> 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 your argument is that the "ecologically conscious left" has overplayed its hand in respect to global warming studies and energy policy, I'd like some detail. And if your argument is also that life in the USA isn't so bad now, I'd like to know for whom. Do you think the collapse of the middle class is a myth, like global warming?

And here's another thing--isn't it ironic that talking about the conscienceless acts of American big business gets me branded a leftist by someone who purports to be a member of the "family values" camp?

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

> 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.

You think the left is alone in this? Shame on you.

> 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"

Here's how: I've been explaining, in some detail, my examples of HOW I believe the current system is flawed. I've asked for the same in return. Instead I get pithy one-liners about American Indians, life expectancy, and Billy Jeff Clinton. So who's guilty of Bulverism? None of my assertions have been addressed; none of my questions have been answered. Your position seems to be "I like what big business does for me." That's very nice, but...where's the rest?

> 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 believe one of my points against big business was the way they gleefully lined up at the trough that the DNC made available to them in '95, Richard, so I fail to see how my arguments include their "talking points" in any way. You know as well as I do that both candidates agreed not to talk about any of these issues in last year's election.

> 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.

I think your definitions of "starve" and "half a loaf" are skewed. I fail to see how closing the door on corporate access to government is going to starve us. I also fail to see how an upturn in morals and ethics in American business is going to take food off my plate.

In addition, I find it insulting that you presume to know who I am and where I'll be in 20 years. But just to set the record straight, I'm not some college Amnesty International weekend warrior. I'm pushing 30, and not only am I a "company man," but I own and operate a corporation. It's like I keep telling you--things don't always fit into the neat little compartments you seem to view the world in. Again: these are not liberal issues. These are not conservative issues. These are populist issues. Maybe a flashlight and a map would help?