There will be plenty of time to understand what happened and make appropriate points. For now, our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families.
Rhode Island State Senator Josh Miller, who proudly proclaims himself “One of the true ‘left of center’ Democrats of the R.I. State Senate,” is supporting a bunch of new laws that would prevent law-abiding people from exercising their Second Amendment rights to self-defense while doing nothing to stop crazies or criminals from committing violence against the law abiding… i.e. what the left calls “common sense gun laws.” Confronted by questions about his legislation, Senator Miller responded with the class and thoughtfulness we have come to expect from the Progressive Left.
Rhode Island State Senator when challenged on gun control legislation: “Go F*** Yourself” (Video)
A class act all the way, these Progressive Leftists.
Mr. Fred Phelps … the originator of that clever little legal scam the Westboro Baptist Church … is reportedly on his deathbed.
Let’s take this opportunity to behave with more maturity, character, and class than the lefties at Puffington Host and DailyKos who celebrate and dance whenever a conservative figure takes ill or dies. Let’s not revel or celebrate the demise of Mr. Phelps just because he happens to be a Democrat.
My long absence from GayPatriot, has been brought on by a few factors, chief among them that I’ve been taking some classes in the evenings and haven’t had much time for blogging, and what little time I have had to spare has been consumed by more going on socially than in the recent past. But beyond that, there has been my general sense of what I wrote about in this post, and called either Obamalaise or Obamanomie, that feeling of depression and listlessness that comes when I consider the sad state of a country that elected Obama not once, but twice and seems more interested in bread and circuses than in seeking actual, workable solutions to the difficult problems that face our country.
Naturally the online leftist rag Salon can’t understand why anyone would feel upset or bothered by the direction of the country in the era of the glorious Obama, and so one of its contributors, Edwin Lyngar, has written a laughable piece about “elderly white rage” which places the blame on that favorite bogeyman of the contemporary left, Fox News. I learned of the article when various liberals and leftists I know–including one I’ve taken to calling a MINO (a moderate in name only)–linked to it on social media. I just glanced past it until one of them approvingly quoted one of the more ridiculous passages from the article.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I am not elderly, nor am I viewer of Fox News. I mostly avoid the whole TV news genre, preferring to get my information from other sources. The full title of the article reads: “I lost my dad to Fox News: How a generation was captured by thrashing hysteria.” The author, who describes himself as “overeducated in the humanities” with both an MFA in Creative Writing from Antioch University (not exactly a bastion of conservative thinkers) and an MA in Writing from the University of Nevada, Reno unwittingly demonstrates the way shallow generalizations count as somehow being deep thought by those who advocate a politically correct perspective.
As I don’t care to be guilty of the same intellectual offense, I’d like to highlight and unpack a few of the article’s more ridiculous claims and observations. Let’s start with the opening paragraph:
Old, white, wrinkled and angry, they are slipping from polite society in alarming numbers. We’re losing much of a generation. They often sport hats or other clothing, some marking their status as veterans, Tea Partyers or “patriots” of some kind or another. They have yellow flags, bumper stickers and an unquenchable rage. They used to be the brave men and women who took on America’s challenges, tackling the ’60s, the Cold War and the Reagan years — but now many are terrified by the idea of slightly more affordable healthcare and a very moderate Democrat in the White House.
Of course GayPatriot readers can see what he’s doing there, but just for the sake of argument, let’s illustrate that he opens by offering a caricature and a generalization about elderly Fox News viewers, conflates Fox News viewers with the Tea Party, accuses them of being filled with “rage,” and then ends by trying to ridicule them as being “terrified by the idea of slightly more affordable healthcare and a very moderate Democrat in the White House.” Say what? That last clause is contains so many misrepresentations and non-sequiturs that it is really rather stunning. Barack Obama is only a moderate Democrat if you are so far to the left already that you can’t see how far his administration has shifted the political status quo towards statist goals. And just because Obamacare was given the Orwellian title “the Affordable Care Act,” doesn’t mean it has anything to do with making healthcare more affordable. Far from it, just ask the many people dropped from insurance who find that their health insurance costs have gone up and their deductibles are now much higher than they were previously. Even those who haven’t had to change insurance are getting less for more costs.
The article continues with an anecdote about the author’s father and an exchange where the writer tells him he shouldn’t watch Fox News:
I enjoyed Fox News for many years, as a libertarian and frequent Republican voter. I used to share many, though not all, of my father’s values, but something happened over the past few years. As I drifted left, the white, Republican right veered into incalculable levels of conservative rage, arriving at their inevitable destination with the creation of the Tea Party movement.
When I finally pulled the handle for Obama in 2012, my father could not believe how far I’d fallen. I have avoided talking politics with him as much as possible ever since. Last week, I invited him to my house for dinner with the express purpose of talking about po
Mrs. Cathy McMorris-Rogers – a Republican from Washington State – gave the Republican response to Obama’s
Mandatory Attendance Campaign Speech State of the Union Address. The deranged left has decided she is worse than the Countess Elizabeth Báthory de Ecsed (to the Google machine, reference non-getters). I would repost the many, many hate Tweets they have been spewing… but many of them use Bill Maher’s favorite word. And most of the others wish to perform physical violence upon her, because that’s what the left calls “civility.”
Anyway, it’s quite easy to understand the vitriol when you consider Mrs. McMorris-Rogers’s biography.
- She’s a Republican
- She gave birth to a Down’s Syndrome child instead of Wendy-Davising it.
- She has given birth to three children while in Congress and has a happy family life,
- She paid for college by working at McDonald’s instead the proper way (mummy and daddy’s money)
- She’s a Republican
The left sure has taken up Emperior Palpatine on that “let your hatred flow” advice.
Update: TnnsNe1 wonders if Mrs. McMorris-Rogers would be more popular if she had a sugar daddy pay for college, then left him with the kids the day he finished paying her student loans.
What was I just saying about left-wing rape hysteria? Yes, advocating for smaller, accountable, affordable Government is exactly the same as holding a knife to a woman’s throat and violating her sexually.
Come to think of it, Democrats probably really do feel that way.
Since the race card is getting a bit maxed out, the left is now switching to the rape card; everyone who opposes the onward march of progressive fascism will now be labeled a rapist.
Cathy Brennan will be pleased.
Juanita Broaddrick could not be reached for comment.
This is a guy who took Mormon-themed digs at Mitt Romney; brought on a shrink to analyze the allegedly violent, possibly psychotic tendencies of tea partiers; accused Republicans of treating the word “IRS” as a racist dog-whistle against Obama; and wondered if Rick Santorum wasn’t some sort of theocratic second coming of Stalin. When Steve Jobs died two years ago, he turned his on-air eulogy into an excuse to — ta da — bash Sarah Palin again. All of this is par for the course on MSNBC so imagine Bashir’s surprise, after all of that, upon finding out that introducing a little actual rhetorical scat into the figurative scat-flinging at righties was an unpardonable sin worthy of suspension.
I just say: Better late than never!
Dr. Ben Carson is hated on the left. Trayvon Martin is adored. Says a lot, doesn’t it?
The background is recent remarks of Sarah Palin’s:
Palin said that the debt being accumulated will result in the next generation being “beholden to the foreign master.”
“Our free stuff today is being paid for by taking money from our children and borrowing from China,” Palin told a crowd of supporters…“When that money comes due – and this isn’t racist, but it’ll be like slavery when that note is due. We are going to beholden to the foreign master.”
It’s more likely that we will default on our debt, so Palin is not 100% correct. But she’s well on the right track. You always know she is, when she gets the Left to reveal its snarling hatred.
This time, Martin Bashir of MSNBC dropped his mask.
In his “Clear the Air” segment, Bashir lit into Palin straight away, referring to her as America’s “resident dunce” and characterizing her remarks as “scraping the barrel of her long-deceased mind, and using her all-time favorite analogy in an attempt to sound intelligent about the national debt…”
“One of the most comprehensive first-person accounts of slavery comes from the personal diary of a man called Thomas Thistlewood…In 1756, he records that a slave named Darby ‘catched eating kanes had him well flogged and pickled, then made Hector, another slave, sh-t in his mouth…Mrs. Palin…confirms if anyone truly qualified for a dose of discipline from Thomas Thistlewood, she would be the outstanding candidate.
In short, the left-wing Bashir suggested on TV that someone should forcibly defecate in Palin’s mouth.
Now, Bashir went on to apologize, but my question is this: If Rush Limbaugh had said it about Nancy Pelosi, would any amount of apology be enough?
Have not some other conservatives been chased from the airwaves after saying less and apologizing as much (or more)? Given that Bashir’s remarks were “wholly unacceptable” (as he says), why does MSNBC still have him? How low are they?
Item #366,720 in the archives of “The Left is and does, that of which it falsely accuses the Right.”
At MoveOn.org, more than 44,000 have called for the GOP leaders to be arrested for ‘seditious conspiracy’ over the recent government shutdown (and ‘default’ scare). As ZH points out, that’s more people than have signed up for Obamacare.
Needless to say, MoveOn’s petition is a FAIL on several levels: (more…)
Re: the Obamacare, shutdown, budget, default and debt ceiling debates…
I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.
Oh wait, did I say that? Or some jihadist American Taliban terrorist bomb-throwing hostage-taking TeaBaggerParty Ted Cruz-loving anarchist wingnut grandmother, maybe?
No, it was Hillary Clinton saying it about an earlier administration that was quaintly civil to its critics, compared to the present one.
No discussion is grownup, if the participants don’t know/acknowledge certain facts which President Obama, the Democrats and their media try to have people forget:
- The government is supposed to spend by a budget.
- Between April 29, 2009 and March 23, 2013, Harry Reid’s Democrats didn’t even bother to pass a budget. Nearly four years!
- Under the U.S. Constitution, the budget is supposed to originate in Congress and particularly the House of Representatives. Which means,
- The House IS supposed to be able to impose its budgetary will on the President, including by shutting down the government, as Democrat Houses have shut down the government many times before to successfully impose their will on GOP Senates and presidents.
- On a district-by-district basis (as required by the Constitution), the American people elected a GOP House in 2012. To coin a phrase, “they won”.
- The current so-called “shutdown” only affects 17% of the government. (83% is still open.)
- The current House has passed many bills to keep most of the remaining 17% open – bills which the Democrats have rejected.
- Obama has given us more debt than any president in U.S. history.
- Contra Obama, raising the debt ceiling does indeed mean raising our debt further. And it does cost taxpayers a lot of money.
- Contra Obama, there is no reason for the government to default on its debt, even if the debt ceiling isn’t raised. You default only if you fail to make your minimum debt payment. Our ongoing tax revenue exceeds our minimum payment by many times over, leaving lots of money for the rest of government spending after debt service. (Just not as much as Democrats want.)
- Which is probably why Obama and the Democrats are the only side talking about having a default happen. (They want to at least dangle the threat – and they might carry out the threat – even if it’s unnecessary.)
- Contra Obama, our future spending isn’t “paying a bill”. Spending that Congress has budgeted or authorized (but not yet actually spent) can be stopped or cut any time Congress says so, or under-spent if the money simply doesn’t exist for it.
The people who run GayPatriot welcome intelligent disagreement with our views. If your disagreement ignores the above facts, sorry but it’s not intelligent.
As the adage goes, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.”
NB: Originally, point 2 stated incorrectly that the Senate hadn’t passed a budget since 2009. Error fixed. (thanks Kurt!)
ADDENDUM: 13. Contra Obama, borrowing money “to pay our bills” is NOT paying our bills. When you buy something on credit, have you paid you bill? No, of course not. You’ve merely changed to whom you owe the payment (and perhaps when).
Speaking to construction workers in Rockville, MD today, he said:
Everybody here just does their job, right? You don’t – uh uh – If you’re working here, and in the middle of the day you just stopped and said “You know what, I wanna get something, but I don’t know exactly what I’m gonna get, but I’m just gonna stop working until I get – I’m gonna shut down the whole plant until I get something” – You get fired, right? Because, the deal is, you’ve already gotten hired, you’ve got a job, you’re getting a paycheck, and so you also are getting the pride of doing a good job and contributing to a business and looking out for your fellow workers. That’s what you’re getting.
Perhaps without realizing it, President Obama just perfectly described workers who ‘walkout’ or go on strike – and why they should be fired.
But there’s more. Obama made his surprising slam on workers who strike in an attempt to compare them to the congressional GOP who, as we know, are failing (so to speak) to give King Obama his full budget demands.
Top Obama administration figures compare the GOP to terrorists (for example, Dan Pfeiffer the other day). So do other top Democrats (for example, Harry Reid calling them ‘anarchists’, or Al Gore who accused Obamcare foes of ‘political terrorism’).
If the GOP are behaving just like striking workers, according to Obama, and if the GOP are (in the very same behavior) also terrorists, then…striking workers are kind of like terrorists, aren’t they? “Thanks, Obama!”
UPDATE: Peter Schiff has another quote on the Left’s demonizing of conservatives as terrorists, this one from talk host Stephanie Miller on the GOP being “suicide bombers” who are “trying to blow your children up”.
This is the Left, in 2013. If you happen to truly want fiscal responsibility, an end to the endless debt ceiling increases, or avoidance of the train wreck that even Big Labor knows Obamacare to be: you get name-calling. Probably because that’s all the Left has left.
In the past few days, I have challenging Obamacare-supporting classmates in Facebook threads. On the whole, the discussions have been civil, with my peers responding to critiques with argument and anecdote and keeping, by and large, a good discussion going.
Some have noted that insurance costs were escalating even before a Democratic Congress passed Obamacare — and have addressed how the president’s plan would help fix many of the problems in the pre-2010 health care sector. Others, including yours truly, have warned about the increasing costs of the new plan. Most of the arguments are familiar to those who have been following the debate, but I thought one physician’s perspective particularly inisghtful– and so I asked his permission to quote it on this blog. The permission granted, I reproduce it exactly as offered.
Time for a physician (and patient’s) two cents: just today I received a registered letter from united healthcare/oxford that “as a result of the significant changes in the healthcare environment” I am being dropped as a Medicare advantage provider. No reason given except that somehow that will contain costs. Last week I received word from my own health insurer that they are ending my policy at the end of December (6 months early) and that they are under no obligation to help me find other coverage for my small business/ medical practice. Anecdotal? I don’t think so. I will likely be closing my practice soon despite having spent years studying , preparing, and taking excellent care of my patients. I wish everyone luck with Obamacare. So far, I am not a fan.
I do hope those following the threads on Facebook learn to recognize that both sides stand sincere in the support of — or opposition to — the president’s health care scheme.
UPDATE: In the Facebook thread wherein the physician offered the above, another participant shared this link: ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs
In all the discussions about “civility” the last few years – both in the general public discourse, and on this blog – I’ve often had to wonder what the term means, because it seems to me that leftists routinely propose things which are incivil, in and of themselves. Things of which the mere proposition is a serious threat to, or attack upon, many of their fellow citizens.
As a hypothetical example, let’s take theft. If I come up to you and I propose / threaten, most politely, to steal your livelihood, property and earnings: am I not being incivil, no matter how polite my speech is?
Now suppose I don’t propose to take the risk of thieving from you directly, but instead I propose to have the government seize your earnings on my behalf. The example is no longer hypothetical; it’s what left-liberals propose every day of the year, in every political platform.
I could also talk about speech codes (leftists suppressing speech they don’t like), late-term abortion (leftists claiming the ‘right’ to kill viable human beings), gun control (leftists trying to take self-defense away from people they don’t like), government mandates (leftists endlessly proposing to tell their fellow citizens how to live – backed by government force), etc.
Why do we not recognize, and swiftly dismiss or condemn, their incivility? Is civility more a matter of the forms and rules that people uphold when speaking, or of the inner attitude/intent toward one’s fellow citizen?
Over at PJMedia, Roger L. Simon has a piece with the catchy title “Obama Big Loser in Zimmerman Trial.” Simon writes:
By injecting himself in a minor Florida criminal case by implying Martin could be his son, the president of the United States — a onetime law lecturer, of all things — disgraced himself and his office, made a mockery of our legal system and exacerbated racial tensions in our country, making them worse than they have been in years. This is the work of a reactionary, someone who consciously/unconsciously wants to push our nation back to the 1950s.It is also the work of a narcissist who thinks of himself first, of his image, not of black, white or any other kind of people. It’s no accident that race relations in our country have gone backwards during his stewardship.
It’s a clever premise, and in ideal world, it should be true, but in the world we live in, the one where Obama got re-elected, I suspect it doesn’t hurt Obama one bit.
These are just a few quick thoughts on my part, so they won’t be fully fleshed-out, but as I see it, Obama got most of what he wanted from the Zimmerman trial. Zimmerman wasn’t convicted, but as far as Obama and Holder are concerned, that only would have been the icing on their toxic cake.
As suggested in this great article by Karen McQuillan at American Thinker, Obama and Holder are masters at using race and division to advance their agenda. And when this incident occurred, Obama was showing some softening of support among black voters who were not faring well in the Obama economy. McQuillan writes:
Once the president of the United States weighed in, Zimmerman had a target on his back. An ounce of election advantage to our privileged, Ivy League president versus the ruination of a Hispanic man’s life — it was an easy choice for Obama. Obama’s great appeal to voters in 2008 was his self-presentation as a black man without animus or grievance, eager to move the country beyond divisions of all sorts — black and white, red and blue. In reality, Obama is obsessed with divisions — race, class, gender — and is expert at fueling war between us, to his political advantage.
Obama has used accusations of racism before, to rally his troops and attack his political opponents. Opposition to ObamaCare? Racist. Opposition to big government? Racist. His core liberal supporters like this stuff, and the other voters give him a pass on this, as on everything. The election analysts were predicting that even black turnout could dip in 2012. Obama moved from racial slurs on opposition groups to attacking a particular individual citizen. Zimmerman was sacrificed.
The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.
Libtards lust for power in order to control the sheeple according to their current, faddish view of “correctness.” They are prideful and lash out with the politics of personal destruction against those who stand in their way. Their wrath is both verbalized and implanted by way of insidious actions meant to undermine their opposition. They have lying tongues. They scheme and devise wicked plots. They sow discord. They plant festering mischief. They twist the context to fit their version of the truth and justify their lies. They refuse to practice circumspection and correct their errors in any sense of obedience to promoting a better solution.
In the comments for my last post on Obamacare commenter Ignatius began his discussion of the legislation’s undesirable albeit unstated aims with the observation: “I believe that political discussions would be much easier if those on the right jettisoned this quaint idea that leftists have good intentions.” I highlighted that sentence in a subsequent comment, and other commenters took up the theme, as well.
While reading the comments about “the left,” it suddenly occurred to me that after listening to Rush Limbaugh for 25 years, he has always been careful to separate “the left” politicians in D.C. from “the left” common everyday folk. I always agreed with him but now I’m not so sure. Most of the gay male liberals that I know fall right in line with the D.C. politicians. Anything and everything is o.k. if it hurts [conservatism] or wins them a battle against the right, whether or not their action is legal or ethical. The ends always justify the means.
Likewise, commenter Steve linked to this video of Ann Coulter discussing the tendency of liberals and the lamestream media to fall back on “racial demagoguery” to advance their agenda in cases like the Zimmerman trial.
I thought of all three comments when I came across another link to an article by John Hawkins dated March 27, 2012. Hawkins’ article is entitled “5 Uncomfortable Truths About Liberals,” and I encourage everyone to read the whole thing. For the moment, though, I’ve summarized his five points below. Hawkins writes that:
1) Most liberals are hateful people.
2) Liberals do more than any other group to encourage race-based hatred.
3) Most liberals are less moral than other people.
4) Most liberals don’t care if the policies they advocate work or not.
5) Most liberals are extremely intolerant.
Now while the language in those observations is strong enough that Hawkins could be accused of engaging in hyperbole, I think a certain amount of strong language is necessary for describing leftist rhetoric and means of argumentation. There’s no need to take my word for it, though, read the whole thing and decide for yourself.
I would say, though, that in both the Zimmerman case and in the debates (and protests) over late-term abortion restrictions in Texas, we’ve seen many of the traits Hawkins describes displayed quite openly by many leftists.
Likewise, consider this article in The Advocate which a Facebook acquaintance brought to my attention. The article focuses on the “mighty change of heart” which many Mormons have undergone on the issues of gay rights and gay marriage. True to what both Hawkins and our commenters noted, most gay leftists will have none of it, as is very evident from their comments on the Advocate article. Rather than welcome the changes underway in the LDS church, they are expressing their hatred and intolerance for the Mormons in very hostile language. Read the comments there and see for yourself.
Now while I know a number of our readers might believe that the Mormons brought the hatred on themselves through the church’s advocacy against Proposition 8 in California in 2008, I’d point out a few things that the left never will, namely: 1). Despite what the HRC and its allies would have us believe, opposition to gay marriage isn’t necessarily motivated by hate, however easy or convenient it may be to believe that, and 2). Individuals are and should be defined by more than their affiliation with some group or collective. The gay left is always up in arms about what this group or that group said or did about some gay issue, but they never have qualms about denouncing or smearing or insulting members of that group in a similar manner.
I find it a somewhat delicious irony that on the day the Supreme Court hands down its gay marriage decisions, a day I had planned on blogging about the debate on gay marriage. But, I had been planning that before knowing that on the actual day, I would be more focused on writing the first chapter of the second part of my epic.
I have long thought the debate on this important issue, this fundamental social institution, has long been particularly lame. And from reading my Facebook feed, see that it has become ever more so, with all too many (but fortunately not all) treating the decisions not so much as constitutional interpretation and social policy, but as personal validation — as if they needed some government body to decide the “right” way so they can feel recognized. But, that feeling of approval will fade.
That said, I have seen two statements on Facebook which do get at the meeting of the decision, from people on opposite sides of the political aisle. And I’m sure that in due course, I will discover some thoughtful blog posts and editorials. But, for now, while I have much to say about marriage, my mind is on my book. At the end of May, I finished the first draft of the first part of the book (over 150,000 words) and spent the better part of this month revising it, having intended today to print out the whole thing and take it to a printer (so I can share it with friends). (As I begin serious work on the second part.)
So, let me offer the meaningful Facebook post for your consideration. My friend Harmeet Dhillon (my predecessor as president of the U-VA Federalist Society) offered this on the standing issue which served to overturn Prop 8:
As a political law practitioner, the broader implication of today’s Prop 8 ruling is 1) a narrow interpretation of standing and 2) apparently there is no recourse by the citizens if their elected constitutional officers (here, the Attorney General) simply refuses to enforce a law passed by the majority of voters. The former is likely an artifice of the Court trying to dodge a merits decision on a very controversial issue, but the latter severely undercuts the power of the citizen-sponsored proposition in California, regardless of subject matter or what political persuasion is affected. A sobering reminder that your vote on propositions sort of matters sometimes, while your vote on who is the Attorney General matters a whole lot. And not enough of you vote!
Last week, I posted on Barbara Walters’ and Whoopie Goldberg’s bizarre defense of Bill Maher, who had apparently called out Sarah Palin’s Down Syndrome child as “retarded”. A quick refresher:
Walters speculated that Maher did not know the word [ed: "retarded"] could be hurtful…
Goldberg lamely tried to assist Walters, saying “we, society took the word ‘retarded’ and made it into something derogatory…When I was a kid, it wasn’t derogatory…”
Now MN State Rep. Ryan Winkler (D/Labor Party) has called Justice Thomas an “Uncle Tom.” His defense? Guess.
[from Twitter] I did not understand “Uncle Tom” as a racist term, and there seems to be some debate about it…
[from Winkler's weak 'apology' statement] I was very disappointed today in the Supreme Court decision…In expressing that disappointment on twitter, I hastily used a loaded term…
I see a trend!
Now, let’s be clear. Winkler didn’t use “a loaded term”, he used a racial slur.
Just because Barack Obama won the 2012 election, in large part, by dishonestly portraying Mitt Romney as a cold, uncaring, out-of-touch plutocrat does not mean our readers have grounds to level similar personal charges against our (and their) critics.
And please do not make assumptions about my left-of-center friends.
As I’ve said on numerous occasions, take issue with the arguments they raise, but do not level personal attacks on the individual making them. You don’t know that person. You don’t know why he has made the case that he has.
I do not check the comments all that regularly, but in the past few days, have received repeated reports from readers about commenters using ad hominem attacks in exchanges with their adversaries.
More on this after I’ve discussed the matter with Bruce.