[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your responses to assertions of leftist influence at various sites and functions are 'it's all a right wing conspiracy'.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are deliberately using the word "leftist" as a synonym for "communist"/"Stalinist"/"violent anarchist". These words do not mean the same thing, and engaging in this sort of semantic sleight-of-hand won't change that, no matter how badly you want it to.

Accusing me of harboring sinister motives won't change that reality for you either.

I encourage you to get out from in front of the TV, turn off your AM radio, and actually take the time to meet and talk to some of the people who disagree with you. Next time you see people gathering to oppose the war, take a few minutes and go down and just talk to them. Don't attack. Don't scream. Don't try and bully them into submission. Just listen and consider.

You'll probably project sinister motives onto them, too, I'm sure. But if you actually are capable of seeing past your own biases, you might actually learn that your fellow Americans aren't all Communist agents. Some of us actually care about this country, and we are sickened watching what the nutcases in power are doing to our nation, and the young men and women who are paying for this idiocy with their bodies and lives.

This isn't a rah-rah section for a football game, where it's all about whose "team" wins. Real people are being killed. Right now. Someone's kid is going to come home in a body bag tomorrow. And the day after that. And the day after that.

And that's the reality that the right-wing absolutely doesn't want to talk about.

So, let's talk about whether Jane down the street is secretly a communist agent. Sure, why not, let's do that. I mean, it's either that, or you'll have to talk about 2500 dead bodies, and all that blood on your hands. And we know you don't want to talk about that.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually having read my post later I regreted using 'leftist' instead of far left. It was not purposeful.

You are obviously passionate in your anti-war stance. There are excellent reasons to oppose this war, and to be passionate in doing so. However to recklessly impugn the character of those who differ(and in Riddick's case he actually stated he is indifferent, I will take him at his word) for principled reasons of their own does your cause a disservice. Of course you have the true faith and judging from your posts can not concieve of how one who questions the motivations of aspects of the pacifist movement could be anything other than a heathen. Nevertheless one who asserts something unpalatable to you is not automatically an unscrupulous person, and saying they lack character so matter of factly actually puts you in a bad light. I have no horse in this game and that is my observation.

I had not thought much about the makeup of demonstrations since the nuclear freeze movement. Riddick's posts made me think again, and your personal attack of his character made me more interested. Why the vitriol? Either there is something to his assertions or Quads lets his passions get the best of him.

You are mistaken when you label the right as being for this war and not wanting to talk about body bags. This is a neo-con war not necessarily one advocated by true conservatives. I myself am happy to discuss the merits of the conflict and the motivations of those who got us into the conflict, Riddicks posts were about the far left movement and their influence at the demonstrations. I am interested and your idea of seeing for myself is a good one. I think I will.