So it was a reading comprehension issue after all.
"If Rand is a man of God and has a secret strategy that he feels God is pleased with, then he won't get offended at our skepticism."
That's you justifying the attacks that Winston is going into not on Rand, but on anyone who supports or acknowledges anything Rand does as good. The argument you use is that it is ok to engage in this sort of gross vilification without reflection because if you're wrong, it's no big deal, as Rand has God.
It's the equivalent of saying, "Just because Jesus was thrice denied, it's not a big deal because God took him into his loving arms anyways."
Skepticism is fine. Malevolent witch hunting is not. Skepticism is posting well reasoned and thoughtful calls for reflection on Rand's past actions. Winston has engaged in none of that. What he has engaged on is nothing less than an all out assault on anyone who supports anything Rand does.
I know it's hard to read, but did you actually read what he was saying in what he was writing? He's not even attacking Rand directly, he's attacking the poster who is supporting Rand on this action. He has yet to answer my single logical point, in this or NUMEROUS other threads.
"If you hate Rand this much for endorsing Romney who you do not support and who is an evil man, do you also hate Ron Paul for endorsing and supporting Gingrich and Boehner for the Speaker of the House position? If not, why is it ok to vilify one person for an endorsement and not ok to vilify another?"
It's a simple logical question.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: