[Trace21230]

Please continue to ask questions. I don't think anyone has a legitimate objection to doing that.

BUT, the problem arises when the anti-Bush contingency flames Bush as a "liberal" or a "RINO" or fill in your own virile, hateful, ad hominem attack.

For many of us, myself included, attacking this President personally is akin to a personal attack on myself. As far as I'm concerned, Bush is an honest and decent man who always has the best intentions, and the best interests of the country at heart.

So please, disagree and question on points of divergence. But don't be surprised if personal attacks on our Commander-in-Chief are responded to in kind on this message board.

Trace

[KantianBurke]

posters who have merely questioned Bush's policies have been flamed as if they HAD lanched personal attacks on others or Bush. Its a TWO WAY street!

[Brian_Baldwin]

Look ... I never take a specific poster, specific handle/name, and then attack that person using names, or any personal attack. My M.O. is I used pet names against politicians e.g. Bufffalo Bush - I think politicians deserve it and it's expected - or I use pet names against political groups/wings, e.g. "fanatical wing of the Bushies" --- but never against a specific Buffaloed Bushie in particular, not a specific Bushie by name. And, then watch them - they attack me specifically by name, they use name calling and pet names directed specifically at me. You see? But I never respond back with the same. And I never participate in such name calling against specific handles/names/persons. It's always directed at politicians (which should be expected, and is pratically as American as hotdogs and applepie) or directed at general political wings/positions/groups. As far at those who say, if we pet-name Bush they take it as a personal name call against themself, well, they only have a problem that goes beyond simply political debate and into the realm of personal problems.