Glenn Beck and some others keep urging not to see other people as 'the enemy',

but when you read crap like this, you realize that some of them ARE the enemy. In the comments to this post at Anarchangel,
I also believe that I'll have to give up a lot, in terms of tax dollars, for things to get better. Unlike you, Chris, I don't have an issue with a cap on bonuses or salaries. I think the government, be it local or federal, can be a good way to distribute resources more evenly. There are people losing their homes while others on Wall Street have several, and whine about having to give up just one of them. Where's the democracy in that?

I know I'm in the minority here on this blog, but I always enjoy reading comments and thought I'd at least put out there what someone who did "vote for change" feels about our current situation.
I just keep marveling at this. She believes in, she wants the government to take what we earn and 'distribute it more evenly'. Theft by force and fear, and she applauds the idea. Someone loses their home, someone else has more than one, and she actually asks "Where's the democracy in that?" As if democracy has a damn thing to do with someone owning more than someone else, or the result, in far too many cases, of borrowing more money than they could pay back.
Chris responds
Frankly, your beliefs are evil. Involuntary redistribution of wealth is no different than slavery.

You are a deluded fool for not understanding this; never mind for believing otherwise.

Which got her knickers in a twist:
Why do you feel it necessary to add judgemental language to your reply? I truly don't understand why you feel it necessary to label my beliefs "wrong", "evil", and call me "deluded". Why isn't it possible to have a fundamental disagreement about politics and economics without resorting to threats of violence and and placing value judgements on differing beliefs?
If I may throw in my own response: Amy, we all judge things all the time; being judgemental isn't automatically a bad thing. And he has pretty much the same opinion I do: your desire for the government to steal what I work for so it can redistribute it as some socialist politician prefers is evil. He- and I- think that you have to be deluded to think that's a good thing.

And as for 'value judgements', you make the judgement that it's wrong for one person to have more than another; you make the judgement that it's a good thing for the government, at gunpoint, to take what people earn and give it to others(and if you think 'at gunpoint' is exaggeration, try not paying your taxes and see what winds up happening to you), therefore that it's wrong for Chris or I or anyone to simply keep what we earn; you're not in a good position to bitch at other people for making judgements.

And please show me where anyone 'threatened you with violence'? Unless you count serious disagreement a threat.

A little further along she comes out with this:
For the past 9 years, I disagreed with the policies and ethics of the leaders of this country. This past November, I made a choice to vote in a person and leadership whose values I do align with. I still don't see why there is a right or wrong here, or why you feel you are in the position to judge me. My views differ from yours, period.
So she likes the values of those who want to socialize the country, rob everyone who works hard and succeeds, and tried damn hard to make us lose in Iraq and will try to make us lose in Afghanistan; and she thinks there is no 'right or wrong here'. And is really upset that Chris judged her views on this.

To once again throw my own piece in here: Amy, you just said your values sit with those who want to loot us, and our families and friends, and don't want us to judge your beliefs? When you have judged ours(but that's apparently ok)? And you don't think there's a right or wrong involved? Then either you cannot understand that there IS right and wrong involved to us, or you ignore it and say we're threatening for daring to say "There is right and wrong, and we think Obama and you are in the wrong."

This is one of those cases where someone may be, personally, very nice, but it doesn't matter: because she pushes views that threaten our lives and work and nation, and doesn't want us to dare to say we think her ways are bad; that her Chosen One is trying to, maybe deliberately, badly damage this nation. We shouldn't say that because it's judgemental, and pointing to seeing right and wrong. And, nasty as it sounds, that does make her part of the enemy.