There was nothing in that post to elicit such anger and derision from you.
Please read it again and reconsider what you said to me, and I will reconsider what I now think of you....
Something you didn't intend to say does not equal no personal barbs or offensive remarks. Sorry. Reread your posts. It was you who began the lecturing.
I dislike the "Bush Hating" as much as you do. And among the Bush supporters (a group to which I belong), are the "Bush Lovers" (your screen name says it all) who can't stomach ANY honest and genuine criticism of President Bush and thus can be almost as annoying.
Unlike Ronald Reagan, President Bush believes in big government and big spending and his concept of "compassionate conservatism" is directly tied to his failure to curb big government. When I first made the point, it was you who chose to argue it, even though you too are dissatisfied with his lack of effort in this area.
You have expressed your opinions every bit as strongly as I have expressed mine. Because I clearly understand you have just as much a right to do so as do I, I would never suggest your so doing implies a belief we are on opposing sides. Yet you proceeded, and quite wrongly, to make that implication (that I argue as if we are on different sides) regarding me.
I defended my point for three reasons: because I believe it to be true; because it is important for the survival of this country to decrease the size and scope of government and because it is important to point out not only when Liberals fail in this regard but when conservatives do so as well.
Your originally charged me with hypersensitivity regarding President Bush's use of the term,"compassionate conservatism." I have correlated the president's belief in his brand of conservatism, "compassionate conservatism," to his failure not only to shrink big government but to grow it. It is you who are guilty of hypersensitivity - to any disagreement with President Bush expressed by another poster, no matter how well intentioned or regardless of sincerity.