It really was.

And then you argued with yourself so much there wasn’t really much for me to do. I will admit it was impressive how many straw men you could defeat simultaneously.

I’ll take that last to mean you want that book.

You addressed your own misrepresentation of what I said.

It was going to be a waste of time from the beginning and I indulged you because I didn’t understand how you could possibly conclude anything other than the plain, simple english originally put forth.

Defining words was apparently necessary.

No, I refuse continue to address your ever increasing pile of irrelevant points based on misrepresentation of what I said.

Because I’d be writing a book on your previous comment alone.

Okay. I’m going to ignore everything I just read.

Your entire premise is flawed.

So let’s get to the heart of it, shall we?

“I see you don’t pay attention to those who disagree with you”.

“attention noun 1 the issue clearly needs further attention: OBSERVATION, attentiveness, intentness, notice, concentration, heed, heedfulness, mindfulness, regard, scrutiny; contemplation, consideration, deliberation, thought, thinking, studying, investigation, action.”

”pay attention an assortment of motivational tools is necessary to keep them in class and paying attention: LISTEN, be attentive, attend, concentrate on, concentrate on hearing, give ear to, lend an ear to; hang on someone's words.”

disagree verb 1 no one was willing to disagree with him: FAIL TO AGREE, be in dispute/contention, be at variance/odds, not see eye to eye, differ from, dissent from, diverge from; contradict, gainsay, challenge, oppose; argue, debate, quarrel, bicker, wrangle, squabble, spar, dispute, take issue, row, altercate, clash, be at loggerheads, cross swords, lock horns; informal fall out, have words, scrap; archaic disaccord. ANTONYMS agree”

Nowhere did I reference a specific party, save “you” and “those who disagree”.

To whom, then, could “attention” and “disagree” possibly be referring when the two participants disagreed?

As to the rest of the comment, “Enjoy your bliss” is a direct reference to “Ignorance is bliss”.

“ignorance noun 1 his ignorance of economics: INCOMPREHENSION, unawareness, unconsciousness, inexperience, innocence; unfamiliarity with, lack of enlightenment about, lack of knowledge about, lack of information about; informal cluelessness; literary nescience. ANTONYMS knowledge, education

2 their attitudes are based on ignorance and fear: LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, lack of education; unenlightenment, benightedness; lack of intelligence, unintelligence, stupidity, foolishness, idiocy, denseness, brainlessness, mindlessness, slow-wittedness; informal thickness, dimness, dumbness, dopiness, doziness. ANTONYMS knowledge, education”

Personally, I prefer the short definition given by a friend from Australia. “It’s an insult meaning ‘unknowledgeable and too lazy or unwilling to study or learn anything’”. Unfortunately it doesn’t apply here.

Oh, I picked a special one too. Taylor made for you.

“Debate noun I would welcome a debate on the reforms I there is renewed debate about NATO's defense role: DISCUSSION, exchange of views, discourse, parley; argument, dispute, wrangle, altercation, war of words; arguing, argumentation, wrangling, sparring, disputation, dissension, disagreement, controversy, contention, conflict, disharmony; negotiations, talks; dialogue, comment, interest; informal confabrap session; rare velitation, contestation.

verb 1 the board debated his proposal: DISCUSS, confer about, talk over, talk through, talk about, exchange views on, exchange views about, thrash out, argue, argue about, argue the pros and cons of, dispute, wrangle over, bandy words concerning, contend over, contest, controvert, moot; informal kick around, bat around; archaic altercate.”

Shall I define every word of both original replies or are you done misrepresent them?

I’ve haven’t defended or advocated for anyone except myself. My one and only point has remained the same.

You started this whole thing with virtue signaling and insinuating I agreed with “the right”. This after I just said an argument could be made against every party and to “pay attention”.

You brought up the holocaust.

You associated it with “the right”.

You specifically brought up conservatives.

You claimed to have been one.

YOU explicitly associated “them” with Nazis.

YOU brought up accusations and affiliations.

YOU escalated every comment to force me onto a side.

YOU changed the goalposts.

The comments are all there. Read them.

I take issue with accusing one party of every evil and ail because every party has problems.

I repeat my argument ad nauseum because you only acknowledge it long enough to put words in my mouth and argue something else.

I will not address your “points” because they are irrelevant self serving arguments you make against yourself. They have nothing to do with me or my original point.

But feel free to continue denying reality to exhaustion.

Right, my point is yours now. So what have you been arguing this whole time?

Don’t lie to yourself. This is a browbeating. Your whole purpose, by all appearances, is to destroy an opinion you are creating from whole cloth and assigning to me.

Your ability to gaslight, strawman, project, twist, and obfuscate to win whatever argument you think you’re having is astounding.

Quit trying to turn people into villains to be defeated for the sake of your own hubris.

The subjective perspective you’re peddling is “the conservatives are the problem”, as evidenced by your claims that “they all agree” with the evil that was the nazis. And the basis for your claim is one person speaking for himself and calling it “conservatism”.

My point, from the very beginning, has been every party has problems. Which you begrudgingly admitted before resuming the vitriolic conservative-are-nazis diatribe.

And then you turn and accuse me of defending your conservatives and “denying reality” because I won’t agree a single party is as bad as the nazis.

You want some reality?

“It’s the (political/ideological group)! They’re the problem! They support (any inhumanly evil historical character/event)!” Translated, copied, pasted. Can be found preceding every genocide and the majority of military aggression in recorded history.

It’s the argument being used to justify Russian aggression in Ukraine today.

Sound familiar?

First, debating is exactly you’re doing. I responded to someone laying the original post squarely at the feet of one political party that encompasses nearly half the country. You apparently took issue with the response to a vulgarly dismissed observable counterpoint and have been throwing up straw men to virtue signal and guilt into supporting a one sided subjective opinion.

Second, “the nazis and the holocaust are separate things”? Objectively false and irrelevant.

Third, “they” absolutely do not “think it’s a good idea”. The great evil “they” accuse each other of being nazis. The point you’re struggling to make is refuted by the mainstreaming of accusations of nazism for policy disputes on all sides.

And lastly, I have neither defended nor associated with any party. Because I see what happens to parties. I see what people like you do to parties. Both in the present and through recorded history. Besides, those refusing to associate in an “us vs them” get treated as “them” by both anyway, so why bother? Case in point, disagreeing with you somehow means I’m defending your conservatives.

My entire point was and has been, that no singular party or group is the problem. Because the same things are said by and about every party.

Which was ignored to be “concerned” about “defending” a group that “supports nazi ideals”. Which means guilt and browbeat.

But you have made very good points to all the straw men. I’m sure their remnants are convinced of the error of their ways now.

I can identify gaslighting and fallacies of “reasonableness” and “facts” that paint only one side as the problem. I can also identify deflection when one turns questions back instead of considering them.

What I can’t identify is whether you see your own logical progression here?

The holocaust was your example.

So, if I may use your latest example again, “The right” absolutely agrees with those values. Exactly as much as “the left” does. As a bad idea.

And they all get condemned as a whole. Because they don’t disavow individuals praising nazis “the right way”.

You’re claiming to speak for millions as a “former conservative”. But then you claim those millions support the nazis because an “individual” did. And further, you put forth an argument that is distillable as “one side is the problem”.

Am I to infer that “the other side is the solution”?

I’ve never heard anyone on either side claim the holocaust was a good thing.

I have heard both major sides claiming the other claimed the holocaust was a good thing.

I have seen all the many descriptors flung around by every side and even found the exemplars of each everywhere.

I’ve also noticed the striking similarities between us and the major powers of history falling to utter ruin with millions dead by the hands their own people.

Will you repeat the mistakes of ages supposedly passed?

Will you participate in the utter destruction of your own home over hyperbole and ignorance?

The dehumanization and vilification of party against party already has our countrymen at each other’s throats. Many have been killed for mere affiliations.

Are you really okay with being a part of that?

Nice gaslight. Now I’m the problem for pointing out an observable fact.

However you’ve gone entirely off the mark by twisting my words to be “concerned” about my future.

Well done, good sir. Well done.

I see you don’t pay attention to those who don’t agree with you.

Enjoy your bliss.

The same can be said of any political leaning.

What color would red signify? There were a lot of shots as well.

I’m thinking it was some hillbilly celebration or some kind of raid involving a signal flare.

No different than the Hillary stickers being around for years after she lost.

So much for “looking out for the little guys”.