You complain everyone else is too right wing, or incorrect for inclusion into your small coterie of accepted sources. You dear friend is the one denying the existence of the alternative viewpoint.<quoted text>
What's to be gained by silencing Zinn's viewpoint? You actually are now contradicting yourself in your own posts.
Plus you still have no names of who TO vote for.
As far as what you called a "phony canard" ask the people in Dover about how "phony" that canard is.
My opinion of Mr. Zinn's book is the same as always, it is an implicitly simplistic load of horse dung. There are vastly better books available that provide more in depth and culturally relevant material than the puerile versions Mr. Zinn presents for pop culture consumption.
I am entirely for an honest debate of the history of this nation, good, bad, or indifferent. I merely ask that the source material being utilized for discussion be worthy of our efforts.
But once again what does Mr. Malone think of this if anything since it seems to consume your mind greatly?
Ask the well read Mr. Stuckey which chapters he particularly enjoyed and why?
Somehow the left never asks those they thrust into the vanguard to respond to such nonsense.
Where is Mr. Malone, Mr Stuckey, and Mr Anderson on this topic?
For real education or phony, fun, MTV depth education?