"1) I thought we were discussing this article -- this article did descend into those name calling tactics and disinformation. I wasn't attacking you, just the tone of this article and most of the left posting here."

We are discussing the article. But more to the point, we're discussing MY response to YOUR response to the article. You resorted to name-calling in response to PERCEIVED name-calling on the part of the article's author. I should point out, however, that the author never called YOU (whoever "you" supposedly are, since you're a self-described moderate, and this article appears to address dyed-in-the-wool Republicans) "hitler-like" or a "commie." It compared a reversal of posture by the Communist Party towards Hitler to the reversal in posture by the Republic Party towards the preeminent importance of experience in presidential politics. So you responded to a straw man with insults that were not only not in kind, but also non-existent.

Also, phrases like "most of the left posting here" are a form of disinformation--and I know you hate that, so let's drop it.

"(2) I didn't say you said, but it has been said on this board by many and all over the web. The left calls for the right to stop it, but seldom calls for their own side to stop it."

Well, then let me be the first to speak: Lefties, righties, libbies, GOP-ers, wingnuts, extremists, blowhards, fanatics, Moore disciples, Limbaugh apostles, and fundamentalists of all stripes--hear me now!!! You impoverish the national discourse by resorting to name-calling and poorly-reasoned debate. Shape up your act because your enemies have no choice but to respond with insults when you insult them!

OK? Can we agree that both sides have a lot of work to do in this area?

"3) Seriously, read about Goebbles and Moore -- they both believed that their ends were so important that it justified the means of twisting the truth, attacking/mocking anyone that disagreed, using political-correctness in the extreme. Basically, being Hollywood democrats."

No, YOU seriously, read about Goebbels. Now go back and read about him again. If your only point of comparison is that both he and Moore "twisted the truth," then you'd better lump every propagandist in history in the Goebbels camp, which is essentially every and all politicians. Your comparison is a weak one because it illuminates nothing about Geobbels or Moore; instead, it manipulates the reader into thinking that Moore, as a propagandist, shares a moral culpability for his mis-information on the same order as the man widely considered the architect of Kristallnacht. This is misleading and a gross over-generalization.

Also, "Hollywood democrats" are like Goebbels? See above.

"4) It isn't hypocrisy that when someone attacks you, to demonstrate their own failings in the same area (point out their hypocrisy)."

Um, yes, that is the very definition of hypocrisy. You attacked an alleged connection between the Republican Party and Hitler, then used the same tactic to connect a Democratic propagandist with Goebbels--and then lump "Hollywood democrats" in there. This is not "demonstrating an opponent's failings." Unless you're being satirical. Which you weren't. So you're a hypocrite.

"(5) I am a moderate. I don't mind moderate liberals -- both of the ones I've met in my 44 years were nice people. Most that associate with liberals, usually aren't moderate. Look at Obama -- many liberals think he's a moderate centrist? Really? This guy is far left. But honestly, Clintons were moderates (Hillary would have been a tougher choice for me) -- the Dems went for the hard left instead."

You've met two "liberals," yet proclaim that "most that associate with liberals usually aren't very moderate." How do you expect me to respond to this? What if I said, "I've met two conservatives, so I can pretty confidently state that those that associate with conservatives usually aren't very moderate." Do you get it? Do I have to spell out the disconnect in your statement?

Anyways, this is getting far off-topic. You've yet to truly address my original post, which was not an invitation to discuss the merits of Roe v. Wade but rather to point out an inconsistency in your original post.

Go back and read my post again and respond to THAT.