Crazy Religious Moonbats ARE NOT Democrats"
therefore
"Crazy Religious Moonbats ARE NOT bad."

This is the way that many Western brains seem to think. They appear to want to live is a simplistic duality, where everything can be pigeonholed into specific slots. This neuro-linguistic fallacy, I think, contributes dramatically to the narrow minded focus of any extremist. It also seems to seriously modify the thought process of less extreme individuals.

I have, of late, been trying to make more use of E-Prime, which is an attempt to remove all forms of the verb "to be" from written english. For me, this seems to clarify my observations.

For example:

In plain old down home English:

"Islam is a religion of hate."

In E-Prime:

"Islam appears as a religion of hate, when observing sects like the Wahabbis."

English:

"Democrats are moonbats."

E-Prime:

"Since Democrats seem to tolerate extreme groups, they seem to be moonbats to me."

English:

"Christians are bigots and fanatics."

E-Prime:

"Based on my experiences, I think that some Christians act like bigots and fanatics in some situations."

This makes it much more difficult to 'hate', if you consider that your perceptions are just that, perceptions of experiences.

Sadly, the 'is/is not' mentality seems to be easy and sombunal Americans seem to be too lazy to improve their thinking.

Ratatosk

PS -None of this is aimed at anyone, just an academic discussion of "Why the Left hates Christians"

What the heck does 'sombunal' mean?

Whoops sorry:

Sombunal is a shortened form of "Some, but not all". It's used to clarify that one can never speak for any group as a whole.

"All Christians want to see homosexuals jailed" is obviously false. Saying "Sombunal Christians want to see homosexuals jailed" is more correct.

Saying "Sombunal Muslims want to see the sdestruction of the West", allows for the large majority of Muslims who don't appear to want the west destroyed at all.

:)

Dear Warren,

your original letter was from-the-heart wonderful. Don't be seduced by Hillary's current dodge right--her words and actions as First Lady-in-Chief show her true colors, her radical-left blue blood.

The only agenda of Democrats (through 1-perpetuation of the welfare state; 2-deference to same-minded foreign powers on US security matters; 3-raising taxes to create expensive, big-government entitlement programs (see item 1); 4-use the race card and fear campaigns to intimidate for votes; etc.) is simply to (re)gain power at the expense of all else, and for only power's sake. They have no constructive thoughts and have been consistently on the wrong side of History on every major issue facing us today.

The GOP's tent is a very big one, I think you'd find... after all, Bloomberg is a "Republican" too (not that this is a good thing, either). Shall I send with this a hearty Welcome to you?!?

"Carloine - propaganda has no place in our schools the same way it has no place on this comment thread. As such, I decline to respond to your ravings. Islam is not the "bullshit ravings of a violent lunatic." Anyone who would attempt to pigeonhole centuries, if not millenia of religion and culture into those particular six words should look to their own house, for it needs cleaning."

Factcheck - you're suffering from a serious case of PC. I recommend you see a doctor.

I've read the various and sundry reasons for abandoning the Democratic Party. At times the conversation drifts, but stays very interesting. I would like to add my own reasons for abandoning the Party.

Yes, PC has everything to do with it. However, PC has been bastardized to fit anyone's and everyone's definition.

My reasons?

I'm not happy that so many liberals and their representatives think I must be notified when my daughter wants a piercing, but not when she seeks an abortion.

I don't want some ultra-lefty politician telling me I have to put a "safety lock" on my gun. I have it for protection. It does me no good if I have to ask the burglar to wait while I unlock my gun.

I'm tired of those who shout, "Free speech!" when they want to bash America, but wish to silence those of us who say, "Aw, shutup."

I'm tired of the politicians on the left who scream about voter fraud and then vote against reform.

I'm tired of the politicians on the left who finally admit that Social Security needs fixing but think things should be business-as-usual by simply raising taxes. As long as they have their own, separate retirement plan, what do they really care?

I'm tired of lefty politicians going to bat for one disgruntled parent and allowing them to make policy for an entire school district because someone said "God" on campus.

I'm tired of the left who wants to take individual responsibility for our own lives away from us and hand those decisions over to government.

No matter what anyone says, we are not all equal. Some of us are smarter, stronger and wiser. No amount of "building up one's self esteem" without them earning it will solve any problems.

I'm tired of the dumbing down of America. We are not a one-size-fits-all country.

The far left tinks we have to keep striving left to be truly democratic. How far do we have to go to be a democracy? How far do we go before we aren't a democracy at all, simply a chaotic free for all?

"...But think for a moment what it means to say that there can be no other form of democracy than secular democracy. Does democracy need a burgeoning billion-dollar pornography industry to be truly democratic? Does it need an abortion rate in the tens of millions? Does it need high levels of marriage breakdown, with the growing rates of family dysfunction that come with them? Does democracy (as in Holland's case) need legalised euthanasia, extending to children under the age of 12? Does democracy need assisted reproductive technology (such as IVF) and embryonic stem cell research? Does democracy really need these things? What would democracy look like if you took some of these things out of the picture? Would it cease to be democracy? Or would it actually become more democratic?" -Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney.

No, I'm not a religious nut. I'm against bankruptcy reform under the present conditions, I'm cautiously pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and I think we can do more to help our elderly and children. But, I damn sure know the difference between right and wrong.

Being a democrat doesn't mean one is democratic. Being a republican doesn't mean one wants to oppress and exploit.

These days it looks to be the other way around.

Yes, I'm bitter. My party was hijacked by the Democratic Underground, Markos Zuniga, George Soros, flip-flop Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Babs Boxer, etc.

Sure, Dean's not a bad guy. He just hates, HATES "the Republicans and everything they stand for". "This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."

Great way to get people to support your party?

Caroline, responding to someone with a one word retort is a little childish, don't you think?

Oyster, people like you frusterate me. You know that every single one of your expressed policy positions is in line with the Democratic party, but you take the Fox News caricuture of the Democrats and believe it to be true. Why do you listen to people who lie to you? Why do you believe them? The Democratic party does a better job of explaining itself than it's enemies do. Why do you listen to the people who don't believe what you believe in?

And considering the mess that we are in in Iraq, with no good options, I think Dean had a lot of foresight in his opposition to the Iraq war--Miriam

Fish, Allow Me To Introduce Barrel

I have a sneaking suspicion that perhaps your other insights into 'political'reality are likely equally dubious .
Dean = YARGHHHHHHH !!! End of story.Forever.

-------------------------------------------------
English:
"Democrats are moonbats."
E-Prime:
"Since Democrats seem to tolerate extreme groups, they seem to be moonbats to me."
--Tosk

I am confused.While the former statement is clearly 'extremist',and is also clearly incorrect in that not all Democrats can possibly be moonbats(at this moment in time anyway),the 'nuanced'version you prefer says precisely nothing really.All show and no go.While the former statement actually answers(even if too assertively)the implied questions,your version provides no useful objective information at all.
A.Do Democrats 'tolerate'extremist groups or not?
B.If yes,does this,in itself,make them 'moonbats'?If not,what does it make them?
I am all in favour of reasoned discourse but not at the expense of 'conclusions'and 'values'.If there is no reality apart from what 'seems'to be reality only to the observer,what basis do we have for doing anything at all?This strikes me as nothing but yet another formulation of the infamous 'moral equivalence'that has arguably brought us to our present 'quagmire'.
With respect,I prefer a more declarative,albeit a more 'reasoned'form of communication.I can't see this E-prime taking over any time soon(well,ever really).It seems far too indecisive,neutral,and meaningless to me.

Ratatosk -

These evangelical Christians condemn all war. They believe that Americans, and most of the Middle East should suffer terrorism and oppression in the interests of (their version of) peace and justice.

This group, like the Wahhabis, seeks a “pure” version of their religion. And like most purists, they're willing and anxious for others to suffer for their beliefs.

Do you think the Left supports these evangelicals? I think they do.

Warren – It’s a great letter. The issue that seems to divide the left and the right in America is the use of military tactics to fight terrorism & oppression. If you’re pro-gay marriage, pro-women’s rights, a lifelong democrat, and you support the use of bombs, guns and grenades to kill the bad guys, you’re a right-winger.

Even if you're a Dem who voted for Kerry, any acknowledgement that Republicans are fellow Americans, not the enemy, is a sign that you’re not a "real" Democrat. Ask Oliver Willis.

Dean says that Republicans are his enemy. Why would anyone vote for a party whose leader hates approximately half of all Americans?

Sorry, but the following is completely unhinged. Dean has NO connection with any of these characters.

The idea behind it is that a leader is responsible for disavowing the ideas of his most insane supporters. This is a standard that MJT and other Bush supporters never seem to apply to Bush, or Sharon. Why?

"Welcome him to the DNC? I'd just as soon welcome Noam Chomsky, the late Edward Said, or Ward Churchill, or Juan "Israel is always wrong" Cole, or Leroi What's His Name, former "Poet Laureate of New Jersey" ("The Jews didn't show up for work on 9/11, 'cause they were in on the secret – the CIA/Mossad did it!), or the Middle Eastern Studies Department of Columbia University, or the Chairwoman of the Duke University Middle Eastern Studies Department ("Let's boycott the International Gay Pride Celebration in Tel Aviv – we don't want to give any encouragement to the International Zionist Conspiracy!), or Representative Cynthia McKinney, or her Jew bashing (not just Israeli bashing, but in-your-face Jew bashing) daddy."

Thomas;

It is true that there are only government bonds (IOU's) in the trust fund. The problem is to redeem those bonds the government is going to 1. print more money. 2. Increase taxes. 3. Borrow more money.

They have been spending the excess SS monies. Private accounts would stop that stealing and spending right now and force the excess monies to be saved and invested in things with collateral behind them. The Democrats want to continue to steal and spend SS excess monies until it runs out in about 11 years. They also want to keep the system the way it is so they can steal from it in the future if ever there is another time we have excess funds.

If private business did this, their CEO would be thrown into jail. But the left always operates with a double standard.

That is such a massive mistatement of what the Sojurners believe as to be laughable. I don't know who feeds you your bad information, but whomever they are, you need to stop listening to them.

Tosk: "Programming in this sense doesn't necessarily mean brainwashing, it seems more about having a preset view of reality and trying to fit everything into that reality"

Tosk - I read your lesson on "E-prime". As a liberal, well-educated, tolerant, westerner - as you are - I am quite well aware of my "programming", which also includes the "let's first understand this from the other point of view" mindset so common to liberal westerners.

All well and good. It's a good impulse. I wouldn't have it any other way. It's Christian even - first remove that darn thing from your own eye and all that.

But why this assumption that when one looks clearly - and without any preconceptions - that the system of the OTHER will be found to be no better or worse than one's own system?

In other words, where does it necessarily follow that because one is looking with a clear, unjaundiced, impartial eye - (duly setting one's own upbringing aside) - the OTHER system will necessarily be found to be equal?

In other words - aren't liberal westerners like ourselves succumbing to exactly what you are warning against? "Brainwashing", "A preset view of reality"? That preset view implying in advance of LOOKING - that everything will be found to be equal?

What if you look without any preconception and then find that your system is in fact superior? More humane? The other system turns out to be abhorent? Evil even?

Liberals seem to have some bizarre notion that if they just strip themselves of all preconceptions - everything will be found to be equal - morally equivalent. Isn't that so?

For many people, its easier to hate and fear the extremists who are in your face daily, as opposed to the dangerous shadowy extremists who have never directly affected your life.

What is a "christian extremist" exactly? Someone who votes for the GOP because they are against abortion? Or is a "christian extremist" someone who resists Leftist efforts to remove all vestiges of christiany from our history and collective memories?

How exactly is a "christian extremist" in your face daily? In the near future, when the ACLU sues to remove the ten commandments from the Supreme Court building and conservatives resist it, are they guilty of being "extremist christians"?

If some Leftist is more afraid of an "extremist christian" than he is of some "distant" muslim extremist, then that's simply more proof of the warped mentality that permeates the Left.

Dean says that Republicans are his enemy.

And then he said Republicans are evil.

But remember the hissy fit Libs had when Bush said the war on terror was a struggle of good vs. evil? Evil was "dehumanizing" they said. There are no evil people, just evil acts they said.

I just wish they'd get their story straight. Their only standard is what their hearts tell them, so it's no wonder they have no consistent message and are always crossing their wires.

dougf,

E-Prime may not work for you. For me, it seems to clarify my ideas and causes me to rethink many of my positions (indeed, e-prime was one of the reasons I find myself unable to identify with the Democrats and find myself much more tolerant of ideas I once found repugnant... prayer in school being one).

I haven't found that E-Prime requires moral equivalancy, nor the abandonment of reason, conclusion or values. It seems to be simply a way to get rid of some of the "ghosts" in the english language. Some other languages simply don't have the verb 'to be' at all.

For example, in the abortion debate, there are two schools of thought. One says that the fetus, at conception is a human. The other says that the fetus at some later stage of development, or birth becomes a human.

Both views appear to rely on the isness of Aristotlean logic... the fetus is or is not human.

The problem, I think, appears to be that they're arguing about a belief, sombunall people believe that the fetus is human at conception... sombunal people believe something else. The only way that either group can possibly be right in their definition, is in their own mind, since thats where all definations seem to exist anyway.

If we restate the view in e-prime:

"In my system of metaphysics, I classify the fetus as a person."

we have made a much more correct statement, we can then have the debate on the actual issue, instead of a ghost in our language.

The issue seems to be "Should a practice, which many citizens find repugnant, be banned except in the most extreme circumstances?"

Now, of course, this isn't nearly as exciting and contraversial as "Should We Kill Babies?", but if we want reasoned discourse, logical discussion and reasonable laws, we may have to forego frenzy-inducing 'ghosts'.

I am promoting E-Prime as a way of getting to the root of debates, not to remove debates.

But, as I said before, your brain may not process E-Prime the way mine does.

Tosk

Carlos: "If some Leftist is more afraid of an "extremist christian" than he is of some "distant" muslim extremist, then that's simply more proof of the warped mentality that permeates the Left."

The truly pathetic thing is that that point even needed to be made.

Markus Rose: "The idea behind it is that a leader is responsible for disavowing the ideas of his most insane supporters. This is a standard that MJT and other Bush supporters never seem to apply to Bush, or Sharon. Why?"

Markus - you must be in denial re the sheer numbers of people who publicly support (i.e. presume to represent "the face of") the Democrat party and who appear to be insane. This might all be dismissable if it weren't for the minor fact that noone in the Democratic party ever bothers to publicly dismiss these folks. Truthfully, what is a girl to think?

Am I alone in thinking that apparently everyone but FC has bad information?

FC, enlighten us as to where you receive the good stuff. "Enquiring" minds want to know.

Oyster: I applaud you for your your honest venting at the hubristic, mendacious, hypocritical Democrats.

FC: people like you, who can't see the Dems for who they really are (viz., utterly on the wrong side of history at every turn), probably frustrate people like Oyster. You certainly frustrate people like me.

I don't read people who are out to get the people that I'm trying to get information about. Somehow, I find that partisan attack sites either only tell the parts of the story they like, or they just make stuff up.

FC,
"why do you listen to the people who don't believe what you believe in"

Really touching and sooooo convincing...

FC, if you don't read what those people (who are out to get other people) say, how can you possibly understand their position, E-prime or no?

Are you trying to get information about fanatics? The best source is usually their mouths. Or their texts.

Gee, MaryHunter, you've certainly done a good job helping me think about the world an entirely different way by saying that the Democrats are at the wrong side of history Every single turn!

FC – Are you saying that the Left supports these evangelical fundamentalist Christians?

From the Sojourners website:

"Violence and war will not resolve the inevitable conflicts between people and nations. We believe that peace must begin with our own lives and our willingness to make sacrifices -and even suffer -for justice."

That's pacifism. Pacifists don't believe in fighting oppression, terrorism or fascism.

Seeking purity:

"all in the stream of Christian renewal movements, all given the vocation of calling the church back to its most authentic expression of the gospel."

They're not at all comparable to Wahhabism's political structure. Wahhabism demands an Islamic state and the establishment of fundamentalist Islamic law. But they seek purity and they are fundamentalists.

They are willing to oppose the US government:

"We believe that our obedience to the state or any other institution must be conditioned, tempered, and sometimes rendered impossible because of our higher loyalty to the reign of God."

So, why does the left support these evangelical fundamentalists?

I am promoting E-Prime as a way of getting to the root of debates, not to remove debates.
But, as I said before, your brain may not process E-Prime the way mine does--Tosk

Fair enough,and you hopefully recall the frequent times I have praised your contributions here,so I have no axes to grind.But assuming that the 'your brain'comment is merely a descriptive analysis rather than a 'normative' evaluation,does this not limit the utility of your proposed method?If I literally cannot understand what you are saying,how can any debate take place.I be speaking binary(flexible though it might be at any given time),and you want to be speaking something which for me might as well be Chinese.Your conclusions may in fact be RIGHT,but since I can't likely process them as you appear to do,communication becomes impossible.Even on a practical level this 'seems'a dubious technique for conflict resolution.
Even in your latest example for instance,'some people'(not necessarily me),do believe that Killing Babies(what is critical is to define babies;is it not? )is a BAD thing,and this belief is not at all dependent on how many others might happen to share that value system.I just cannot see that these statements reflect the same arguments.One is a statement of personal values and by extension a statement on societies 'correct'path ,and the other is a conditional evaluation based upon what might be considered 'repugnant'.One can make the legitimate argument that 'some'social instructions are subject to variation based upon 'truer'knowledge,but if everything is relative,then it is conceivable that,for example,murder might NOT be considered reprehensible.Not murder in a specific highly evaluated case,but in all cases.Surely that cannot be true.That is the core of my problem with 'seems,and 'appears',which concepts subjectivefy 'external'reality.
A rose is a rose is a rose ,and calling it something else,does not make it less a rose.It simply,IMO, tends to confuse the issue,and preclude reaching firm conclusions.The conversations might be more 'civil',but the end results might leave something to be desired.

marek, Matt, to be more clear (though you've now taken me out of context - so it's not clear that you want clarity as much as talking points to beat someone over the head with, but I'll give you both the benefit of the doubt).

When I want to know what the Democrats think, I look to statements by the Democrats, not Fox News. When I want to know what terrorists think, I look to statements by the terrorists, not the Democrats.

When I was talking to Oyster, I asked why he listened to anti-choice, pro-bankrupcy reform, anti-gay marriage religious nuts who don't really care much about the elderly and children to tell him what to think about Democrats?

Caroline,

1. I am not a liberal in the leftist sense. I think that Prayer is School is protected by the constitution and should be permitted as long as no one is ever coerced (even by peer-pressure) to join. I am against this "if you don't want it abort" style of 'family planning'. I think that the ultimate decision is the womans, but promoting abortion as a perfectly acceptable form of birth control is absurd. I think Social Security needs to go, along with medicare, medicade and welfare. So, I don't really consider myself 'liberal', maybe 'libretarian', but not liberal ;-).

2. I do not believe that once looked at through E-Prime, "that the system of the OTHER will be found to be no better or worse than one's own system?" I think that there are many very bad systems out there. I think that any extremist group is probably going to top the list of bad systems, be they the KKK, Wahabbis, Baathists, Communists, Jim Jones, Do' or weirdos like Terry McVeigh. I don't think that they are equivalent, I think that they are terribly broken.

My post was not to say that extremist Christians and extremist Muslims are equal. I was responding to the question of 'Why is it cool to hate christians?'. I don't think its cool to hate christians. I don't think its cool to make them equivalent. I was only talking about the Aristotlean fallacy that seems to permeate the thinking of the leftists who 'hate christians'.

I used to make them equivalent because I fell victim to the spooks in the language.

I have met a number of American Christians who, it seems, if they could, would impose their view of morality/reality on every individual in the nation, in a similar (but not equal) vein, we see extreme Muslims who would do the same.

By using Aristotlean logic I classified both as bad and therefore made the neuro-linguistic leap of error that made them appear to be equal when I discussed them. I don't plan on falling back into that trap.

Carlos,

What is a "christian extremist" exactly? Someone who votes for the GOP because they are against abortion? Or is a "christian extremist" someone who resists Leftist efforts to remove all vestiges of christiany from our history and collective memories?

No, I would classify a Christian Extremist as someone who wishes to impose their personal views and morals on society at large. Voting GOP because you don't approve of abortion, seems to me to simply be a free American. Shooting an abortion doctor or standing outside a clinic shouting at some woman who just had an abortion that she's going to hell... that seems extreme to me.

How exactly is a "christian extremist" in your face daily? In the near future, when the ACLU sues to remove the ten commandments from the Supreme Court building and conservatives resist it, are they guilty of being "extremist christians"?

Well, first... let me be clear in my opinion of the ACLU. They are a Extremely left-leaning organization who, occasionally does good, but often has an unbalanced view of which 'rights' to support. In my opinion, the ACLU should be fighting for the right of any State to determine the appropriateness of such a monument. I may disagree with a States decision, but I would respect their right to make it. (Personally, I'm for NOT pissing off people with unnecessary bric-a-brac).

As for how 'extremist christians' get in ones face... I see a group of people shouting and carrying the most hateful signs on a regular basis near the abortion clinic in Columbus. Recently, I was on campus and a large line of people were heading into a nearby venue when some musical group was playing (probably rock/alternative considering the venue). Across the street, with bullhorns were two men in suits telling the people in line that Satan was misleading them with such music. In fact, they tried overshouting the entertainment hired by the venue to for crowd while they waited in line.

They have the right to protest and shout and make asses of themselves, much like the Moonbat left has a right to protest and shout and make asses out of themselves. And, just like the Crazy Moonbat antics of Mooreons makes you find them repugnant (and by extension Democrtas in general), many non-christians find the same formula with Christians.

Is that a bit more clear?

Tosk

mary, the Sojurners are not absolute pacifists. I know that you don't care to get to the bottom of what they believe, and are just looking for talking points to bludgeon people (Is that all you care about? Bludgeoning people with half-truths? Certainly seems that way, given that you segue randomly from gotya-to-gotya time after time) but do a little more research, would you?

The left has no problem with evangelical fundamentalists. It's right-wing evangelical fundamentalists that we don't accept. That's because we don't accept people on the right-wing. The only evangelical president of the modern age was a Democrat, remember?

"If some Leftist is more afraid of an "extremist christian" than he is of some "distant" muslim extremist, then that's simply more proof of the warped mentality that permeates the Left."

Yes Carlos, it does.

Tosk

dougf,

I certianly didn't intend for the "your brain" comment to be degrading in any sense. I meant it more along the lines of "Maybe your Windows based computer won't be able to run this iMac program".

I would propose though, that they evaluation you made of E-Prime (and its limitations to ones who can "speak the language") is correct. In my experience, E-Prime is unintelligible to most people that first review it.

One reason that this seems to be the case is a difference in software. It seems likely that the principal software used in the human brain consists of words, metaphors, disguised metaphors, and linguistic structures in general. The Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski Hypothesis, in anthropology, holds that a change in language can alter our perception of the cosmos. A revision of language structure, in particular, can alter the brain as dramatically as a psychedelic. In our metaphor, if we change the software, the computer operates in a new way.

I find that people who have never examined E-Prime, tend to be at a complete loss to synthesize any value from it. Those who have begun to use it in writing (it's popular in some scientific and philosophical books as well as a number of students of "Maybe Logic") tend to notice actual changes in their speech. As the speech changes, the writing often seems to become more clear. Once the speech and writing has changed, major changes in the actual perception of your experiences seem to follow.

I would say that E-Prime, in my experience appears to have modified the way I view my reality. It hasn't made me less passionate, nor has it made me feel that everything is morally equivalent (indeed, quite the opposite).

Again, this is only my experience and perhaps it doesn't happen like that for everyone, or anyone else... perhaps its all in my head. I can only speak to what I have experienced.

Tosk

FC - How do you tell the difference between a right-wing evangelical fundamentalist and a left-wing evangelical fundamentalist?

Both claim to want to help the poor, both want others to share their beliefs, both insist on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. So, what's the difference?

Mary,

I think we would have to seperate the religious views and the political views of the individuals. For example, most evangelicals will be very anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro prayer in school, pro ten commandments on the statehouse lawn. In short, it must be other political factors that seperate them. Likely it is the Libretarian vs. Statist dichotemy.

If you're an evangelical that believes one should never go to war, then you're probably anti-war, but not necessarily left-wing. If you believe that the State should protect and provide for the poor, you may be left wing, if you believe that the government should get their fingers out of your money, but put them into the lives of other people, you might be right wing. IF you're like many evangelicals that I've met, you think that government should just get the hell out of everyone life and deal with interstate commerce and national defense. I suppose those might be libretarian, but tend to end up with the Republicans.

I would say though, that the extremist evnagelicals seem to be collected mostly under the Republican name, currently. While the extremist non-religious seem to be collected on the left-wing.

It's interesting that the extremists on both sides share one factor. They want more authoritarian/Statist control over the liberties of individuals. They just argue about which bits they think the government SHOULD twiddle with.

Tosk

You will find that the STATE is the sort of organization that, while it does large things poorly, also does small things poorly.

Left-Wing Evangelical Fundamentalists believe the government is a legitmate vehicle to fufill Jesus' message of compassion. Right-Wing Evangelical Fundamentalists believe the government is a legitmate vehicle to fufill the Old Testament commandments on cleanliness and family structure.

Left-Wing: http://www.therightchristians.org/
Right-Wing: http://www.moralmajority.us/

Both are perfectly valid.

Right-Wing Evangelical Fundamentalists believe the government is a legitmate vehicle to fufill the Old Testament commandments on cleanliness and family structure.

That's silly. Obviously a more accurate portrayal of righwing christians wouldn't have the desired effect on your audience.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for generalizations, just not poor ones such as this.

Um, their politics?

That's silly. Obviously a more accurate portrayal of righwing christians wouldn't have the desired effect on your audience.

Maybe clarification of your views on this might be illuminating, Carlos.

If you think my description of Right-Wing Fundamentalists/Evangelicals is wrong, please feel free to correct me.

Left/right wing distinctions are defined, in most political spectrums, as differences of opinion on economic philosophy, with the extremes at either end being government intervention and control of the economy on the left and laissez-fair capitalism on the right.

Maybe clarification of your views on this might be illuminating, Carlos.

DPU,

I'm totally in favor of clarity. Just let me know what in particular you'd like clarified.

FC,

our current family structure isn't "old testament", because in the OT polygamy was rather common. Who can forget Solomon's 1000 wives and concubines. Also King David's, and even Abraham's I believe. The list goes on.

Our family stru