To begin, I'd like to thank you all for this reasonable, respectful discussion of a divisive topic that has been divisively presented. Major national issues often bring out heated emotions, but it's quite refreshing to see people NOT taking the hyperbolic bait and responding in kind.
My thoughts on the matter match most of yours - as soon as the
Messiah talk appeared, I disengaged. But before that...
Pan, you clearly recognize that gratuitous insults/slights to the President and those who support him result in negative responses from the very people you're trying to convince:
Quote:
|
Those of us who speak out because we love our country and choose to do so because of that love are talked about as zealots, conspiracy nuts and we have no idea the truth. I would argue the opposite, those who do not speak out, are either scared of what will happen to them, what label they may receive, what others may think of them, losing what little they have or what the government may do.
|
We're left wondering what you hope to accomplish by using this tactic. It's certainly
not a reasonable effort to find common ground.
The problem may lie with your interpretation of how to properly "speak out" against things you oppose. Your definition seems to
require hyperbole and direct insults against those who do not agree with your position on this topic or your debate methods.
Isn't this exactly what our terrorist detractors do?