It's even more fun reading you write revisionist history of this conversation. Go on, find any quote in this thread where I denied the contras were worse. I'll wait. You'll fail, and because you're not mature enough to acknowledge that failure, you'll make up something else instead, or just stick to this same lie, or just disappear.
I never made an equivalence between them, outside of saying that I didn't support either side. Go on, try to find where I did. When you fail, you won't have the maturity to acknowledge it, unfortunately.
Should we ignore your support of cold-blooded killers and oppressors of minorities and the press, because they are not as cold-blooded and oppressive as some other group?
No one asked you to apologize, and I would never expect you to apologize. You seem to feel justified in your lying, and I expect nothing else.
Nor did I criticize your personhood, just your take that "less bad" = "good". By contrast, the actual name calling has been on your part. I suppose it is always easier to see our faults in other people.
I want to thank you for copying in all the posts you were discussing following this. Now, please point out the passage that equates to me denying the contras were worse, or making an equivalence between the contras and Sandinistas.
The part you really object to is, AFACT, saying the contras being worse doesn't make the Sandinistas good. I mean, if you take just a moment to think about the implications of "So, that makes supporting the Sandinistas good?", that is already acknowledging they are less bad than the contras; how else could they be considered good by comparison? You've engaged in an extended pout because you failed to see the implied comparison.
For emphasis, no one is expecting you to apologize. My expectation is that you will try to justify yourself with another self-righteous post. I look forward to it.
