I have never said one isnt intitaled to thier opinion.

For the record i am not nor have i ever been a supporter of the evangelical movements attempts to control the republicans, any more than i have supported the s o c i o l i s t s attempts to take over the democrats.

As i said it was an example turned back on its self ( devils advocate) to show why the rant was an argument made with complete bias of such a one sided kind that it has no base in logic and ergo deserves rebuttle.

I find the assumtion that i am sinking so low or flameing when i have simply turned sophistry back on itself as and example personally offensive Aurora which its too easy to just point at your own post and say its flameing me ? come now,

the constitution speaks of the right of free speach and sets the standards by which is allowed, specifically that treason and inciting a riot are the areas under which it is to be denied, and not by any one party but judicial review, i have seen both parties when in power abuse the interpetation of the law, thomas Jefferson even abused it by holding the surpreme court hostage once, its abuse is even more rampant in many european countries not to mention the countires that have no free speach.

But I see censorship takes many forms when people read between the lines of a post or have a personal involvement and I am sorry if you took personal offence.

(also Bush did happen to get congresses approval prior just like his father did for the first gulf war he cant wage a war without them backing him) and i have never supported him, nor most of his policies, read my numerous other posts

Anyone can get up and spout such statements out the political realm on both sides which doesnt frequently result in any valuable out come when both sides are going to resort to such tactics instead of looking at facts or other emperical evidence, instead of ranting I ask ok then what is the solution to the question posed by the thread, how do we solve compacency? but to do that we need consensus, which cant be achieved when one side continues to rant as opposed to work to a solution .

One persons opinion doesnt speak for everyone, its impossible, blanket statements about opinions of world populations are often tools of the media and ussually based in poor if any statistical anaylasis. I would love to see a system by which real world populations actual opinions could be 100% reported as accurate, but the technology or drive to deliver it doesnt exist yet.

I get my news from more scources than you think, and have been, I have walked the streets of beruit and jeruselem, i have many relatives that live there and in germany, i am in contact with both the jewish and arab sides by blood. I have seen how my mother and our families were driven out of thier country over issues that were exacerbated by failed brittish polcies in the middle east that the usa is no closer to fixing today.

What shocks me is when people swallow such sophistry, instead of recognizing it for what it is.

As for confirming her stereotype? What about the stereotype she is portraying i ask you? I see a sterotype just as bilegerent and sanctimonious; expouseing a belief that renders us incapable to rationally respond to or accept any criticism.

Electing a new President of eaither party or a few senators in america isnt going to in and of itself change the worlds situation. The problems with ever decreasing rescources or the complacency of populations under tyrany by voluntary oppression (democracy). The divisions that exist between the conservative and liberal factions of all democratic governements are not going away by having one or the other side "win".

The fact of the matter is in america most people are moderates, that only lean to the left or right on specific issues with a minority of indivduals that loadly shout propaganda for thier side from the wings, which is why the past few elections have been so close.

Solutions are only going to come when both sides stop mudslinging and sit down to a real discussion.

I am out .
peace.