[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I apologise to you both for coming on strong. My purpose for this was to try to make a point. You both, as well as some others, seem like you wouldn't be satisfied unless Cantor had called for the head of Barack Obama to be delivered to him personally. Barring that, Cantor's a weak-kneed RINO who doesn't represent conservatives, yada yada. My point is that coming on strong on national television wouldn't have a counterproductive effect. Let me ask you - are you more inclined to support my position, now that I've gotten done raking you over the coals with a pair of razor-edged tongs? Probably not.

So why do you think Cantor would have done conservatism a service if he'd come out and laid into Obama hard core?

[Repeal 16-17]

I apologise to you both for coming on strong...now that I've gotten done raking you over the coals with a pair of razor-edged tongs? Probably not.

If you posted the first part I would have accepted your apology, but you had to post the second part. You didn't rake me over the coals. All you did was appear immature.

So why do you think Cantor would have done conservatism a service if he'd come out and laid into Obama hard core?

I don't think laying "into Obama hard core" would have made Cantor look intelligent; he would have appeared to be an idiot. My problem is with him wanting the Liberal Messiah not to fail. I believe He is a threat to this country and our freedoms, so obviously I want him to fail.

What people, like Cantor, mean when they say they want Him to succeed (or not fail) is that the United States should succeed in getting out of this economic crisis. What that does is make "Barack Obama" synonymous with "United States," so that if you want "Barack Obama" to fail that necessarily means you must also want the "United States" to fail. That's a highly dangerous mindset. No one person represents the whole of a country. Only a dictator or king thinks of himself in such a way.