Old Dog
Member
I find it a bit disheartening that the thread starter, and others, are being accused of being "people with overly thin skins." In my view, those who would say that still don't get it ...
But thank you.
Statist apologist is no more of a "Personal Attack" than calling someone a NeoConservative or libertarian.No, of course not -- because it's simply another label that in the great scheme of things means absolutely nought.
Yes I was. And if somehow Hillary Clinton is elected, I'll be offended if (when) the inevitable stupid nicknames begin ... (Even though I loath the woman with every fiber of my being.)Were you offended when that same level of nastiness was aimed at Bill Clinton?
This is what really amuses me -- as though anyone would think that -- even IF George Bush was "my guy" -- he needs me to defend him on a freakin' internet forum! It's almost insulting to think that some would think that I think I need to defend him on an internet forum ...If not, then it's not the tone that bothers you, it's the fact that it's aimed at YOUR GUY.
Sarcasm not required here -- most of us get this!Surprise, surprise... Not everyone here worships George Bush.
Maybe I'm being think-skinned here ... but that's a comment that I always rather regard as insulting ...Deal With It
Another thing I find ironic ... when I stand up for the office -- I am labeled an "apologist" and a "statist." Hmm ...PS If you complained about the attacks on Clinton, too, then you are standing up for the office, not the man. In which case, I owe you an apology.
But thank you.
Statist apologist is no more of a "Personal Attack" than calling someone a NeoConservative or libertarian.No, of course not -- because it's simply another label that in the great scheme of things means absolutely nought.