[cajungirl]

see post 101, he said it better than I.

Attacking me wont do anything to advance your cause or your opinion.

There was no "ad hominem" attack. My opinion was based on my personal reaction to that man. He gives me the creeps. His actions as described in post 101 seem to give credence to my reaction to him.

Now he may be your personal hero, but an awful lot of people responded the same way as I did if you remember. Are we all vermin?

[Texas Federalist]

First of all, you are too quick to mistake disagreement with an attack on you. Second of all, an "ad hominem" statement means a statement about the person, which your statement that Buchanan was "pompous" and "hateful" was. I said nothing inaccurate.

By the way, like you, I dislike Buchanan because of his anti-Israeli and isolationist views (neither of which was reflected in the 1992 speech). However, he is preferable to the liberal garbage that will be showcased in the 2004 Republican convention.