More lack of civility. Unlike the Mullahs I believe in free speech, and the ability to do it with being insulted. Funny you complain about someone bringing up Soros when you felt free to bash the Koch brothers for absolutely no reason. Of the two of us, you have far more in common with the Mullahs than I do.
First of all, you brought up Soros. Otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned Koch brothers. Second of all, take it as an insult or whatever you want, you have this fear of Soros with Mullahs in common. It's a fact.
I brought up Soros in the specific context of a particular online magazine that you brought up. The Daily Beast is a biased ultra left-wing magazine that regularly fawns over Soros as a god who can do no wrong -- and that's putting it lightly.
But I never said I would never vote Democrat because of his or any other individual's funding and support. I used to vote Democrat but changed after its policies continued to go farther and farther to the Left. I'm more of a centrist with some libertarian tendencies. I also will take up for the other side when I see nothing but one-sided attacks.
Regarding the Mullahs, I'm sure they're not too fond of the Koch brothers since they are libertarians who support same-sex marriage and abortion (something that they have in common with George Soros).
It's funny that you use Media Matters to try to rebut anything I wrote. It is as dishonest a publication that one can have. It was founded by David Brock, whose claim to fame was a book on Anita Hill that was based on lies. It became a best-seller because he stood behind his book; only later was he proven to be a fraud. Once he was rejected by the right he went to the left, which apparently isn't bothered by his underhanded investigative methods. Even New York Magazine, which is far from conservative, called him "hyperpartisan." I've read Media Matters and it is so biased that it has no credibility. The Huffington Post is much fairer and objective than Media Matters.
I recommend you stop limiting yourself to left-wing sources of information. It has led to your one-sided far-left point of view. Have you ever even read material from conservative sources (conservative in the sense of center-right American politics)? It explains why you seem to see a caricature of the Tea Party and other groups. I've never been to one of their meetings, but I have no doubt that they are a lot more civil than Occupy Wall Street or MoveOn.org meetings. Anyway, it is usually better to read both points of view using each side's own writings. You really should give it a try.
