Back in December I asked the Eppenbaugh person to explain two things he had written, but the person that demands answers and sources from everyone else refuses to hold himself to the same standard. Instead of the explanation I asked for, the person declared himself a far superior human being and the winner of our disagreements. The person then concluded it "pointless" for us to continue our discourse. For once, the person said something I could agree with. I took the person at their word and did not respond to the rant.
The person's word apparently is not worth much or the person has had a change of heart. Lo and behold, in the March 3 edition of the Times-Union, the person chose to reopen the argument.
To refresh the person's memory, I asked his true feelings on the First Amendment. In a previous letter the person had told me to "stop writing or at least write a letter that I agree with." Followed by "How about you use the local paper to discuss local issues." I ask you again, why do your First Amendment rights take precedence over anyone else's?
I then asked the person if he felt that I have the right to physically assault adults that trespass on my property, as he feels he has the right to physically assault other people's children for the same violation. Again, no response. Given the wide chasm in our differences of opinions, I believe it "pointless" to answer the person's latest demand of an example of Tea Party violence. First of all, I did not use the word "violent". The words I used were "uncivilized behavior." But just for grins and giggles, I will attempt to address your concern. Since you asked for "violent" may I remind you of the incident at the Rand Paul rally that involved a woman being knocked to the ground and stomped on. There are all sorts of "sources" and I realize my sources have no more credibility with you than yours have with me. For example, some people like Media Matters while others prefer Accuracy in Media, depending on one's viewpoint.
If the the person would care to provide a cogent response to my two original questions, while limiting personal attacks to no more than three, perhaps the person could gain some credibility. The person's pretentious superiority is quite ponderous.
