Yes, you certainly are. When you are arguing with contemptible idiots who use abusive epithets, and you conduct yourself in a civilized manner, arguing the issues, the evidence, and the logic, they are committing ad hominem and proving that their position has no merit. When you hurl abusive epithets back at them, you are joining them in being contemptible idiots.
And your argument about Bush's position is really beside the point. Yes, Bush claimed to be an advocate of small government, and lied. And Obama ran as an advocate of restoring the Constitutional guarantees of civil liberties that Bush had trampled underfoot, and lied. Politicians are mostly cynical liars. But that would not justify claiming that all the people on the left who voted for Obama in protest against Republican abuses cared about nothing but achieving a left-wing seizure of power; nor does it justify claiming that all the Tea Party attendees who talk about old-style small government conservatism care about nothing but putting the right-wing scum back in power. In each case, what you have is people who honestly believe in something and politicians who are trying to exploit that belief by lying. The lies are parasitic on the genuine belief.
Now, if you want to say that strict adherence to the Constitution, small government, and fiscal conservatism are honestly bad positions . . . well, that is a possible political view, and could be argued for. But calling people who hold it "teabaggers" is not an argument. And "he started it" is not a justification.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
zvi and
no subject
Date: 2010-03-19 02:44 pm (UTC)And your argument about Bush's position is really beside the point. Yes, Bush claimed to be an advocate of small government, and lied. And Obama ran as an advocate of restoring the Constitutional guarantees of civil liberties that Bush had trampled underfoot, and lied. Politicians are mostly cynical liars. But that would not justify claiming that all the people on the left who voted for Obama in protest against Republican abuses cared about nothing but achieving a left-wing seizure of power; nor does it justify claiming that all the Tea Party attendees who talk about old-style small government conservatism care about nothing but putting the right-wing scum back in power. In each case, what you have is people who honestly believe in something and politicians who are trying to exploit that belief by lying. The lies are parasitic on the genuine belief.
Now, if you want to say that strict adherence to the Constitution, small government, and fiscal conservatism are honestly bad positions . . . well, that is a possible political view, and could be argued for. But calling people who hold it "teabaggers" is not an argument. And "he started it" is not a justification.