Tom, its your agenda that is unyielding, non-negotiable and consistent. Your partisan ideology demands that any questioning of that agenda can only be the result of a lack of integrity on the part of your critics.

You want us to accept your views and abandon ours. Is it really all that surprising that those who have your ideas thrust on them repeatedly and stridently (and their own convictions ridiculed and condemned) respond with indifference, if not outright hostility?

Because of your rhetorical tactics, the topics you insist on bringing up are met with caution and suspicion. Even when you make a point we may happen to concur with in part, we are hesitant to reward you because experience has show that you will not settle for qualified agreement but only total capitulation. For some silly reason that's what you expect.

In your timeline, Obama's security policies are not just wrong or mistaken or even dangerous but they are indisputable evidence of his sinister program to destroy liberty and freedom and plunge the world into darkness--an inevitable consequence of his intrinsic unsuitability to be President and why not only he, but his followers and their entire world view and philosophy must be discredited and demonized. The floor must be wiped with them, to coin a colorful phrase.

We know how these conversations always end up, you've given us only three ways we can respond to posts like this: obsequious and fawning acceptance, total criticism and hostility, or indifference.

This is Flame, you brought this up. How, or whether we respond, or even if we should, is our business. That displays, I think, both consistency and integrity.