To: Lane3 who wrote (106633 ) 3/30/2005 11:55:07 AM From: TimF Respond to of 793750 I am focusing on the "worse than Hitler" stuff. It doesn't have to be Hitler. It can be "worse than Stalin", or even "worse than the terrorists", or perhaps "genocidal maniac", or "little Eichmanns". Such statements are more over the top, hysterical, even offensive, than the normal manipulations of the conversations that both sides partake in. I think its clear that such comments come more often from the left, but to be fair the fact that the current president is a Republican might have something to do with it. But since Clinton and other Democratic presidents got less of this I think that's only a partial explanation. I think such comparisons at least as much the theme of Sajak's article as manipulating the rules of the conversation in favor of one side or the other. Sticking to the issue of manipulation of the rules, I think that the left does more of the specific types of manipulation that Sajak was talking about where controversial things that your side says are "1st amendment issues", while controversial things that the other side says are "hate speech". But, you might reasonably ask is he particularly upset at that particular type of manipulation because he thinks its worse, or because he sees liberals doing it. Looking at some other ways to manipulate the playing field - Both sides use the "of course they would say that they are (conservative, liberal, libertarian, French, from Texas, whatever) tactic, and the very similar "I'm not going to (and you shouldn't) listen to stupid <insert unliked group> tactic. Conservatives are more likely to use the "your not patriotic"/"you don't care about our country" tactic, although both sides use it. Tim