OK pal, you're on: quote even a single "insult" I have made to you personally, or "collectively".
You can’t be that stupid, can you?
You and I and everyone else knows that you are using “neo-Confederate” as an insult, a provocation. You use it the same way libtards use neo-con...because it smacks of the same evil connotations as neo-Nazi. NO ONE wanting to engage in a civil discussion would use such characterization, whether they are real terms or not. Well, if you are stupid, you might.
You could have used many other terms that don’t have such a negative connotation and started off with an honest effort to have a real discussion. No, what you did was make a list of supposed myths and then “supported” them with selected “facts”. That it itself was OK, but you then couldn’t resist trying to poke a stick in the eye of those who believe differently than you. My responses have been of the exact same tone. I told you I wouldn’t debate you because you are a neo-comm...but you’ve badgered me constantly, responding to comments I made to others, not you. So, as I indicated, I’ve stayed away from debate and simply used neo-comm to accurately describe you and your perspective.
You apparently take issue with that description, though I’m not sure why. You have indicated that neo-Confederate is a real term used to describe people like me. By the same rules, neo-comm is a real term used to describe people like you. Both are true if you want take the meaning of words and apply them selectively. Both terms are also used disparagingly.
You can’t have it both ways. Stop using provocative words you know are going to tweak people or accept the fact that people are going to disparage you in return.
OK, pal?
;-)