[Moneyguy1]

I really do not know good definitions of the political extremes, and even wonder if there are good definitions of same.

True, I am not attracted to Mr. Cheney any more than I am toward any individual in a position of power who tends to treat truth in a cavalier manner and claims executive privelege on inconsequential matters. I didn't like it when Clinton and his cronies did it either. And, it would appear there are even members of the Republican hierarchy who have voiced the opinion that Cheney should go, like Bush I who was advised to replace Dan when he ran for re-election. I would like to see the President be able to function without being eclipsed, perhaps he is a better leader than he currently appears (to me) to be. BTW..perhaps a look at the corporate scandals of late might help explain my dislike of former executives (even though I had my own company and an MBA). I admit my bias in that respect, having been witness to some companies that were run only to benefit a few (Global Crossings, Sterling Homex to name two). But that is a whole different potential topic, the need, the degree, and type of control that should be applied to large publicly owned corporations

The point I was laboring to make is there is grist for the mill on both sides; common hopes that can be fused and used for the overall betterment of our society. The problem is who is defining "betterment" and who will be bettered.

Yes, I have views on the political situation. Sometimes they will rub people the wrong way. I try to remain civil and establish a dialog.

And, if, as the excerpt states, the media is left biased in print, then from observation the opposite case could be made on cable news stations. Could be; I am not making that accusation. It is just one possible understanding of the situation.

Do you, Slacker, really think that GWB is the best person to be in the White House? If we disagree, that is an honest difference of opinion. I can respect that. But, I also said I wondered if the opposition was any better.

Truly sorry if my remarks upset you. That is not my aim. If there are specific points I made that you find offensive, please deliniate them and I will try to be more specific.

Like I have said before, trying to stay in the middle is dangerous. Both sides can take potshots!!!!!!!

My comments were aimed at the extremes of the spectrum; those factions that cannot or will not listen to any philosophy but their own; showing distain for the views of others who may think differently. I do think the majority of citizens are somewhere closer to the center, although all the noise comes from the ends.

I disagree with extremists. Is that wrong?

Please also observe that the above statements contain no attempt at belittling rational views, sarcasm or even innuendo. There are those on both sides of the aisle (but far from the poles) who debate and opine here without resorting to that, and I appreciate it.

Overall, an interesting subject for discussion. Whether there is any definite answer one way or the other will be the best part of the debate.

(wearing wet suit to deflect oncoming mud)