To: J.B.C. who wrote (336582 ) 1/2/2003 7:57:58 PM From: MSI Respond to of 769669 A couple problems there -- a)you classify "liberals" as those who don't object to criticism of Bush or the Washington establishment, obviously w/o taking the trouble to understand the meaning either of the term, or the critiques. b)the epithets and threats without substance looks like panic. I see epithets from BF, but as an aside to the facts, and without the "get off my cloud" type panic. And there's a willingness even eagerness to defend opinions with data. I notice the response from those who feel it's necessary to personally defend Bush against the real or imagined criticism of uncomfortable facts or questions is to ignore or deny the facts, accept the facts but blame someone else (Clinton or democrats or "you liberals"), threaten the poster, or panic, rather than to come back with other facts to substantiate or counter the assertions. It certainly takes more "backbone" and hard work to determine the truth, and would make more sense, if that's the goal. With some, that isn't the goal obviously, some are more comfortable raising the noise level. Agreed, it's certainly irritating when someone takes issue with closely-held beliefs. But there may things you believe in that don't add up when looked at in daylight. If so, they don't go away just by firing the messenger. I say this because it's MPO we're headed into rough waters, economically and politically, this year, with greater polarization that we've seen, maybe since the Civil War. It's time to ruthlessly examine every premise, every so-called "fact", and every leader's motives and results, and see who's telling the truth, who benefits and who loses, with every step towards possible disaster.