[TommyDale]

You are ignorant if you can’t understand the comment.

[Stultis]

You are ignorant if you can’t understand the comment.

O.K. So help me. When indylindy said in #66:

Idiots blindly follow without questioning the intentions of the person they follow.

You didn't think he was talking about Bush ("the person they follow") and supporters of Bush (the "idiots" who "blindly follow")? And therefore when you directly responded in #67 with:

The Germans thought Adolph Hitler was a great leader, and they followed him.

Even though, since this was the entirety of your post, and therefore

1. Your "The Germans" must have been the analog to indylindy's "the 'idiots' who 'blindly follow'," and
2. Your "Hitler" must have been the analog to indylindy's "the person they follow,"

you weren't making a comparison between Bush and Hitler?

It follows then that, despite this being a thread about Bush, you must have thought indylindy was talking about someone other than Bush and his followers, or you must have thought that he was making some absolutely general comment, unrelated to Bush, in a thread about Bush.

So which was it?

Did you think indylindy was referring to someone other than Bush and his supporters? If so, who?

Or did you think that -- right in the middle of a thread specifically about Bush, AND in responding with quotes to someone who said they "love Bush," AND then making a reference to Mexico, AND then reiterating the "love" theme with a comment about love being blind -- indylindy suddenly, in the very next sentence, without any transition, suddenly offered the "idiots blindly follow" comment as a completely general musing not specifically referencing Bush?