Reply #105: Slightly Belated Reply; Back On-line

[Hidden Stillness]

First of all, let me just thank you for the tone of your response, (with two execptions, which I will get to), and that I agree with almost all of it, and also apologize if you are actually not a Republican operative piece of shit. I cannot search other people's posts, because I do not have enough money to donate to this website, and therefore do not have that feature. Thank you.

First, I will explain why I believed you were a Republican operative plant from the wording of your message, keeping in mind that many people reacted against your post #72. You did something that many of them do, as I have read, that is, you overstated it as if to convince readers: "the enlightened side" as opposed to "the dark side," the "sexist, lying, bloodthirsty Nazis," then throwing in the hook: "they trumpet 'family values,' but so did Clinton." Then your second post continued "How can a party that values humanity and compassion, (etc.)," that "preaches" etc., "how can that party attack anyone for their personal demons?" I got the sense, clearly wrongly, that you were pulling out all the "phrases that work," etc. I agree with all your comments as authentic statements; I wasn't sure they were.

I believe, however, that we cannot give up this attack, and that it was not as simple and able to be isolated from the rest, as you think. It may surprise you, but I am not really impressed with people who "give a pass" to others, just because their behavior reminds you of yourself. My question is, how hard do you fight for those who do not remind you of yourself? When whites fight for blacks, when males attack other males (on this website!) for bigotry against women, when the rich help the poor--then, I will be astonished. The situation also gets complicated because of it, and cannot be ignored: what if the drug addict steals all the money the whole family needs to live on, selfishly, and will not stop? George Bush is a cocaine addict, a drunk, and "coincidentally," the worst Presicent in the history of the country. Please tell me you do not refuse to attack Bush for this "privileged rich boy" behavior. I don't consider that "moral."

Also, it is not a simple attack on someone who has become addicted to a substance--I agree with you that treatment and understanding are the true attitude toward these things generally, but "in case you missed it the first two times around," (one phrase that annoyed me), as you obviously did miss it, I put "You can only be nice to nice people." When Newt Gingrich attacked Clinton for moral failings, then Gingrich was discovered to have a lover during marriage, to have gotten the lover an abortion (like Clinton attacker Bob Barr--same thing), sexually harrassed then threatened staffers, forced "the wife" to sign divorce papers when she was in the hospital with cancer, then would not pay alimony and child support until she and the kids had to beg for help from their church, which they got--and knowing that Repub hypocrites of this type are as common as laid-off workers--then their failings are not "personal" anymore, they are part of a more general arrogance and abuse of power and laws, which only apply to peons.

Attacks for the sake of removing an evil from power are necessary, and as long as they attack us with such bizarre tactics as claiming that Hillary Clinton is a "Lesbian," just to work up bigotry against her--and I am no fan of the corporate Clinton--then you know that these people are evil, and will rip our whole society apart, just so they can win and steal the spoils.

The last point was your--pardon me--snide comment at the end about "my" "morally bankrupt brand of justice." I can't fathom what that meant, or how you presume to know what I have suffered or what I have let go, but honestly, I suspect it was not much more than what others have done--regardless, I don't know what that meant, but I know it meant you are superior to me. So much for not attacking personally.