|
Mary Margaret Clark (Schultheis)
Jack, you have forced me to respond so I will:
You’re certainly entitled to disagree with me. What you’re not entitled to do is substitute personal insults, profanity, and accusations of racism for an argument.
I expressed a conservative viewpoint. You responded by telling me to shut my “piehole,” questioning my character, implying I’m racist, and suggesting I have no right to speak unless I’ve served in a war. That isn’t political discourse—it’s personal hostility.
I don’t need to agree with Donald Trump on everything to support the policies I believe are better for this country. I have never claimed he is perfect, and I’ve never confused support for a political candidate with blind allegiance. My faith and my conscience come before any political party or politician.
And since you brought up the Constitution: the right to participate in political debate belongs to all of us—not just those who agree with you or those who have served in the military.
If you believe my arguments are wrong, challenge the arguments. Bring facts. Make your case. But calling me hateful, vile, racist, or telling me to keep my mouth shut simply because I expressed a view you dislike says considerably more about the quality of your response than it does about the person you’re attacking.
|