[Michael Michael]

It is natural to have differences of opinion and understanding but the two Michaels is unreasonable and argumentative.

Unreasonable and argumentative? Why, because I don't agree with you? Well hey, welcome to the real word. Not everyone agrees.

Once he stooped to the ad hominem attacks, his cover was blown.

Stooping to ad hominem attacks? What, "Obot" is a term of endearment?

Hypocrite.

It’s the same with No Sequitur and mlo and a few others that are infesting these threads.

If all you want is a big circle-jerk with those who only agree with you, might I suggest avoiding public forums. Otherwise, if you post on public forums, expect that someone is liable to disagree with you. And when they do, don't whine about it.

[Beckwith]

Obot is a term specifically coined for folks like yourself who have chosen to defend the Usurper. Your posts identify you as an Obot, not me.

It is not hypocritical to say, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and poops like a duck, it must be a duck.

On the other hand, describing people as chimpanzees is juvenile and offensive — and you meant it to offend and to lessen anyone who disagrees with you.

It is a feeble attempt at employing Alinsky’s Rule 5 — “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

But, back to business — I need to know.

What motivates you to defend the Usurper so vigorously? Do you do this out of pure loyalty, or are you a paid operative?