[youngjim]

Your prolix post equivocates "*words* with these particularly odious words "treasonous liberals."

That "your" side will not admit into evidence these words, shows your argument to be tendentious, intellectually dishonest, and a specious equivocation of the elements of the tort.

Now I'm not going to explain all of these big words to you, but until you stop framing the argument to prove your point (begging the question), you cannot have a civil debate on this matter.

[dmw]

And you are??? I didn't know I was talking to you. Are you representing
PSYCHO-FREEP?

Well, while you are here I will address your first comment (without being too prolixy) and then hopefully you can find someone else to confuse.

I never used the word "treasonous liberals" to anyone. If you have a problem with that description I suggest you go to the source. My point is STILL valid, don't vote for someone just because you got your feelings hurt over a couple of words. Is that so hard for you to understand, or are you another one of those sensitive liberals who when you get your feelings hurt decides to retaliate by voting for a liberal?