DM writes: At first, I thought you might be worth reading but alas whatever intelligence you may possess you have allowed it to be corrupted…as soon as I saw your use of sweeping generalizations – as you do to characterize ‘liberals’ and using “all” so very frequently, I realized you could not be taken seriously…..many will however and -as has been said “You can fool some of the people all of the time”
I have no idea if DM is a left-liberal or not, but this is a favorite tactic of theirs. To pretend to be disappointed at the actions of an opponent, and to act as if there was any chance in Hell that if only for X, they would have supported them. What a crock of bovine ejectus! First, DM reveals that he’s barely familiar with my writing as I almost never use the term “liberal”, favoring instead the terms “leftist” and “left-liberal”. Second, I defy anyone to prove that I frequently use the word “all”. In fact, I seldom use that either. DM has clearly read the word into my generalizations about the left when it is not, the vast majority of the time, there at all.
I do often write critically about the left-liberal mind and about left-liberals. And I often use sweeping generalizations, certainly. But it is silly, even downright stupid, to expect anything but generalizations when one is discussing a group that consists of over one-tenth the population in a country of 300 million. Does DM mean to insist that these people have nothing in common? Can “liberals” truly not be characterized? Interesting. DM, with his disingenous pretensions and weak logic, shows every sign of belonging to that group of logically-challenged individuals known colloquially in this country as liberals.