The idea that if you don’t support some political god, means you are now a traitor and enemy of the US?

There you go again. Never said that. Never implied that. We’re discussing an “all or nothing” approach v. a matter of small steps when necessary. The simple fact is that those who were against Obama politically and philosophically and who refused to vote for his opponent aided in Obama’s election and his reelection. Call it what you will, excuse it away any way you choose; it is what it is.

I don’t consider someone here, or elsewhere, who likes to talk about not using ad hominems against X, and then in the same length of time, uses an ad hominem against Republicans . . . the word “moronic” only has “one” interpretation.

Moronic is an adjective. You may find it in poor taste but it is decidedly not an ad hominem attack (mo-ron: Informal. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment. http://www.Dictionary.reference.com). My thesis all along is that conservatives who refused to vote against Obama lacked good judgement. We used to call this “cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.”

I didn’t choose to sit out of anything, particularly the election.

That was supposition on my part stemming from what you’ve written here. Of course I don’t know that for a fact. If I’m mistaken, I apologize.

My responses to you have been either defense my own position or criticism of yours. Your rebuttals, however have become increasingly personal and off-point.

“Your criticism is too weak and shallow”
If I made that charge I would provide justification.

“people who think they can BS me by talking out both sides of their mouth”
I’ll allow readers to decide that. Have I accused you of anything like this?

“People like you that think”
People like me? Do I detect an ad hominem over the horizon?

“That Kind of Slave Drivel”.
?????

You and I have exchanged ideas on this blog before and we have mostly been in agreement. In whatever way, on this thread I seem to have inadvertently pressed a button. By my estimation you have become quite vitriolic and defensive and it seems to be ramping up with each additional exchange.

I wish you well.

It’s up to the people who own it and run it to decide. I won’t tell them what is right or wrong, unless they flat out ask me.

So I have no personal resistance to letting Fox News set their own standards, which I think is all anyone can do with human run groups if they want things to work. Top down stuff doesn’t work, period.

However, the various multi million victims of the LEft, slaughtered, raped, rendered into bio waste, and exploited for their entire lives and then harvested for the Left’s Greater Utopia… I have yet to be given their permission to Forgive Anyone.

I cannot forget, I cannot look away, and I am not allowed to forgive the Left, period. The hate and vengeance of untold millions, for centuries of our time, weighs on me.

I hate the Left not because I’m an American, a patriot, a Republican, or any other “social label”. Since people might get the impression that if I was Russian, hated America, or a Democrat, that I wouldn’t fight the Left, destroy the Left, kill the Left, make them suffer in hell the Left. Even if the entire world disappeared and human society itself broke down, my emotions would not cease to drive my motivations. I guess I feel what I feel because I’m human. I consider the Left enemies of humanity, not just enemies of America or enemies of patriots or enemies of Republicans.

My motivations are personal. It is for my own benefit. Thus even if America, Americans, and the GOP disappeared off the Earth, I would not cease my hate. I would not cease my desire for their utter destruction, for them to be wiped off the face of the Earth.

When I pull the trigger, it is not because my nation, my society, or my officer commanded me to. It is because I want it. I remember advice from an instructor that is apt here when it came to using physical violence up close and personal, “you have to want it, otherwise you won’t get it done. You have to want it more than anything you have ever desired in your life, more than water in the desert, more than food while starving”. Something like that.

In so far as the world is made a better place, America becomes less corrupt, those are all good things. But when it comes down to it, I think my primary motivation is personal. The abstract motivation may be the benefit of other people, in the long term, but abstract motivations don’t necessarily motivate people to get their hands dirty with blood.

Btw, just now I got a bunch of amber alert messages. If I am getting this correct, it’s due to the shutdown being over because the GOP leadership caved. The Amber alert, I believe, was created to give out information on cars that have kidnapped children. The Obama Regime shut it down. Right. Sure.

I don’t think my motivation is political or even due to patriotic feelings. Not any more at least. But that also means I don’t consider someone with conservative values “good” and someone with socialist views “bad”. It’s a more individual judgment than that, for my conscience is my own.

As is true for most Americans that like freedom and liberty. The world would be a better place if people acted according to their will, instead of trying to use authority to put a boot on somebody else’s will for personal benefit.

No, you don’t. I didn’t choose to sit out of anything, particularly the election.

Mitt Romney was not a bad candidate in my view, since last time I wished he and others won the primary (rigged by Democrats) instead of McCain.

Your criticism is too weak and shallow for me to “take personally” to begin with. I do take personally people who think they can BS me by talking out both sides of their mouth, however.

you claim that you were “neutral in that fight.” And you cite me as the hypocrite?

Certainly. I was neutral in the political infighting and arguments. Because the war wasn’t going to be determined by the politics so much as the other things that were present. Thus I was neither on the Pro Mitt Romney side, nor am I on the “Mitt Romney is not a conservative” side.

You see is as a hypocrisy because of your intial premise (interpretation) which is flawed and incorrect.

Since you seem insistent on evading this point, I’ll clear it up for you.

I don’t consider someone here, or elsewhere, who likes to talk about not using ad hominems against X, and then in the same length of time, uses an ad hominem against Republicans he doesn’t like.

I’ve read through your so called clarifications and re-clarifications, but none of them deal with this point of the sword. It’s not that “interpreted” you wrongly, it’s that the word “moronic” only has “one” interpretation given the context of what we speak of. It is up to you to justify yourself, not up to me to “re-adjust” my interpretation.

then they are supporting a political entity that they despise by virtue of their inaction.

Right, this is close but no cigar. The idea that if you don’t support some political god, means you are now a traitor and enemy of the US? That is more Leftist revolutionary talk.

People like you that think folks should tag along on your journey because “not supporting you” leads to helping the enemy by virtue of inaction, have no idea how leadership and power is distributed amongst organizations and people.

But even if you really thought the Republicans that exercised their right not to vote were on the side of the enemy, your own talk about not using ad hominem on Democrats paints your internal inconsistency into full view. You treat Democrats and Leftists better than you treat your own so called “allies”.

And you think everyone is just going to line up and follow That Kind of Slave Drivel, do you now?

Once again you misinterpret what I write.

If people want to vote for Obama or not vote for Obama, that’s fine by me. They aren’t my slaves

Who said anything about them being forced to vote? If one believes that the future of the country is at stake (which many of this identified group do) and fail to vote for a candidate because he simply isn’t conservative enough, then they are supporting a political entity that they despise by virtue of their inaction. I have no qualms about calling out such activity as “moronic.” It evinces a preference for a foot-stomping visceral reaction over intellect in spite of one’s fundamental belief. As for me, I outgrew “holding my breath” temper tantrums a long, long time ago.

Are you trying to be labeled a hypocrite on top of those other things now?

Once again, lack of understanding and misinterpretation. You seem to interpret what I’ve written as “shut up, get with the program and vote conservative” then cite me as a hypocrite for discussing debate with the opposition. You just don’t get it. You see is as a hypocrisy because of your intial premise (interpretation) which is flawed and incorrect.

Or are you trying to argue to yourself that being a moron is just the natural conservative factor for those who refused to support Mitt Romney, against your desires?

FYI, my initial position was in support of Newt Gingrich; if there was any “desire” in play it was the desire to not have Obama win reelection. In the words of Instapundit, I would have voted for a syphilitic camel before I enabled a win by his Petulance, so, yes, I did support Romney. When the choice became Romney or Obama I wasn’t going to sit out an election and let a philosophy I despise as anti-American retain power. Those who did so were willing to allow the “perfect” to be an obstacle to electing the “good.”

Because I was neutral in that fight. I considered the election pointless, for many different reasons.

Ah! Now, perhaps, I get it. You sat out the election and you’re taking my criticism personally. How progressive of you. Your comments on this blog (and you very presence here) lead me to believe that you have traditionalist/conservative leanings. Yet, in a contest between a flaming liberal Progressive (Obama) and, at the very least, a less liberal opponent, you claim that you were “neutral in that fight.” And you cite me as the hypocrite?

But the alternative would be to look like we don’t forgive.

I say the punishment gets worse each time they do it. I believe in my heart Fox News should make it a workplace requirement that these people (Jmu Green and the reverend) behave and speak civilly. The second or third time should be grounds for firing with a clear warning and explanation the first time of the consequences.

Liberals need to DEAL with the ISSUES raised by conservatives but instead they name call and act inappropriately.

This extends to Obama, Reid, Pelosi and all the liberals that did so on Hannity’s panel.

Why were they aloud to continue speaking on the panel. I would’ve marched them out. Complete dismissal.

We have to forgive individuals. Period. If they continue a second or third time. Lower the boom.

That’s what I understand.

I would offer that the 2012 election was not that time because by standing on rigid conservative princple one’s non-vote for Romney became a gift to the Progressive cause.

If people want to vote for Obama or not vote for Obama, that’s fine by me. They aren’t my slaves. Doesn’t mean I agree with them, just that I don’t have a right to command them otherwise. They must suffer the consequences, either way. That is for the Left decide, as they will change the world and bring the boot of tyranny on the heads of the Unbelievers. What people believe after that, isn’t my problem any more.

So in your world, it makes someone a moron to take an action you think is wrong. Come the war, the first person that says something like that will be categorized by me as “target” and “enemy”. I don’t care if a Leftist or Democrat voted for Obama or not, although others might profile based upon that. I only care whether they act like an evil mofo. Being an Obamacan is just a helpful reminder, but even if they voted for Romney, if they act like a wannabe slave master, then that’s how I will treat them as.

If they say something ridiculous, call it out and identify it as such, but the ad hominem name calling so preponderant in leftist discourse neither wins arguments nor converts bystanders and onlookers to your cause.

Are you trying to be labeled a hypocrite on top of those other things now?

Keep in mind that although traditionalists lost the 2012 presidential election, it was lost by a narrow margin. The left threw everything it had into that election: A corrupt IRS; a corrupt and syophantic media, etc., and their cause was even supported by the moron-conservative factor who stayed home because Mitt Romney “wasn’t conservative enough.”

Or are you trying to argue to yourself that being a moron is just the natural conservative factor for those who refused to support Mitt Romney, against your desires?

Your perspective is similar to Jimmy’s here (J.J.)

My response would be the same, which is that even if 500,000 more Republicans voted for Mitt Romney, 550,000 more Democrat “voters” would be found to have voted for X. Or maybe 600,000 absentee votes would have been “lost” and then “recovered”.

Thus whether I agreed with people who voted for or against Romney isn’t really an issue with me. Because I was neutral in that fight. I considered the election pointless, for many different reasons.

The problem was never the problem (of policy or politics), the problem was always the Left.

In the end, if you can’t afford to give your non Romney and non voting conservatives the benefit of the doubt that they are not morons for choosing as they did, that they might have had good reasons to give their support or not give it, then who are you to tell the rest of us we should be playing nice with the Left?

People think everything will be okay if they apologize? Get real.

A reverend also repeated hostage taking talking points.

If I were Hannity – I would’ve asked them both to leave right then and there.

We can’t tolerate the lack of civility. They have a mental disease that needs to be eradicated.

They should only be allowed back at such time as they apologize whole heartedly. Then they can be forgiven and we can move forward with civility until such time they do it again…. Then they should be removed by security.

No one knows that better than I. When one argues with a leftist, one is never arguing to convert the leftist one argues for the benefit of neutral or low-information bystanders and observers. (the rare occurance of converting he leftist is merely icing on th cake.)

If one can end a debate with just one onlooker thinking “I never knew that until now” one has set the stage for a possible conversion of allegiance down the road. Now do that fifteen times more and, as Neo heself admitted in her own conversion, the bystander begins to see the discord between what s/he, himself, thinks and believes vs what the left has been parroting for decades. That is what I refer to as “the good fight.”

Take Newt Gingrich in the Republican primary last year. When he tromped on Scott Pelley, do you think he changed Pelly’s mind or outlook? That wasn’t Gingrich’s goal. His argument, although directed at Pelly was to the eyes and ears on the other side of the camera that had yet to make a decision. That’s how and why one argues with a leftist.

They’re not trying to win an argument.