Nice rewrite attempt of the left to repeatedly trying to define one of the biggest demons of the 20th century as the right. Just because it’s spouted constantly doesn’t make it true. Hitler was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST. Socialist, get it? He made deals with another Socialist, Stalin, before they turned on each other. The bloodiest wars are among brothers (US Civil War and countless others through history). Hitler v. Stalin was savage for that reason.

Mind you, the same exact media and leftists who try to define NAZI’ism as a rightest ideology also tries to imply that Kennedy’s assassination came from the right, when Oswald was clearly and demonstrably a communist. Yes, the media and history books will acknowledge that fact in the fine print, but all the Camelot nostalgia stories end with the implication that it was the right in America that ended the dream.

You sir, study from historical propaganda, I study from historical fact.

My post was initially a mild dig at OU, recognized the injuries as unfortunate for the kids themselves and used a tongue and cheek theme of “holy v. unholy”.

It was met with a political response about Texas secession that was obviously a mild dig at the right, to which I put in a mild dig at the left.

That was then met with a furious round of insults by BOH who decided to make this thread a political war zone. He hoped I’d back down because of his bully tactics. Just wasn’t inclined to do that in this case. I’m comfortable letting individual readers determine who escalated the political venom here that is truly inappropriate for the board.

is about as defining of radical leftist as you get. Only a leftist would call it pragmatic. Read the polls. Americans reject socialized medicine by huge majorities. The plan being rammed through Congress, while not explicit in its ultimate goal of government-run health care clearly has that end game in mind and as part of its design. There’s video available online of Obama saying precisely that in front of his SEIU friends.

Your support for that issue alone is enough to define you as a radical, but just in case there’s any doubt you’re “teabagging” and other ridicule of those with opinions contrary to yours removes it. Centrists don’t conjure the venom you spew, only radicals on either side.

Let me get this right. If someone actually expresses dissent that you, according to your world view deem loony extremism then that kind of censorship and attempt to intimidate and belittle is justified?

That, sir, is precisely the kind of speech that our nation must protect. That I served proudly and with honor to protect. Speech that may be extremely distasteful and at odds with some, any segment of society that attempts to suppress it.

While military action in Iraq was debated it was a free-wheeling uncensored debate. In fact, far more coverage and voice was given to dissenters, who’s protests consumed far more of the media’s (largely favorable) coverage than the 30% of the population that opposed it at the time. The historical record exists as a matter of fact that 70% of the public supported the military action in Iraq at the moment we launched it. Yet coverage to protesters gave the impression that 70% of the public opposed it.

Oh, yes, you’re kinda right on one thing, conservatives gave far too much latitude to the big-spenders (Bush, Hastert, Delay, Frist) in the Republican party, leaders in the party who did their best to cede the financial responsibility mantra to the big government party, quite an unintentional accomplishment to have witnessed. Except, as a lefty you only cite the taxes portion of the budget insanity when the spending is what drives the taxation levels in the first place.