Would you? I don't recall you ever correcting members for calling George Bush a war criminal, liar, and worse.
Um - you really don't see a significant difference between calling George Bush - that is to say, one person, one politician, whose actions you can genuinely find repulsive - a criminal or liar, and calling Bush supporters, collectively, traitors to their country? You really dont see the difference between attacking a politician for what you consider him to have done, and smearing half the country as traitors, "plain and simple", for supporting a politician you don't agree with?
Sure I see a difference. But I don't know that CJ did that unless he explicitly confirms your interpretation of what he said. Nor do you know that.
You have never once defended me or anybody else on the right when falsely accused.
You're right and I apologize. The line should have been "I have never once SEEN you defend me or anybody else on the right when falsely accused."
I don't see Obama as a traitor guilty of treason at this time, but I don't know what CJ had in mind when he said that either.
CJ didnt talk about Obama - he called Obama's supporters, collectively, traitors and enemies of the USA.
That's what you presume that he said. I still have not heard him confirm that is the intent of what he said.
I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and opportunity to explain themselves before I judge them.
- Except when they're liberals, apparently.
- Except him calling Obama supporters traitors and enemies of their country apparently didn't even warrant asking him to explain himself before you judged him. Apparently, you just accept stuff like that unquestioningly from people you consider to be on your side, and actually respond by heartily inviting them over to your thread.
As you previously so succintly put it: bull. I didn't accept the statement unquestioningly. CJ has been around for a long time and makes a lot of outrageous statements, I think mostly because he knows he can count on getting a rise out of self-important, self righteous types who will immediately judge him for such outrageous statement. If I thought he actually meant it, I would have asked him to specify precisely how he arrived at that conclusion. Since you presume to judge me on this issue however, it is actually you who accepted the statement unquestioningly and judged him accordingly.
That, by the way, is a traditional American value which most MACs support and most MACs think the thought police to be far more sinister bottom feeders than the occasional excitable patriot.
Wait, what - so when someone like CJ calls all Democrats traitors to their country, he is not guilty of failing "to give people the benefit of the doubt and opportunity to explain themselves", he's just being an "excitable patriot"; but when others respond angrily and denigratingly to being smeared as traitors, they are
guilty of "failing "to give people the benefit of the doubt and opportunity to explain themselves"?
CJ was not accusing any specific member of A2K. You could choose to believe he was including you or not. You are accusing/attacking him specifically. There are numbnuts on other threads today making all sorts of accusations about all sorts of people and they are doing so with impunity because they have been called on it before and they continue to do it. It isn't worth my time worrying about it. One of those 'if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes truth' kinds of things I guess.
I would have respected you had you asked CJ for clarification and made him support his statement. You didn't. You judged him and continue to condemn him. But for the record, I usually let it pass when those on YOUR side make outrageous statements about Bush supporters or Republicans or conservatives that are equally as sweeping and dumb at face value. You have yet to correct any of them and I believe at times have been guilty of such characterizations yourself.
Methinks you protest too much, Sir Nimh.