Why not enlighten me? What is the significance of the whole struggle?
I consider you to be a dogmatist; it may be impossible for you to be enlightened about any viewpoint but your own current one -- or at least not worth my effort as it appears you are primarily hostile and secondarily see "arguing" as debate and worthwhile, and it is neither debate nor worthwhile at the level at which you are accustomed to engage: name-calling, etc.
The struggle: is not casting aspersions on others with quick (though not quick-witted) answers, but honestly exploring differences until an understanding is reached that there is no point of conjunction (and why that is) or that there is a third understanding that may emerge for one or more parties.
Get it?
Sorry to borrow the term "dogma" from someone else's post; I was thinking the same thing but hadn't come up with the term at that point -- but it fits like a glove. More accurately, at least colloquially in the circles I move in, "doctrine" is the positive aspect of "dogma" -- and you, sir, are a dogmatist -- and good doctrine and dogma do NOT always occupy the same space.
But I may be coming dangerously close to "casting my pearls before swine" (to quote Someone Else and no offense meant).
At this point, I think it would be safe to ignore the ranting of these two. Its clear how the majority of posters on this thread think, and these two do not post opinions that reflect the views of the majority of conservative posters on this thread. In other words, expect nothing more but personal insults from theme. They obviously cannot humbly admit defeat.