(as for the libs, well, I can only think of one or two of them that come across as being moderately intelligent, let alone extremely so

Ouch.

This was way too easy. If you are a Republican who reads these posts and feels reassured that you are on the side of right, you're just fooling yourself. The lunatic fringe is never hard to find on any extreme of the political spectrum. Sorry to disappoint you all, but as a liberal myself, who has walked in liberal circles for years and has met thousands of other liberals, I have met maybe 1 or 2 in that entire time who expressed views even remotely like the ones posted above. One thing you might learn from us liberals: Never trust anecdotal evidence.

(as for the libs, well, I can only think of one or two of them that come across as being moderately intelligent, let alone extremely so Ouch.

Tex, I find many more!  Check out my latest.  JU has restored my faith in sane and rational liberals!

And then there are the others! Repeat after me: You are not responsible for them!

I have met maybe 1 or 2 in that entire time who expressed views even remotely like the ones posted above. One thing you might learn from us liberals: Never trust anecdotal evidence.

Want to see a lot more?  Go to democratunderground.org!  I am not saying they are mainstream, but there are a hell of a lot more than 1 or 2.

Thanks but no thanks, Dr. Guy. What's the point? I will only say this: a Republican who spends inordinate amounts of time browsing a site like democratunderground to reassure himself that he's so much better makes about as much sense as a woman browsing pro-NAMBLA websites to reassure herself that all men are pedophiles. Sites like this attract the lunatic fringe, and spending too much time on them will disconnect you from reality.

urm... DU isn't fringe, not in the least. It is a wildly popular website. For an even MORE mainstream source, go take a look at the kind of things that are spouted at MoveON.

My point stands. Who CARES if it is fringe? How many more people would it have taken to win the 2000 election? Make this out to be rare if you like, but the Dems would be perfectly happy to rally a hundred thousand radical voters from the green or other fringe parties.

Even fringe is dangerous when the elections are this close. Moderate Republicans are much, much less apt to shift to the Democratic party than all the "fringe" radicals are to mobilize in the face of a winable election against a republican they hate.

I will make the assumption that you aren't a liberal, BakerStreet, and I will proudly acknowledge that I am. Being to your Left politically, I would be less likely to consider much of the democraticunderground screed as fringe than you would. Ironically, you seem to actually believe it to be more mainstream than I do. If you spend a lot of your time reading this trash, that may explain why you think that it is representative of most liberals. I reassert my earlier claim, out of thousands that I have known, I have only known 1 or 2 that are anything like the democraticunderground junk that Republicans seem to enjoy posting all over the place. Yes, there is a difference between online forums and the real world. As far as your point about them being "dangerous" because they might actually help a *gasp* Democrat win an election, that point is naturally lost on me, since we clearly have different ideas about what is dangerous.

As far as your point about them being "dangerous" because they might actually help a *gasp* Democrat win an election, that point is naturally lost on me, since we clearly have different ideas about what is dangerous.

Oooh... sarcasm.

But, enough of that. It's sad to see these opinions, and it's sad because people out there espouse this crap they call intellectual *insert big word here*.

Truly sad.

"If you spend a lot of your time reading this trash, that may explain why you think that it is representative of most liberals. I reassert my earlier claim, out of thousands that I have known, I have only known 1 or 2 that are anything like the democraticunderground junk that Republicans seem to enjoy posting all over the place."

No offense intended, but do you think your leaders represent the "normal" Liberals that you insist are so numerous? Would you say that Chappaquiddick Ted, Maxine Waters, or Dianne Feinstein represent the kind of people you are talking about?

I don't think so either. The problem, though, is that these "nice" Liberals DON'T REFLECT SUCH ATTITUDES IN THE VOTING BOOTH. They still insist upon voting for people like Ted Kennedy, who totters far, far left of the norm. That's why the radical Left is so threatening. They are the ones we have to deal with, not Joe Q. Socialminded down the street.

The people you are talking about don't really oppose much. They don't really 'fight' much. Why should we concern ourselves with them, beyond the horror shows they vote for on election day?

So, in the end, where does you assertion leave us? Are we supposed to be happy that the leaders these people send to Washingon are far more radical? Why? They aren't demonstrating their moderation when they vote for such.

To put a sharper head on it, why would we address the people you are talking about? Why would be be outraged with people who don't give us reason for outrage.

If what you are saying is true, Liberals are dismally misrepresented, and should see to it. Until then, we have to assume they support the people they vote for and allow to speak for them.

Point taken, Baker Street. But to be fair, you've changed the subject. I didn't notice any quotes from Ted, Maxine, or Dianne in this article. As for your further point, it is interesting that you believe that you need to be outraged by someone in order for them to be worth addressing. Believe me, you will make much more progress for your cause by addressing the Joe Q. Socialmindeds of the world. I have been active in local politics for quite a while, and have learned that I have a much better success rate convincing "nice" Republicans to vote liberal than by wasting my time arguing with extremists. Your obsession with the fringe does your own cause a disservice.
Helix the II - it is interesting that you place McVeigh on the left; he could hardly have been more right wing; but I generally agree with your sentiment. Although what scares me even more than a bomber or a sniper is an Attorney General perusing my library list.

"As for your further point, it is interesting that you believe that you need to be outraged by someone in order for them to be worth addressing."

So, you're saying something need not be noteworthy to take note of it? Why ARE all these definitions for? People who don't give you much to discuss are... well, difficult to discuss...

"I have been active in local politics for quite a while, and have learned that I have a much better success rate convincing "nice" Republicans to vote liberal than by wasting my time arguing with extremists."

The problem is radicals aren't being argued with, they are being courted.

"Your obsession with the fringe does your own cause a disservice."

Again, that relies on your definition of 'fringe'. No, you wouldn't need to court your own politicians. What I take issue with is when your politicians court said 'fringe', and they gain a louder voice than all these nice Liberals you keep alluding to, and who we never see much of...

Sites like this attract the lunatic fringe, and spending too much time on them will disconnect you from reality.

So you are calling Elizabeth Edwards, wife of John Edwards a lunatic fringe? She has an account there and has posted there as I have already documented.

If what you say is true, that speaks very ill of the leadership of your party.

Lost Emperor - would you be interested in coming back to rule? Very valid point about who is cruisin' what? Many, many Reps and Dems (who have long voting records and tremendous civic ties) do not know what the term "blog" means. They would never spend minutes/hours espousing their views to online strangers. (To either showcase their knowledge or just plain run over the other person in an attack.) They may become more involved since Newsweek has printed Arianna Huffington's "location" -- and one must admit, there will probably be fodder for everyone.

I'm very concerned about who runs my state and who acts like he runs my/our country, but the amount of blogging is becoming a concern for me. I am all for it -- this is how we learn; by either looking at another angle to a thought or by sandbagging your own previous belief. We have to be "out there" to have varied opinions from various sources. We shouldn't just sit and watch embalmbed newscasters on Fox News as our media education.

But, but . . . how many minutes a day are people blogging or communicating online that is not directly business related? Or, not family-related? Excessive online activity is as much an addiction as ones we are more familiar with and willing to 'wag our fingers at those uncontrollable individuals.' You may be shopping (in person or) online excessively, ordering illegal pills, dating someone the age of your teenager . . . let's not forget that any behavior that is compelling, exciting and is doing any damage to anyone -- it's a problem behavior. It doesn't matter IN THE GRAND SCALE OF LIFE if Pat Buchanan was abducted and we never saw him again. AND, we had to see Jesse Jackson on every commercial on TV. Or, every time we turned on the telly we heard Ted Kennedy tell us he holds only the truth and is a walking Messiah. So what? What would be worse if in our personal life we are spending too much time on the computer, if we have a family? If you have no ties, no lover or companion . . . type 'til you need "wrist rests," but otherwise . . . the U.S. has their own problems that can be solved without intervention from political leaders. Being physically, mentally, emotionally unavilable to a SO, spouse, or a child makes America crumble . . . family by family . . . much faster than decisions made in Washington. Anyone, everyone -- think about how much time you spend on the computer -- trumping and hating.

I like what you do, continue this way.