Maybe an analogy would help. What if we posted an article that was fully refuted over a year ago whose title was "Is Nanny's Husband Still Beating Her and Does He Have Good Reason for Doing So"? Then the article proceeded to talk about a recent trip you had made to the hospital and suggested it was for the beating you were given when in fact it was for childbirth.
The title has two wrong premises. One that your husband has been beating you and two that he may have had good reason for doing so. Neither of those would reflect well on you or your family but according to you, the poster only asked a question, why the fuss?
The article then goes on to talk in detail about your recent trip to the hospital and focuses on your blood loss, trauma, and pain but neglected to mention that you were giving birth, not suffering from a beating. That is like suggesting that someone was invited to the White House by the President of the United States because they attended a White House Correspondents Association Dinner at the Marriott where the President was an invited guest.
And what if after over 300 posts where the errors in the original article are explained in detail the poster and his friends continue to argue that you were beaten by your husband and the proof of that was your recent trip to the hospital?
Now sure there are things that could be debated in the article about Bush. As further proof of the fact that Bush was morally deficient like Klintoon, Baldwin says that Bush appointed gays high levels within his administration and that he approved the murder of little babies because he agreed to a compromise on stem cell research.
First of all as I said some 150 posts back. Bush hasnt appointed any gay to a high level post within the government unless that person is still in the closet. The few gays that he has nominated were to low level spots comparable to special assistant to the assistant secretary for Latin American Affairs. These people dont make policy and they certainly dont make it on gay related issues. And Bush didnt appoint them because they were gay, he appointed them because they had the skills and knowledge to do the job.
Similarly 150 posts or so back, I pointed out that the country was split 50-50 on stem cell research. Some, including high level Republicans, wanted the research for medical gains that were going to occur as a result. Others were aghast that these frozen cells would be used for research rather than just destroyed as they normally were. Bush's compromise to allow medical research on existing stem cells but not to create new stem cell lines was a reasonable decision. It certainly didnt deserve the suggestion that he was a secret baby killer.
Does any of this make it clearer to you why the poster got the reaction he did?
Once again, I don't think anyone read my posts. They just read that I am question the President - often - so that was enough.
You wasted a lot of space on you reply - since I never commented on any of those particular things in regard to Bush. I posted on the nature of the double standard in judging Clinton and judging Bush.
Someone has told me that the watch list terrorist never made it to the WH - I will have to check that out, for my self. But really by the time you check something out and get back - no one is reading.
My question if you had seen a picture of Bill Clinton with a terrorist on the watch list at a Democratic fundraiser and he had been President during 9/11 - what would your reaction have been? No answers - just silence on that score. Now I thought - and still do - that the man was invited and came to the WH - someone has said no - I will check it out so won't m ake that assertion - but I saw the picture so unless someone is going to tell me it was a doctored photo, I will accept the picture. Now what would your reaction have been? Don't atttack me for goodness sakes, I just asked a question. I have received two, so far, with a long list of the points in the article and refutation of them. I never commented on either of the articles in connection with the President.
Now stick with me here - in response to a post that said their parents were Christians and they watched Osbourne - I replied I didn't know why anyone would want to pollute their home and mind with such. Some of the Pres. Bush rabid supporters someone twisted that into Osbourne int he WH - far from it.
Now I do have a problem with those who believe this President can do no wrong - that frightens me - it is so dangerous to be so blind. We need to always be a little cynical about someone we have given the job of running this country. That is our job - not to blindly follow. That is falling down on the job.
If you want to debate me on what I said - please do that - but just on what I said - not what you thought I said - not what you need to pull out of thin air so you can support the PResident.