Fundamental Arguments with 3 Netizens

   I am in the middle of three arguments on the internet, one defending a netizen friend offended by a truck driver with a confederate flag on the back of the pick-up. Another was an IM with a friend who defended a Clinton presidency over a Trump. The morning on-line started with a comment from a Facebook “friend” whose lint I picked up after joining a Facebook group; he didn’t like my blaming Middle World violence on US imperialistic designs

     To the netizen friend who was offended by seeing a confederate flag on the back of a passing pick-up truck, I said let the air out of his tires. Some troll called it ‘violent’. I then said move his windshield wipers and the fool accused me of editing my comment?!

I said, “Direct action gets satisfaction. Find out where he lives and let the air out of his tires. Letting air out of a tire, or a person with a weak argument, is not violence. Okay, maybe just lift his windshield wipers will send a message that he has to fear for the consequences of his actions. Racism is wrong and he doesn't have the right to promote it. Sure. Come out into the open where we can see you, but accept the consequences.     

He then chided me for what he thought was my modifying my comment. It was weird of him accusing me of "editing" my comments; I merely gave another non-violent tactic to respond to racism."Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," is my credo. I will be an activist against tolerance for racism long before I accept racism as a valid argument.

This person needed to be convinced that there is a war on racism and the racist enemy must become fearful of expressing his beliefs if finally he cannot be convinced. Sometimes only serendipitous clandestine action will help a racist see the light

My liberal friend from New York who thinks Clinton will be better than Trump was sent a meme by me attacking Obama’s record of promoting violence while president by saying Clinton was better than Trump. I tried convincing that there is no sitting down for freedom and democracy; Clinton is no alternative to Trump but Sanders, who is a coward, was.

His comment came in response to a meme I posted about an upcoming event celebrating the life of Ralph Nadar. Mark blamed Nadar on Bush's victory like Gore or Mondale would have done any worse. He doesn't realize what I realized about democracy under capitalism.

Sure, that's what the CIA wants you to think, but the buffoon would only draw American racism and white supremacy to a head; give the progressive movement a good target. Clinton will clandestinely lead the US further into war and depleted social programs, just as her husband did.

The CIA succeeded. Look what the progressive movement did with Nixon! We would have the country on the verge of revolution if Trump were president. "The darkest hour is just before the dawn." Bring the darkest hour on. Don't let the US linger in twilight too long while Americans and people of the world suffer.

I told my friend everyone who loves freedom and liberty must go out into the streets. I fear more for the clandestine policies Clinton will have on your and my children. They have to get out in the streets, too. I have no hope for the US until after the current regime is ousted.

      The “lint” from a group I joined was upset about my saying the U.S. caused the violence and threw me a red herring asking if I liked philosophy. Another friend defended me saying to ignore him but I challenged him to a debate about US causing Islam to circle the wagons against the assault to their culture and homeland. I wrote:

“The destruction of Islam is by Euro-American hands. Look back at Afghanistan, Iran & Libya before their Islamic Revolutions, all but 50 years ago. How things have changed! A people under attack in the Middle World circle the wagons and lose their ease. Westerners should put their energies into cleaning up their own backyard and stop their governments from terrorizing the Muslim world and provoking it.”

The first netizen who spoke his mind in a troll comment on-line threw me a red herring I challenged him to a debate about US causing Islam to circle the wagons against the assault to their culture and homeland. He asked, “Are you a fan of philosophical writing?” I replied, “I guess I am; I especially admire Kahlil Gibran; have you read his work? Your question has to do with the meme? I am curious.” He responded, “I have objections but all are category related, so I could easily convince you that I agreed or disagreed depending on how I responded to it”.

I responded, “Okay, you name the place and I will debate it with you.”

I am not afraid to confront people in person or on the internet; I only know when there's no more point in knowing someone and letting them live their private hells somewhere out of my sight.