Optimus, I have ho idea how you were able to wring the following interpretation from my post:
<<3) I resent Moonbeam's labelling everyone who agrees with the military actions in Afganistan as "nazis".>>
All I did was replace the words Americans with Germans and Congresspersons with Nazis in the following Texmaster provided letter of protest:
Then there is you. Your act shows that you cannot be one of us. Your act shows that you think so little of us and hold your own ideals and intellect above that of the Americans you represent, above your fellow Congresspersons, above our leaders, their advisors, clerics, and experts.
My purpose had nothing to do with equating our military actions in Afghanistan with Nazis. I simply wanted to show that the interpretation you put on an identical idea depends on your orientation, the way you react internally to the objects used to present the idea.
What from one point of view is scathing criticism, can, with a simple substitution of words, become the highest praise.
Put very simply, when somebody goes against the tide of popular opinion for the sake of truth, they are heroic, but when somebody goes against what is good, they are excoriated. In either case one will be excoriated by the majority, the truth will always depend of the objectivity of ones stand. All the screaming and yelling in this thread is from people who already think they know. They have that in common with the Germans of WW11 vintage. As in all these instances, history, which, in this instant, is still being written, will make a more definitive judgment.
Like the Germans who were fools not to hear the descent of their time, those who dismiss the critic now are no less fools. One can only do the best one can. We take our stands. But to be so sure as never to be able to entertain doubt or question ones vision, to attack and deride anything or anybody who thinks they see something different is exactly the symptom of the fanatic and the reason we debate and challenge ideas as our democratic duty.