From: Ad 

Gary Britt wrote:
> That may be true, but I see more intolerance on the left.

Just like Nelson putting a telescope to his blind eye.

> The left
> never sees its own intolerance which is what makes the story from Klein
> interesting.  However, your message thread title was incorrect because
> Joe Klein's story wasn't about intolerance on the right (all lefties
> think that and its a given) Joe Klein's story wasn't about growing
> intolerance on the left and right.  His story was about growing
> intolerance on the LEFT.  So your original thread title was misleading
> and in effect a misquote.  He wrote only about the growing intolerance
> on the left.

No he didn't

"And that is precisely the danger here. Fury begets fury. Poison from
the right-wing talk shows seeped into the Republican Party's bloodstream
and sent that party off the deep end. Limbaugh's show-where Dick Cheney
frequently expatiates-has become the voice of the Republican establishment.
The same could happen to the Democrats. "

i.e. intolerance is SOP on the right.

Adam

>
> Gary
>
> Rich Gauszka wrote:
>> There's far too much intolerance on either 'far' side of the
>> blogosphere. The opposition is demonized and there is little room for
>> debate nor is any attempt made to communicate - just preaching to the
>> choir.
>>
>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>> news:46685b7c$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> When Joe Klein says something bad about the left.  You know it must
>>> be really bad.  Because Klein is an idiot for the left.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> Rich Gauszka wrote:
>>>> http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1630004,00.html
>>>> But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying,
>>>> often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing
>>>> sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with
>>>> the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed-especially people
>>>> like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes
>>>> disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable. Some
>>>> of this is understandable: the left-liberals in the blogosphere are
>>>> merely aping the odious, disdainful-and politically successful-tone
>>>> that right-wing radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh pioneered.
>>>> They are also justifiably furious at a Bush White House that has
>>>> specialized in big lies and smear tactics.
>>>>
>>>> And that is precisely the danger here. Fury begets fury. Poison from
>>>> the right-wing talk shows seeped into the Republican Party's
>>>> bloodstream and sent that party off the deep end. Limbaugh's
>>>> show-where Dick Cheney frequently expatiates-has become the voice of
>>>> the Republican establishment. The same could happen to the
>>>> Democrats. The spitballs aimed at me don't matter much. The
>>>> spitballs aimed at Harman, Clinton and Obama are another story.
>>>> Despite their votes, each of those politicians believes the war must
>>>> be funded. (Obama even said so in his statement explaining his
>>>> vote.) Each knows, as Senator Jim Webb has said repeatedly, that we
>>>> must be more careful getting out of Iraq than we were getting in.
>>>> But they allowed themselves to be bullied into a more simplistic,
>>>> more extreme position. Why? Partly because they fear the power of
>>>> the bloggers to set the debate and raise money against them. They
>>>> may be right-in the short (primary election) term; Harman faced a
>>>> challenge from the left in 2006. In the long term, however,
>>>> kowtowing to extremists is exactly the opposite of what this country
>>>> is looking for after the lethal radicalism of the Bush
Administration.
>>
>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5