Hormonal moments still too clinical; gut check is more accurate but brings up other images best left unbidden…

So, how about a “true grit” moment? That really says the same thing, and could be applied to either men or women, and it doesn’t hurt that it evokes the movie… as well as the pioneer spirit of what used to be important about being an American.

The key is not to give in entirely to emotional appeals, but instead to use them in measured, well considered ways. He’s right that we need to hit back emotionally, but we need to avoid exciting too much negative reaction, at the same time.

We have only to look at the way Bush and the Republican have alienated the public and angered them to see the dark side of playing with people’s emotions.

i was responding (120) to the falsehood in the statement above mine about a “testosterone moment” (TrueBlueCT in 117)

if you think i am mocking women when i speak about Boxer and Pelosi’s estrogen moments, then you haven’t paid attention to my writing here. i would have thought that was clear from my comment, that Webb is not the only model Democrats have to follow.

sorry if i offended you, but your comments in this thread, which was limited to the book salon, really bothered me.

National Guard Troops Cheer Call for Withdrawal From Iraq

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories…..4570.shtml

Neither Rodger Ailes nor religious bigots provide my phrasing, much less determine my values or behavior.

Those incapable of precise speech are incapable of precise thought, as you so helpfully illustrate.

Catholic Worker would be “radical Catholics” for some. For others, Opus Dei would be “radical Catholics”.

“Radical Islam” provides neither definition nor explanation. As you apparently find even common tolerance to be radical, I rather doubt your definition of “radical” would be sufficiently precise or coherent to merit further inquiry.

After over a decade of my helping EarthFirst! and the non-violent forest defense movement and serving as organizing medic for the ‘99 IMF/WB and DNC protests, your concern trolling

more concerned about offending than communicating

is consistent with the baseline ignorance evinced in your comments.

Now off for the brain bleach.

But DMS, don’t feel too bad – you do get one thing right.

You make a great acolyte for Scotchens.

A blithering image of the man himself.

DMS @ 135

Well, Kirk at 123.

That’s exactly the kind of sucking-up –
“radical Islam” is a phrase which appears to slander a noble faith.”
– on which I call BS. (I am with Hitchens; I tolerate religion but I don’t respect it.)

And to the point, nothing wrong with calling Timothy McVey an example of “Radical Christianity.” (I think he was, wasn’t he? And if not then substitute some other kook.)

Radical is an adjective. It modifies Christianity. It doesn’t mean that all Christians are radical nuts. To call that Jewish guy who bombed the mosque (years ago) an example of “Radical Judaism” doesn’t knock Jews.

What you said is a perfect example of the problem of lack of straight-talk….worrying more about offending than communicating.