On Grover Norquist

[Quantum Windbag]

"...but I can hold up plenty of idiot liberals as examples of why everyone should be a conservative. You would definitely be on the list", in re of this comment I previously asked you to list those ideas and opinons I hold which would cause anyone to become a conservative. If you make a blanket statement Windbag it would be honorable to offer evidence of the truth of your assertion. Please do so.

If you did I missed that post. The one single idea you have that proves to me that I do not want to be a liberal is your idea that everyone who is a conservative is an idiot. I prefer to believe that everyone, even you, has enough intelligence and honesty to see that the world the way it really is.

The 'conservatives' I have called idiots are ill informed willfully ignorant and never post anything which suggests they are bright. So, idiot works when they piss me off.
You never noticed the ' ' marks? Many times I characterize them as faux conservatives or use the single quotes to characterize those who identify themselves as conservatives. For the most part they are parrots and echo the same unproven axioms held as immutable truth by the new right.

You are calling Grover Norquist an idiot. If you applied your standards consistently you would not do so, because he is pro gay marriage, and has said many things in defense of it. That means you are calling him an idiot simply because you disagree with him about his tax policies and smaller government.

That makes you, by your actions, a partisan hack.

I, on the other hand, find his position that cancelling a subsidy is a tax increase so idiotic that I think he should stop talking about tax policy. That does not mean he should stop talking about gay rights. Nor does it make him an idiot across the board.

So, if you are actually honest, you will admit that Norquist is not an idiot, you just disagree with him about one thing. While you are thinking about that, I will point out that, if we did drown the government in a bathtub, it wouldn't be around to tell people that they could not marry whoever they wanted.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So Windbag, what kind of conservative are you? Fiscal conservative (like me)? Social conservative (not me)? Neo conservative (not me)? Tea Party conservative (not me)? ) and then there's the idiot fringe (not me) but they dominate in the echo chamber.

I like the idiot fringe, but I refuse to wear a label.

 

[daveman]

Isn't it funny how the left's advice for the GOP is always, "Move to the left!"

We have one Democratic Party. We don't need two.

Holy shit!

(calm down Wry, remember a broken clock is correct once in a while)

Phew, that's true.

Well daveboy after a brief internal debate I must conclude you have finally offered an opinion (while not original, actually something FDR believed and wrote in "Roosevelt's Purge: How FDR Fought to change the Democratic Party") and something on which we can agree (though the concept scares me, but I digress).

Of course then you go ahead and build a straw man.

I'm sure it comforts you think feel that way, but no.

Yep, two parties, each with clearly defined platforms offering Americans a clear choice. That I support. Sadly, one party today has a hidden agenda, and that party is the Republican Party as it exists today. A party which distrusts the people and therefore democracy; a party which has chosen a different path from the one America has followed for over two centuries; a new path, a path where policies are developed by, for and implemented by the richest Americans.

Speaking of straw men...

You might be an actual intelligent person, if you didn't let stereotypes do all your thinking for you.

Rich people! Booga booga!!

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you did I missed that post. The one single idea you have that proves to me that I do not want to be a liberal is your idea that everyone who is a conservative is an idiot. I prefer to believe that everyone, even you, has enough intelligence and honesty to see that the world the way it really is.

The 'conservatives' I have called idiots are ill informed willfully ignorant and never post anything which suggests they are bright. So, idiot works when they piss me off.
You never noticed the ' ' marks? Many times I characterize them as faux conservatives or use the single quotes to characterize those who identify themselves as conservatives. For the most part they are parrots and echo the same unproven axioms held as immutable truth by the new right.

You are calling Grover Norquist an idiot. If you applied your standards consistently you would not do so, because he is pro gay marriage, and has said many things in defense of it. That means you are calling him an idiot simply because you disagree with him about his tax policies and smaller government.

That makes you, by your actions, a partisan hack.

I, on the other hand, find his position that cancelling a subsidy is a tax increase so idiotic that I think he should stop talking about tax policy. That does not mean he should stop talking about gay rights. Nor does it make him an idiot across the board.

So, if you are actually honest, you will admit that Norquist is not an idiot, you just disagree with him about one thing. While you are thinking about that, I will point out that, if we did drown the government in a bathtub, it wouldn't be around to tell people that they could not marry whoever they wanted.

I did not call Norquist an idiot, nor do I believe he is an idiot. I believe his ideas and actions are dangerous, elitist (a term the faux conservatives enjoy using to describe liberals) and primarily self serving. Norquist has made a career out of his ideas, which makes him smarter than me; I had to work for a living.

But much like all demagogues he lives by platitudes which have little basis in reality but do stir the emotions. Which is a theme I've used regularly to characterize the echo chamber on this message board - those I call idiots when they piss me off. Their 'arguments' or usually parroted phrases of the platitudes and unproven truths offered by Norquist and others on the Right.

Calling me a partisan hack isn't constructive, it's childish and when tied to the straw man you built (I never called Norquist an Idiot) doesn't reflect very highly on your intellect or ability to see byond your own prejudices and partisanship.

 

[Political Junky]

I'm not sure the GOP will survive their shift to the right anyway. Moderate Republicans, those once referred to as Rockefeller Republicans, have been derided as RINO's. The party is no longer the party of Lincoln or even TR, it has become something new and extreme, notwithstanding the (more extreme) New Right's bogus and silly argument that R's & D's are the same.

California, also derided by the New Right, usually leads the nation. Prop 13 was the precursor for the Tea Party movement and before that a populist conservative, Ronald Reagan, was elected Governor. Last November the Democrats swept all Constitutional offices on the state level. 2012 will determine if 2006/2008 national elections were an anomaly or if 2010 was. The extreme rhetoric of the New Right which is now the voice of the GOP offers an opportunity for Democratic success and if the Republicans continue to stay the course set by Norquist a 2006 tsunami is once again possible.

The Republicans lost 3 or 4 Senate seats they could have won in 2010 by moving too far to the right.

That would be your opinion....they picked up quite a few Senate seats, a massive amount of seats in Congress, and quite a few Governor seats. I would say a job well done by them and it wasn't an accident that it happened.

The GOP will lose some of those governorships, like Florida and Wisconsin, as examples. They went to far right.

 

[daveman]

He is one of the rare people I see on TV who turns my stomach? There is something about him that is sickening. Eric Cantor is another. Sometimes when I turn to cspan channel surfing, if I don't know the person speaking, I guess their party by facial expressions and tone, overall negativity and a saturnine pose are always the republicans.

"Every Wednesday morning, a group of conspirators meets to plot out how to most effectively attack the federal government. This is not a group of rag-tag terrorists – they wear $2,000 suits and occupy powerful positions in society. But their ideas are politically radical and they do pose a real threat to the normal workings of government in the U.S. They are a group of leading conservatives who believe that government is a malevolent force in society and they have a fierce determination to drastically cut it back. They are convinced that the central problem in our country is too much government – too many social programs, too many regulations, and too much taxation – and they are committed to doing something about it." Government is Good - The Anti-Government Campaign

"Corporate propaganda directed outwards, that is, to the public at large, has two main objectives: to identify the free enterprise system in popular consciousness with every cherished value, and to identify interventionist governments and strong unions (the only agencies capable of checking a complete domination of society by corporations) with tyranny, oppression and even subversion. The techniques used to achieve these results are variously called 'public relations', 'corporate communications' and 'economic education'." Alex Carey 'Taking the Risk out of Democracy' [see also Democracy after Citizens United | MIT World ]

I can see where that would scare the hell out of big government nanny statists.

 

[daveman]

The 'conservatives' I have called idiots are ill informed willfully ignorant and never post anything which suggests they are bright. So, idiot works when they piss me off.
You never noticed the ' ' marks? Many times I characterize them as faux conservatives or use the single quotes to characterize those who identify themselves as conservatives. For the most part they are parrots and echo the same unproven axioms held as immutable truth by the new right.

You are calling Grover Norquist an idiot. If you applied your standards consistently you would not do so, because he is pro gay marriage, and has said many things in defense of it. That means you are calling him an idiot simply because you disagree with him about his tax policies and smaller government.

That makes you, by your actions, a partisan hack.

I, on the other hand, find his position that cancelling a subsidy is a tax increase so idiotic that I think he should stop talking about tax policy. That does not mean he should stop talking about gay rights. Nor does it make him an idiot across the board.

So, if you are actually honest, you will admit that Norquist is not an idiot, you just disagree with him about one thing. While you are thinking about that, I will point out that, if we did drown the government in a bathtub, it wouldn't be around to tell people that they could not marry whoever they wanted.

I did not call Norquist an idiot, nor do I believe he is an idiot. I believe his ideas and actions are dangerous, elitist (a term the faux conservatives enjoy using to describe liberals) and primarily self serving. Norquist has made a career out of his ideas, which makes him smarter than me; I had to work for a living.

But much like all demagogues he lives by platitudes which have little basis in reality but do stir the emotions. Which is a theme I've used regularly to characterize the echo chamber on this message board - those I call idiots when they piss me off. Their 'arguments' or usually parroted phrases of the platitudes and unproven truths offered by Norquist and others on the Right.

Calling me a partisan hack isn't constructive, it's childish and when tied to the straw man you built (I never called Norquist and Idiot) doesn't reflect very highly on your intellect or ability to see byond your own prejudices and partisanship.

If you object to unrealistic platitudes, why do you rely on them so heavily?

 

[Trajan]

Isn't it funny how the left's advice for the GOP is always, "Move to the left!"

We have one Democratic Party. We don't need two.

You got it....

which one is the friendly lib?

 

[daveman]

Isn't it funny how the left's advice for the GOP is always, "Move to the left!"

We have one Democratic Party. We don't need two.

You got it....

which one is the friendly lib?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The 'conservatives' I have called idiots are ill informed willfully ignorant and never post anything which suggests they are bright. So, idiot works when they piss me off.
You never noticed the ' ' marks? Many times I characterize them as faux conservatives or use the single quotes to characterize those who identify themselves as conservatives. For the most part they are parrots and echo the same unproven axioms held as immutable truth by the new right.

You are calling Grover Norquist an idiot. If you applied your standards consistently you would not do so, because he is pro gay marriage, and has said many things in defense of it. That means you are calling him an idiot simply because you disagree with him about his tax policies and smaller government.

That makes you, by your actions, a partisan hack.

I, on the other hand, find his position that cancelling a subsidy is a tax increase so idiotic that I think he should stop talking about tax policy. That does not mean he should stop talking about gay rights. Nor does it make him an idiot across the board.

So, if you are actually honest, you will admit that Norquist is not an idiot, you just disagree with him about one thing. While you are thinking about that, I will point out that, if we did drown the government in a bathtub, it wouldn't be around to tell people that they could not marry whoever they wanted.

I did not call Norquist an idiot, nor do I believe he is an idiot. I believe his ideas and actions are dangerous, elitist (a term the faux conservatives enjoy using to describe liberals) and primarily self serving. Norquist has made a career out of his ideas, which makes him smarter than me; I had to work for a living.

But much like all demagogues he lives by platitudes which have little basis in reality but do stir the emotions. Which is a theme I've used regularly to characterize the echo chamber on this message board - those I call idiots when they piss me off. Their 'arguments' or usually parroted phrases of the platitudes and unproven truths offered by Norquist and others on the Right.

Calling me a partisan hack isn't constructive, it's childish and when tied to the straw man you built (I never called Norquist and Idiot) doesn't reflect very highly on your intellect or ability to see byond your own prejudices and partisanship.

I am not the one having difficulties seeing past his prejudices here. If you do not think he is stupid you should attack his positions. Instead you devote an entire thread solely to an ad hominen attack on a person that, as far as you know, is not here to defend himself, and I am supposed to think you did it because you think he is smart?

I think you should stop trying to twist yourself into knots defending something that is clearly indefensible.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You are calling Grover Norquist an idiot. If you applied your standards consistently you would not do so, because he is pro gay marriage, and has said many things in defense of it. That means you are calling him an idiot simply because you disagree with him about his tax policies and smaller government.

That makes you, by your actions, a partisan hack.

I, on the other hand, find his position that cancelling a subsidy is a tax increase so idiotic that I think he should stop talking about tax policy. That does not mean he should stop talking about gay rights. Nor does it make him an idiot across the board.

So, if you are actually honest, you will admit that Norquist is not an idiot, you just disagree with him about one thing. While you are thinking about that, I will point out that, if we did drown the government in a bathtub, it wouldn't be around to tell people that they could not marry whoever they wanted.

I did not call Norquist an idiot, nor do I believe he is an idiot. I believe his ideas and actions are dangerous, elitist (a term the faux conservatives enjoy using to describe liberals) and primarily self serving. Norquist has made a career out of his ideas, which makes him smarter than me; I had to work for a living.

But much like all demagogues he lives by platitudes which have little basis in reality but do stir the emotions. Which is a theme I've used regularly to characterize the echo chamber on this message board - those I call idiots when they piss me off. Their 'arguments' or usually parroted phrases of the platitudes and unproven truths offered by Norquist and others on the Right.

Calling me a partisan hack isn't constructive, it's childish and when tied to the straw man you built (I never called Norquist and Idiot) doesn't reflect very highly on your intellect or ability to see byond your own prejudices and partisanship.

If you object to unrealistic platitudes, why do you rely on them so heavily?

Please describe the platitudes I hold with some detail. If you can only post the usual cliche or talking point please go away. You bore me with your constant one-line 'insipidudes'.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You are calling Grover Norquist an idiot. If you applied your standards consistently you would not do so, because he is pro gay marriage, and has said many things in defense of it. That means you are calling him an idiot simply because you disagree with him about his tax policies and smaller government.

That makes you, by your actions, a partisan hack.

I, on the other hand, find his position that cancelling a subsidy is a tax increase so idiotic that I think he should stop talking about tax policy. That does not mean he should stop talking about gay rights. Nor does it make him an idiot across the board.

So, if you are actually honest, you will admit that Norquist is not an idiot, you just disagree with him about one thing. While you are thinking about that, I will point out that, if we did drown the government in a bathtub, it wouldn't be around to tell people that they could not marry whoever they wanted.

I did not call Norquist an idiot, nor do I believe he is an idiot. I believe his ideas and actions are dangerous, elitist (a term the faux conservatives enjoy using to describe liberals) and primarily self serving. Norquist has made a career out of his ideas, which makes him smarter than me; I had to work for a living.

But much like all demagogues he lives by platitudes which have little basis in reality but do stir the emotions. Which is a theme I've used regularly to characterize the echo chamber on this message board - those I call idiots when they piss me off. Their 'arguments' or usually parroted phrases of the platitudes and unproven truths offered by Norquist and others on the Right.

Calling me a partisan hack isn't constructive, it's childish and when tied to the straw man you built (I never called Norquist and Idiot) doesn't reflect very highly on your intellect or ability to see byond your own prejudices and partisanship.

I am not the one having difficulties seeing past his prejudices here. If you do not think he is stupid you should attack his positions. Instead you devote an entire thread solely to an ad hominen attack on a person that, as far as you know, is not here to defend himself, and I am supposed to think you did it because you think he is smart?

I think you should stop trying to twist yourself into knots defending something that is clearly indefensible.

First of all Norquist is a public personality, my conclusions are not ad hominem attacks or straw men - his words and the words of others that know him were posted. As you should know, but obviously don't, is a staw man is produced by taking the words of another and spinning them into something not said or meant by the target. You should know because that's what you continue to do.

I have concluded from reading about and listening to Norquist that his ideas are dangerous. His goal is IMO is to remake American and continue the redistribution of wealth from the middle and lower economic classes to the very wealthy. Yes, exactly what the echo chamber accuses the Democrats of doing in reverse. He argues for a different result, but there is no evidence to suggest he is correct.

Being "smart" is no indication of character or moral integrity; a snapshsot of every person in state prison would mirror the general population. The same percentage of highly intelligent, the same percentage of menatlly challenged, the same of everthing in btween.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I did not call Norquist an idiot, nor do I believe he is an idiot. I believe his ideas and actions are dangerous, elitist (a term the faux conservatives enjoy using to describe liberals) and primarily self serving. Norquist has made a career out of his ideas, which makes him smarter than me; I had to work for a living.

But much like all demagogues he lives by platitudes which have little basis in reality but do stir the emotions. Which is a theme I've used regularly to characterize the echo chamber on this message board - those I call idiots when they piss me off. Their 'arguments' or usually parroted phrases of the platitudes and unproven truths offered by Norquist and others on the Right.

Calling me a partisan hack isn't constructive, it's childish and when tied to the straw man you built (I never called Norquist and Idiot) doesn't reflect very highly on your intellect or ability to see byond your own prejudices and partisanship.

I am not the one having difficulties seeing past his prejudices here. If you do not think he is stupid you should attack his positions. Instead you devote an entire thread solely to an ad hominen attack on a person that, as far as you know, is not here to defend himself, and I am supposed to think you did it because you think he is smart?

I think you should stop trying to twist yourself into knots defending something that is clearly indefensible.

First of all Norquist is a public personality, my conclusion are not ad hominem attacks or straw men - his words and the words of others that know him were posted. As you should know, but obviously don't, is a staw man is produced by taking the words of another and spinning them into something not said or meant by the target. You should know because that's what you continue to do.

I have concluded from reading about and listening to Norquist that his ideas are dangerous. His goal is IMO is to remake American and continue the redistribution of wealth from the middle and lower economic classes to the very wealthy. Yes, exactly what the echo chamber accuses the Democrats of doing in reverse. He argues for a different result, but there is no evidence to suggest he is correct.

Being "smart" is no indication of character or moral integrity; a snapshsot of every person in state prison would mirror the general population. The same percentage of highly intelligent, the same percentage of menatlly challenged, the same of everthing in btween.

Your conclusions are not ad hominens, your actions are.

The more one knows about Grover Norquist the more likely one is to become a liberal.

The rest of your post is just blathering because you want to pretend you are not doing what you are.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I am not the one having difficulties seeing past his prejudices here. If you do not think he is stupid you should attack his positions. Instead you devote an entire thread solely to an ad hominen attack on a person that, as far as you know, is not here to defend himself, and I am supposed to think you did it because you think he is smart?

I think you should stop trying to twist yourself into knots defending something that is clearly indefensible.

First of all Norquist is a public personality, my conclusion are not ad hominem attacks or straw men - his words and the words of others that know him were posted. As you should know, but obviously don't, is a staw man is produced by taking the words of another and spinning them into something not said or meant by the target. You should know because that's what you continue to do.

I have concluded from reading about and listening to Norquist that his ideas are dangerous. His goal is IMO is to remake American and continue the redistribution of wealth from the middle and lower economic classes to the very wealthy. Yes, exactly what the echo chamber accuses the Democrats of doing in reverse. He argues for a different result, but there is no evidence to suggest he is correct.

Being "smart" is no indication of character or moral integrity; a snapshsot of every person in state prison would mirror the general population. The same percentage of highly intelligent, the same percentage of menatlly challenged, the same of everthing in btween.

Your conclusions are not ad hominens, your actions are.

The more one knows about Grover Norquist the more likely one is to become a liberal.

The rest of your post is just blathering because you want to pretend you are not doing what you are.

You're not making any sense. If what I've written is foolish, why waste your time by responding? Since your comments have devolved into nonsense, I will take my own advice and not respond to you, unless you actually are able to offer something of substance.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Starve the Beast. One perspective on tax cuts and their consequences:

Tax Cuts And 'Starving The Beast' - Forbes.com

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First of all Norquist is a public personality, my conclusion are not ad hominem attacks or straw men - his words and the words of others that know him were posted. As you should know, but obviously don't, is a staw man is produced by taking the words of another and spinning them into something not said or meant by the target. You should know because that's what you continue to do.

I have concluded from reading about and listening to Norquist that his ideas are dangerous. His goal is IMO is to remake American and continue the redistribution of wealth from the middle and lower economic classes to the very wealthy. Yes, exactly what the echo chamber accuses the Democrats of doing in reverse. He argues for a different result, but there is no evidence to suggest he is correct.

Being "smart" is no indication of character or moral integrity; a snapshsot of every person in state prison would mirror the general population. The same percentage of highly intelligent, the same percentage of menatlly challenged, the same of everthing in btween.

Your conclusions are not ad hominens, your actions are.

The more one knows about Grover Norquist the more likely one is to become a liberal.

The rest of your post is just blathering because you want to pretend you are not doing what you are.

You're not making any sense. If what I've written is foolish, why waste your time by responding? Since your comments have devolved into nonsense, I will take my own advice and not respond to you, unless you actually are able to offer something of substance.

I am not making sense? Pointing out that you, despite your insistence that you are not attacking Norquist, actually attacked is devolving into nonsense. Are you actually that blind to what you are doing?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your conclusions are not ad hominens, your actions are.



The rest of your post is just blathering because you want to pretend you are not doing what you are.

You're not making any sense. If what I've written is foolish, why waste your time by responding? Since your comments have devolved into nonsense, I will take my own advice and not respond to you, unless you actually are able to offer something of substance.

I am not making sense? Pointing out that you, despite your insistence that you are not attacking Norquist, actually attacked is devolving into nonsense. Are you actually that blind to what you are doing?

I'll type slowly. I'm attacking, if anything, the ideas and ideology of Norquist which is no different than any thread you might find right this second on this message board. Go to the new threads page and see how many are not only attacking the ideas of President Obama but his person and even his wife.

The difference is, I've not called Norquist a Nazi, Fascist, Racist, Commie, contard, republonut or attacked his wife.

You can't defend his ideas, or even present a sound argument (for whatever you believe) , so you attack me and accuse me of doing what you continue to do.

 

[daveman]

I did not call Norquist an idiot, nor do I believe he is an idiot. I believe his ideas and actions are dangerous, elitist (a term the faux conservatives enjoy using to describe liberals) and primarily self serving. Norquist has made a career out of his ideas, which makes him smarter than me; I had to work for a living.

But much like all demagogues he lives by platitudes which have little basis in reality but do stir the emotions. Which is a theme I've used regularly to characterize the echo chamber on this message board - those I call idiots when they piss me off. Their 'arguments' or usually parroted phrases of the platitudes and unproven truths offered by Norquist and others on the Right.

Calling me a partisan hack isn't constructive, it's childish and when tied to the straw man you built (I never called Norquist and Idiot) doesn't reflect very highly on your intellect or ability to see byond your own prejudices and partisanship.

If you object to unrealistic platitudes, why do you rely on them so heavily?

Please describe the platitudes I hold with some detail. If you can only post the usual cliche or talking point please go away. You bore me with your constant one-line 'insipidudes'.

Oh, noes! Wherever shall I go? Whatever shall I do?



You pompous windbag. You're too convinced of your own importance to accept any evidence I could give, so why should I even bother? You'd just claim that I was too dumb too see how superior you are.

NOTE: "Being a liberal in San Francisco" really isn't a basis for a claim of superiority. And don't deny you feel you're superior, either. Your every post reeks of entitlement to deference.

Pisses you off when people don't kiss your ass the way you feel you deserve, doesn't it?

Tough shit.

I told you before, Skippy. Put me on ignore, or scroll past my posts. But if you demand I change my behavior, you're going to be disappointed.

Got it?

 

[Antiderivative]

The more one knows about Grover Norquist the more likely one is to become a liberal.

I don't care for him much, but he hasn't turned me into a modern day liberal. I like my limited government stances, but I don't how any one who has limited government views can idolize Reagan.

Nonetheless, Grover is right, we could reduce the government by half and it wouldn't be that radical. It would require us to go back to a government of the mid 1990's.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're not making any sense. If what I've written is foolish, why waste your time by responding? Since your comments have devolved into nonsense, I will take my own advice and not respond to you, unless you actually are able to offer something of substance.

I am not making sense? Pointing out that you, despite your insistence that you are not attacking Norquist, actually attacked is devolving into nonsense. Are you actually that blind to what you are doing?

I'll type slowly. I'm attacking, if anything, the ideas and ideology of Norquist which is no different than any thread you might find right this second on this message board. Go to the new threads page and see how many are not only attacking the ideas of President Obama but his person and even his wife.

The difference is, I've not called Norquist a Nazi, Fascist, Racist, Commie, contard, republonut or attacked his wife.

You can't defend his ideas, or even present a sound argument (for whatever you believe) , so you attack me and accuse me of doing what you continue to do.

Then explain how this is an attack on the ideas and methodology of anyone.

The more one knows about Grover Norquist the more likely one is to become a liberal.

Trust me, if I wanted to defend his ideas I would have no problem defending most of them. I would not attempt to define ending subsidies as a tax increase though, because I think he is off base there. In fact, I actually did defend a few of his ideas in this thread. You choose to ignore the fact that he supports gay rights and and focus on the things you do not like.

My point it you keep saying this is not personal, when it is. You position yourself as being better than the people who use derogatory language because you don't stoop to their level. If you attack a person who is not here to defend himself you are no better than they are.

If you want to point out where anyone who is calling someone a Nazi, or any other name, is also saying they are not attacking that person, I will be happy to step up and call them on their duplicity.