You are the one who said it was either voting or bloody revolution, and then had the audacity to suggest demonstrating and using direct action was akin to using violent force. In fact, you said:

"But while all this was going on, there were the angry radicals who wanted everything right now, and attacked those who were working within the system and whom they felt were not acting fast enough—even though the people they were angry at were actually making progress. These people could get pretty irrational sometimes, and actually retarded the progress that was being made because of their actions."

You then went on to rant about some mad 60s bomber who apparently ruined the 60s anti-war movement for you.

That sure sounds to me like you were trying, through guilt by association (and a tried and true tactic used by liberals to squelch support for the use of organized protest, street theatre, direct actions, etc), to connect any suggestion of using tactics other than the ballot box, to violence.

Frankly Don, we already have the mass media and the political establishment doing that for us. We don't need the Mudcat Democrats doing it too.