Brunsons' response pic 1
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (30)
sorted by:
I found the article by DC undercover to be reasonable, sensible and well written.
People don't have to agree, but I thought it was good.
This response, I find less so. Argumentative, assertions, attacking.
Accusing the authors ad hominem is not a good start. "unless you did not care for the truth"
"you do not know the mind of SCOTUS and you acted like you do"
"A rigged election is an act of war"
The response is highly emotional, indicating a LOT of attachment to the person's own viewpoint, and hence lacking in objectivity.
Reading between the lines, it seems pretty clear to me who's really making reasoned, objective arguments here, and who isn't.
Agreed. I found the article enlightening, and intended to bring us back to a realistic expectation of the process. Let's hope they don't march into the chamber and claim "This is war!" and start pointing fingers at anyone that disagrees with them.