What does your friends being right have to do with the necessity of defending them?
There is no necessity to defend what is wrong, and it
is possible to defend your friend without acquitting him when
he
is wrong.
Our enemy has never done the sort of ethical soul searching that we engage in relentlessly, and as a consequence their agenda has steadily advanced for decades.
That isn't even close to the sole reason their agenda has advanced.
They do not tolerate these internecine conflicts within their ranks. They show solidarity with the worst sort of scum out there, and we always form circular firing squads, and often over the stupidest and most trivial reasons.
Behaving
like your enemy does nothing but give your enemy even more powerful ammunition than he has already.
We first beat back our enemies, and after their attack is blunted, then we work to get our friends "right."
I saw how far
that got us when President Lips II and his Republican Congresses did nothing but metastasise big government,
often enough flouting the Constitution to do it, and when enough of their "friends" assaulted those yelling "stop!" and sometimes
in language and with tactics that would have been considered obscene in Sodom and Gomorrah. That got us nothing but eight years of
His Excellency Al-Hashish Field Marshmallow Dr. Barack Obama Dada, COD, RIP, LSMFT, Would-Have-Been-Life President of the
Republic Formerly Known as the United States. How'd
that work out?
It's neither your fault nor mine. When all was said and done, we were presented a national house afire---and given nothing but the
choice between a pair of arsonists to fight the fire. (Unless you were fortunate enough in your state, as was I in mine, to have the
ballot option of "None of These Candidates." That was my presidential vote, and I have no regrets, nor should I.)
