My point is that inflamatory statements to prove a point actually harm the position of the person making the argument. Your rhetoric needs to be in proportion to your cause. I think that advocating the execution of TSA employees is something that your average sane American will find difficulty handling.

Let me give you an example. Imagine that I am a city councilman and you are petitioning me to put speed bumps in front of the elementary school on your block. You will impress me if you cite the speed of traffic along the street, and the number of children who walk, and discuss the number of accidents that occur. But if you start calling people NAZI and call speeding on your street the worst thing to happen to the United States, then you will start to look crazy and will not help your cause. You will have damaged fellow supporters of your position through guilt by association.

Spiff you remind of the tactics of talk radio. Many people don't know that some radio hosts have people call in fake calls. Conservative hosts sometimes have people pretend to be liberal and say absolutely crazy things. Then the host spends the next hour talking about how crazy his liberal caller was, and people call in to agree with the host. Liberal hosts probably do the same thing. So Spiff, are you actually a TSA plant trying to discredit the opponents of TSA with your rhetoric?

Truthfully if I was Kip Hawley, I would pay for Skip and others to testify before Congress. Lets see how many people line up behind him as he calls people NAZI, advocates the execution of TSA employees, and accuses wounded veterans of treason.

Angry Dan