Good gravy.
Look at what you just wrote:
| If your neighborhood security was in jeopardy because the police were short handed, you wouldn't try to help out? |
The answer is - Yes, if the police were short handed I would help out.
Are you arguing that our military is short-handed? If our nation's security was in jeopardy and they needed my physical help to preserve it I would join.
But I think most intelligent people (or as you call them "news watchers") would agree that the military is better served by me doing what I do best -- produce wealth. The $2+ million in taxes I generated last year probably does a lot more good for the military than some out of shape 35 year old in fatigues. But hey, what do I know?
All you seem to have are personal attacks. Which is pretty funny since you're personally attacking the guy who owns the site over and over. So let me put it like this - if you continue to make personal attacks, you're gone.
If you can't argue the issue without personally attacking the person, you are not welcome on my site.
Your responses get shriller and shriller. Whereas before you were content to simply call those who don't agree with you as "dumb" and "weak minded". Now you've upped it to those who don't agree with you as being cowardly and pathetic.
You seem totally oblivious to the fact that you are making the original article's case: Why is the left so angry.
So tell us Mike, why are you so angry? I gave my theory why -- you lack the skills to move your agenda forward. Because you think those who think differently from you are just a bunch of "dumb, weak minded, cowards" you will never be able to persuade them that your point of view is valid.
Rather than providing reasons to show merit for your point of view, you offer bile. Your arguments, as a result are uncompelling and therefore you make no progress in moving your agenda forward.
I submit that your own responses in this article have only made the case stronger that the leftwing is populated by a bunch of arrogant, slightly unhinged wanna-be authoritarians. I mean, heck, if we're just a bunch of weak minded, dumb, cowardly scum, surely what is needed (to replace that pesky democracy) is an elite council of learned scholars such as yourself to guide us.
And because that is the impression you give, you'll never be a leader. You will always, no matter how shrill you get, be at the mercy of people like me. Fortunately, conservatives are quite tolerant of other points of view in real life. It's a pity that liberals demonstrate (time and time again) their intolerance of others as you (Mike) have amply demonstrated in your responses.
