Please stop using the phrase "The domestic enemy" when talking about those who are not sworn enemies. I do not believe that line has been clearly or credibly crossed at this point.
No doubt it can be argued that I'm splitting hairs here*. That would be incorrect IMO.
From the thread header - "Please try to stick to facts & reality (I.E. facts & reality that are widely accepted & easily supported - not because you or your ideological peers say so)." ...."If you are going to debate differing POV's, attack the subject matter, not the person."....
First, you are attacking people**, not the subject matter. And your fairly frequent use of that phrase is excessive. All that is going to achieve is to antagonize.
Second your description ("domestic enemy") is quite unlikely to be "widely accepted & easily supported". Not by any objective review of the facts I can think of.
Yes, some of the people (Dems in your case) are : antagonistic to another (IE, toward Bush or conservatives); especially : seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent (per webster).
Yes, it can be argued that some of their words & deeds may result in : something harmful or deadly (per webster).
They are not however, a : a military adversary & b : a hostile unit or force (per webster). At least not by any objective standard that would be "widely accepted & easily supported".
* Yes, I do on occasion employ in strident rhetoric. (the keys are frequency & accuracy aspects). What I don't do is use it frequently. And I do not use words or phrases that I cannot support with credible, independently verifiable evidence.
I will make a concerted effort to be even less strident than I have been. And I will insist that others do so as well.
** Yes, I give some leeway here (again the keys are frequency & accuracy). When someone has repeatedly lied , asserts discredited memes as fact, etc., I do allow appropriate descriptors to be used only when it can be clearly substantiated. I do not want those discriptors used as an excuse to attack or marginalize. |
