>>Show me your argument, and I'll try to see the cred.

It started out with the suggestion that we should cast everything to the wind and get in with the studies and suggestions of the ecologically conscious left. Some suggested that the left have overplayed their hand and life in the USA so bad now, Mrs Annonymous suggested that's just a shill to protect corporations I suggested that the first gentleman's proposition wasn't so whacky. Do you see the argument now? You obviously did, because you addressed it in your own way...

>>If you addressed the issue at hand, instead of falling >>back on more tired harangues about Clinton, I might be >>able to see something.

I thought that I did...

>>Instead I get 'eco-terrorists.'

This is the inverted `name` for those who go around suggesting all business is corrupt to the core. It's the same shorthand that was use during the election, don't get pious with me, mate...

>>'Neo-Nazis.'

This was used because certain commentators of left-leaning persuasion like to brand everyone they disagree with as `extreme` and call it hate speech when the right dare to refer to them in equally snide manners.

>>'Billy Jeff.'

If GW is fairgame for ridicule, then so is he. Would you prefer that I called him `The Hick Rapist`?

>>'Bulverism.'

Sorry if I didn't roll out any of Noam Chomsky's oneliners.

>>Snore. Your mention of Bulverism was incorrectly applied.

HOW? I quote

"In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly"

Since this is the board that suggested that AIDS could be a goverment conspiracy - this is hardly the cradle of balanced political analysis. But keep using the talking points of the DNC if you want "tired harrangues....name calling....etc etc etc" (someone else used this stalling device on me here too...)

>>I'm saying "not part of the corporate machine...hmmm, >>maybe their findings haven't been tainted by shareholder >>agendas." What's not to understand?

So would you rather starve than have half a loaf? The real snore is that in 20 years time, you'll become the company man that many of the Woodstock activists became. But, hey - at least you have your ideals...that's all you'll have.

Richard