>>>>>>>Not just angry white people but angry middle and older aged white people. Look up the demographics and get back to me, OK?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And why, exactly, does that make their concerns or anger invalid? If one were to characterize a protest as "just a bunch of angry young black people" would that make their concerns not worth considering?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you have issues with their issues, fine, but you are arguing against *who* they are, not what they believe.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am arguing against what they believe. It sure aren't the principles this country was founded on.
>>>>
>>>>This country was founded upon the notion of less government, less taxes, and free enterprise.
>>>>
>>>>Obama and the democrats are diametrically opposed to all three.
>>>
>>>That is a complete misunderstanding of our founding principles. Our founders put a lot of thought into what form of government the new country should have. There were differences between them, Jeffersonians vs. Haliltonians, but none of them believed we should just run around like hillbillies. They established a very strong government with three branches, federal powers and state powers, on and on.
>>
>>If you don't see a problem with characterizing "lower taxes, free enterprise and less government" as "running around like hillbillies" you will never understand why so many are coming to have such littel respect for the strength of your arguments.
>>
>>(and oh so sensitive arbiter of racism and prejudice that you are I am quite surprised you have no problem with "hillbillies" as an epithet. It was a pack of those hillbillies - including my ancestors - who fought the revolution that allowed the great experiment to even happen.)
>
>This surprises me but we seem to have nothing more to say to each other. Quoting yourself, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of our history. We were not founded by hillbillies.

I was taking exception to your characterization in what I see to be a liberal elitist fashion of the farmers and backwoodsmen who fought in the revolution (not the Morrises and the Hancocks and the Gerry's) as hillbillies. They were like those Pennsylvania voters who cling to God and their guns because they aren't smart enough to know the One has come and knows what's best for them. They were just a bunch of angry white guys.

The founding - and the survival - of the American experiment was made possible by the sacrifices of people you seem to write off as unworthy. They never got in the paintings, but without them there would have been no America. And without a few more of my hillbilly ancestors the second great crisis would never have been resolved in the direction of a slave-free America.

And if you find my understanding of history flawed, when I daresay I've spent a lot more time studying it than you have, then indeed what you are looking for is a political mud fight or some validation of your premise that the country today is more divided etc than at any time in its history. Your posts in the last week show you're either drinking or know little about that history or both.

I'm not arguing politics - I don't have strongly partisan views in current politics and hold positions I'm sure the zealots of either side would find disturbing or even disgusting, but I also don't like to see bad history used to support political positions by those who haven't thought it through very clearly and get their feelings hurt when they get called on matters of fact on which they are, to say the least, vague.

We discussed this in a private message regarding a brilliant, acerbic and thin-skinned fellow whose sensibilities were riled by my disagreement. I think I generally do a pretty good job of staying out of ad hominem mudslinging and measuring contests, especially in areas outside of my own expertise.

But I also don't have much sympathy for those who will throw out strongly partisan characterizations of things that are not a matter of opinion but a matter of record and then claim they are being personally attacked when somebody calls them on it.