Mattm,

I'd have argued with you in the past but not
anymore. You're right. I would have asked why you would call them
'looney' in the past. I mean if you have a degree in psychology and
your diagnosis shows insanity, I'm with you. But if you don't have a degree, I'd have a
hard time following you down that path b/c it would leave me exposed to
a left wing attack.

Now, I'm wondering about hailing the virtues
of "open-mindedness" by conservatives. Aren't we conservatives
open-minded? I'm just asking for some info on making sure I become more
close-minded.

Listening to all points of view and then
decide which is most correct seems like the correct way to think as
long as we are all thinking the same way, right? Tell me what to think,
I need to know or else I might not do the right thing. I'm waiting for
your one thought on this issue...

Your Buddy,

Syrius

"when i get something on my hand that smells like crap, i need to taste it." from a prolific poster.

Which proves our point about the - er - "tolerance" - of liberals and their committment to - er, again - free speech.

"but a liberal is NEVER seen by conservatives that they are doing their best and care about their country."

That's a pretty broad statement. I have never said liberals don't care about their country and I'm very conservative. I just think they are very wrong and misguided. I'm uncertain what any of this has to do with your self cancelling statement that Liberals weren't against opposing views, just Kristol, who is what - a unicorn? I have never seen any conservative here (there may be one I haven't seen)who has said that a liberal writer has no right to be published in a paper. All we ask for is equal opportunity (remember that quaint notion?) for our point of view to be heard in the mainstream media - without being filtered through a liberal spin machine. We have called liberal writers on their factual misstatements (like Paul Krugman) but no one has said he should be fired. If Kristol writes something that Liberals believe is factually in error then call him on it - banning him isn't very American of you.

a reverse situation would be if national review gave a regular forum
to bill clinton. there would be great outrage here as i am sure most
of you think he lies more often than not.

No, a reverse situation would be nothing like the National Review giving a regular forum to Bill Clinton. The National Review, The Weekly Standard, this site, et al, are all ideological right-leaning outlets that CLAIM to be, and represent the voices from that side. The NYTimes is a newspaper that's supposed to report the news and reflect opinions down the middle, equally on both sides, like any newspaper or news outlet. I'm amazed I have to correct you on this blatantly and utterly wrong analogy.

liberals tend to see most things in varing shades of gray. they can
understand (note: i did not say agree) with opposing views.
conservatives tend to see things in black or white, ex: you are either
with us or against us.

Both sides are equally guilty, please. It's a divisive time we're living in, post 9-11 and post anger-at-Bush-winning-in-2000. As for the quote, "you are either with us or against us" (which IS from a Bush quote) it's the greatest, most pure, most right thing he or any great, rational leader could think to say after a barbaric attack the likes of 9-11.

if someone were to get their news from a solely conservative site,
let's say...fox, then they would think that the clintons have NEVER
done a good deed in their life, that liberals are actively attempting
to cause the collapse of both capitalism and democracy.

Yes, let's (you) say Fox. Any other main-stream outlet on your list there? Hmm?? What else you got? Anyway, I'll raise it 10-fold with my list of those that spin everything left, and operate under orders NOT to report any good things Bush does (we'll begin with the great success in Iraq in 2007... you'd almost never know it happened.)

now, as a slightly left of center person

Now, I have to clean my keyboard and monitor (note to self: don't drink when reading crshedd posts.)

i know that gwbush is not a TOTAL idiot. he has good qualities as both
a person and to a lesser extent, as a politician. i disagree with
conservatives often, but i believe they are doing their best and care
about their country.

No, you're right, he's not a total idiot. And according to so many in the House and Senate, he's in fact some sort of genius who fooled everyone into giving their approval to invade Iraq.

but a liberal is NEVER seen by conservatives that they are doing their
best and care about their country. if you disagree with a conservative,
you hate your country and want the terrorists to win. who do you think
would have a more open mind?

And conversely, you're telling us that conservatives are OFTEN seen by liberals that they are...... anyway, you get the drift. It's two parties, both believing they're right. What's your point?

We bid a fond farewell to Professor Talking Points & Cheetos

...pointed out factual errors.  I have refuted you that it does not point out factual errors of Mr. Kristol but rather, makes continued attacks and insinuations which cannot be proven to be true.  In my book, that's dishonest, but your writer claims that it is Mr. Kristol who is dishonest. (without proof) 

The link you provided only demonstrates that the Intelligence source itself may have been misleading.  Both the article you presented earlier and the other many and varied liberal versions of the intelligence gathered pre-Iraq invasion were the result of Bush and Cheney "cooking" up the intelligence.  Clearly, that's not what happened. 

So Shedd, why don't you simply admit that the whole premise of the Bush Administration falsifying the intelligence is a lie told by liberal journalists to discredit Bush?

(I'm sorry...I didn't mean to let facts get in the way of your perceptions.  Really.)