There’s a strawman … “Leftist blaming all the world’s ills on America.”

There’s the rejection of discussion … “Debating with people on the Left is pointless.”

And there’s the implied evil intent of those who do not wholly agree with your views … “constant assault on other people.”

Perhaps you should consider re-reading the Harries piece and addressing whether you think he is offering good advice or not rather than taking umbrage at a gentle tweaking (not mini-tirade) from an independent noting that many commenters here could improve their game by following the Harries rules more often.

“Debating” with people on the Left is pointless. Primarily because all they seem to want to do is point fingers for the past (and they are usually wrong in what they are accusing whoever of doing)

I rarely see a leftist present ideas or solutions for scutinty.

So what is usually the case , any debate turns in the Leftist blaming all the world’s ills on America.. tearing down other people’s ideas.. and not offering any of their own.

it’s just a constant assault on other people while holding themselves “above it all” and free from criticism.

I also agree that Neo herself seems to be far more intriguing than her commenters, who seem to exude extreme views with no awareness of the possibility of dialogue. Though I agree with your characterization of Neo’s views as relatively doctrinaire, at least one senses in her a willingness to dialogue which seems quite lacking in most of her commenters.

I also note that Neo only rarely makes comments beyond her original posting. Once her sermons are posted she mostly retires and allows the regulars to dominate the discussion. This congregation has a number of unfortunate tendencies that could, perhaps, use a bit more guidance from the preacher as they carry on. There are those who can be trusted to offer exactly the kind of “strawman” attacks they so despise and loudly attack from those who do not fully agree with their positions. Among the popular strawman attacks here are such perennial favorites as communists, socialists, liberals and democrats are an undifferentiated singular entity … these leftists admire Stalin and the USSR … leftists believe terrorists are misunderstood victims of US aggression … leftists admire Chavez … leftists are filled with loathing for America … the list of these strawmen at times seems endless.

In this regard Harries Rule 4 – never forget the uncommitted – is routinely broken. Although it must be noted here that Harries seems himself to fall into the unfortunate trap of seeing virtually all political discourse as an exercise in duality. The notion here and in Harries piece that seems fundamentally wrong is the idea that there is an “Us” and a “Them” along with an amorphous number of “uncommitted” spectators who might be convinced to join one team or the other. It is precisely this simplistic, adversarial view that is so distasteful and problematic in contemporary politics.

This ties directly to Rule 5 about addressing multiple audiences. Here anyone daring to offer a comment that does not immediately join the choir and sing exactly in tune risks being savagely attacked rather than persuaded to reconsider. The idea of changing anyone’s mind, however difficult that may be, is obviously far less important to most commenting here than scoring points with one’s chums. It is like a gang of intellectuals whose weapons are words rather than firearms defending their virtual turf from all who dare venture here.

Rule 10 is similarly ignored around here on a regular basis. Anyone disagreeing with any neo-con conventional wisdom is accused of all sorts of evil motives and intent.

Still, it is always stimulating to drop by and see what Neo has to say and how her congregation responds.

You might this very clear right but this approach taken far to convert others by wars!!

Yes its hard to changing mind of people believe but the new Neoconservatism Madrasah believing in convert others by war its clear and they are determined

Irving Kristol telling his book The Neoconservative Persuasion this:

Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.

So this is exactly the opposite what have done in US on political realm but it taken furthers to outside US to other nations by war.