Timothy3: "Except for that guy who keeps shouting, "No soup for you," but then I think he's youngservative's Mom (yeah, that's right, Mom)."

She's got to have some soup left to serve to him when she goes down to his room in the basement.

Klytus: "Hey Xrandadu! A big fat check for all your efforts is in the mail!"

Excellent. I'm gonna be rich!

Chicago Boy: "Obama's dissenters, however, are NOT being ignored. They are being labeled as domestic terrorists; they are being caricaturized as dangerous, violent, domestic threats; they are being psycho-analyzed by ivy-league psychiatrists as "crazy," "unstable," etc.; their emails are being catalogued in a database at the White House."

What a crock.

The people protesting are not labeled as domestic terrorists. Not at all. You're referring to a Dept. of Homeland Security report that has to do with militia groups and the like. This report is regarded as very accurate, and there have been numerous incidents which have borne out its predictions.

As for people being "caricatured," what are you referring to?

Who are the Ivy Leage psychiatrists who are psychoanalyzing people? Example? (And since when does a person have to be Ivy League to get a psychiatry or psychology degree?)

Regarding their emails being "catalogued in a database at the White House," that's inaccurate. You're probably referring to the link on a White House page that asks people to forward examples of misinformation regarding the Health Care stuff, with the intention of making counter-arguments to it. This one example has been played up as some sort of Orwellian thing, which is nonsense, especially in light of the fact that it was the Bush Administration that actually DID implement a wide-scale use of domestic wiretapping and spying on citizens. Now who's caricaturing others? How soon we forget who actually did what.

Chicago Boy: "It doesn't surprise me, now, when I look back and see that the world’s largest and worst tyrannies of the 20th century were started by the Left."

That's another crock. Of shit. The "Left" in other countries at other times in history does not mean the same thing it means in the U.S. Was Mussolini on the left, and if so, who was on the right? Who was to the right of Hitler or Stalin? These aren't liberals we're talking about.

chiefpayne: "Actually they called themselves teapartiers. But I can understand the mistake, given that everyone seems to have forgotten that."

WRONG! The source of the term "teabaggers" was the groups themselves.

Chiefpayne: "well, I seem to recall our founding fathers did similar things...but they weren't unAmerican. Labeling someone such because they yell out their opinions isn't helping and you know it."

You miss the point -- they're yelling OVER other people who are trying to talk (and who have the microphone and, in the forum's context, are the ones whose turn it is to speak).

The Founding Fathers (such as the Boston Tea Party people) did do some spirited things to protest and make their points. They also engaged in healthy but civil debate, wrote logical arguments without lying about things, and so on.

You can't use the actions of the Founding Fathers as an argument for why it's okay to shout people down.

chiefpayne: "Oh yes...one DID show up. And I will grant you they did show up - a very few. But the majority did NOT...and generalizing all as swastika carrying nazi is not helping either."

When the teabaggers were doing their thing, the Huffington Post had a photo gallery of all the offensive signs and posters people had. There were a LOT of them, from all over the country. Let's hope they represent the minority. Just remember: If you're going to brush off the bad examples by saying they're in the minority, are you going be equally willing to brush off the bad examples of the opposing side? Or will you play those up to the max? What's your policy going to be on this, now that you've proven yourself so eager to play down the worst examples on your side?

chief payne: "But then, all you want to do from what I've seen is catagorize your opponents."

Wait -- isn't that exactly what you're doing in this message forum? Can you honestly say you don't want to categorize your opponents? Your irony is showing...

chiefpayne: "Bad move as there appears to be a lot more opponents than there are of you."

How are you calculating this? By a poll or polls? Or by what you've seen on the TV? Or what?

chiefpayne: "BTW, what did your parents think about how those on the liberal side catagorized Bush as Bushitler, Chimp in Charge, etc. Were they just as ashamed as well? Because I was."

So can we take from the above statement that you are ashamed of all the conservatives who have used Nazi symbols and Hitler comparisons? Yes or no.

DWG: "Actually, Bush was infamous for not allowing ANYONE of the opposite view into his all-Republican "public" meetings. A few slipped through, but that was one of THE things that allowed him to be so completely in a bubble about public opinion, for so long.

It was a first for this country - pre-emptive censoring - and it's a big sign of civility that the Dems' town-hall meetings, as messy as they are, don't follow in Bush's footsteps."

THANK YOU for making this point!