And remember an attack on the president's statements, policies, views etc. is NOT an attack on him personally and certainly not an attack on you.

Where does "Obama sycophant" fit in? How about "leftist," "Marxist," "those suffering from cognitive dissonance," "sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome," where do those fit in on the personal scale?

Let me guess on that answer..."Just because I refer to ______________ as _______________ and you happen to be one of those people, that doesn't mean I'm referring to you personally."

Did I get that right? I've always had a hard time squaring those circles.

Which do you feel most would consider a personal attack?

a) Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. He needs to be back in rehab.

b) Obama is a leftist who has a horrible understanding of economics. He's trying to destroy the economy because he's s socialist.

c) The point of the article went right over your head, as usual. Your lack of education is showing. You are a cipher.

d) Bush policies destroyed the economy. All he cared about was padding the pockets of his rich Oil buddies.

A?

A?

Hey, Rush is in the house!

Hi, Rush. Thanks for visiting the WP.

Wha? Ohhhhh! I get it! Hilarious.

And remember an attack on the president's statements, policies, views etc. is NOT an attack on him personally and certainly not an attack on you.

Where does "Obama sycophant" fit in? How about "leftist," "Marxist," "those suffering from cognitive dissonance," "sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome," where do those fit in on the personal scale?

Let me guess on that answer..."Just because I refer to ______________ as _______________ and you happen to be one of those people, that doesn't mean I'm referring to you personally."

Did I get that right? I've always had a hard time squaring those circles.

Which do you feel most would consider a personal attack?

a) Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. He needs to be back in rehab.

b) Obama is a leftist who has a horrible understanding of economics. He's trying to destroy the economy because he's s socialist.

c) The point of the article went right over your head, as usual. Your lack of education is showing. You are a cipher.

d) Bush policies destroyed the economy. All he cared about was padding the pockets of his rich Oil buddies.

That explains my point well. I think many here would consider B a personal insult to them.

For the record, when I say I take some comments about Obama personally, I don't mean that I take the comments to be about me. What I mean is that the over-the-top cruelty towards him and any other decent human being is something I personally don't stand for and will challenge it when I see it. It's nothing less than cheap, low class, school yard bullying. It'd be nice for these debates to be about policy and not about how much we hate someone personally.

And remember an attack on the president's statements, policies, views etc. is NOT an attack on him personally and certainly not an attack on you.

Where does "Obama sycophant" fit in? How about "leftist," "Marxist," "those suffering from cognitive dissonance," "sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome," where do those fit in on the personal scale?

Let me guess on that answer..."Just because I refer to ______________ as _______________ and you happen to be one of those people, that doesn't mean I'm referring to you personally."

Did I get that right? I've always had a hard time squaring those circles.

Which do you feel most would consider a personal attack?

a) Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. He needs to be back in rehab.

b) Obama is a leftist who has a horrible understanding of economics. He's trying to destroy the economy because he's s socialist.

c) The point of the article went right over your head, as usual. Your lack of education is showing. You are a cipher.

d) Bush policies destroyed the economy. All he cared about was padding the pockets of his rich Oil buddies.

That explains my point well. I think many here would consider B a personal insult to them.

It didn't explain a thing, but, then again, that was to be expected.

And remember an attack on the president's statements, policies, views etc. is NOT an attack on him personally and certainly not an attack on you.

Where does "Obama sycophant" fit in? How about "leftist," "Marxist," "those suffering from cognitive dissonance," "sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome," where do those fit in on the personal scale?

Let me guess on that answer..."Just because I refer to ______________ as _______________ and you happen to be one of those people, that doesn't mean I'm referring to you personally."

Did I get that right? I've always had a hard time squaring those circles.

Which do you feel most would consider a personal attack?

a) Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. He needs to be back in rehab.

b) Obama is a leftist who has a horrible understanding of economics. He's trying to destroy the economy because he's s socialist.

c) The point of the article went right over your head, as usual. Your lack of education is showing. You are a cipher.

d) Bush policies destroyed the economy. All he cared about was padding the pockets of his rich Oil buddies.

That explains my point well. I think many here would consider B a personal insult to them.

I would hope not, but you're probably correct. If so, that would explain a lot of what goes on here.

Which do you feel most would consider a personal attack?

a) Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. He needs to be back in rehab.

b) Obama is a leftist who has a horrible understanding of economics. He's trying to destroy the economy because he's s socialist.

c) The point of the article went right over your head, as usual. Your lack of education is showing. You are a cipher.

d) Bush policies destroyed the economy. All he cared about was padding the pockets of his rich Oil buddies.

All I know is that C is a hilarious mashup of classic jkeller forum angst. 😛

https://allmanbrothersband.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=138250&page=3

I'm not into guys, Perry, find someone else to stalk.

For the record, when I say I take some comments about Obama personally, I don't mean that I take the comments to be about me. What I mean is that the over-the-top cruelty towards him and any other decent human being is something I personally don't stand for and will challenge it when I see it. It's nothing less than cheap, low class, school yard bullying. It'd be nice for these debates to be about policy and not about how much we hate someone personally.

Over the top cruelty? Seriously? Saying he is arrogant or a narcisist is over the top cruelty? My God.

not those words....words like "disgusting hypocrite", "failure", "disgrace", "has american blood on his hands", etc. Not sure if you said all those personally, but these are examples of what I consider to be over-the-top, nasty, and uncalled for. Regardless of the personal hatred of a President, one should refrain from this type of language out of respect for the office first and foremost.

not those words....words like "disgusting hypocrite", "failure", "disgrace", "has american blood on his hands", etc. Not sure if you said all those personally, but these are examples of what I consider to be over-the-top, nasty, and uncalled for. Regardless of the personal hatred of a President, one should refrain from this type of language out of respect for the office first and foremost.

I hardly think those are hateful or over the top comments. Politics ain't beanbag my friend. Do you not recall prior presidents being attacked in this manner? Does Obama get some kind of dispensation that makes it off limits? If I happen to think he's a failure it is hateful for me to call him a failure? If I think he's being a hypocrite its over the top to say so? I think you should take a look back at American history to see what political opponents said about the presidents. But more than that take a look at the language used on this board to describe Republican and conservative figures daily. Does only Obama get a pass? Really now.

No, of course he does not get a pass, and I realize it has occurred with most Presidents. As I mentioned earlier, the first time I began feeling this way was was in '03 when liberals brutally attacked Bush. It was the ugliest I have ever seen Americans behave and I prayed I would never have to see us stoop so low ever again. But here we are and it seems worse now in my opinion, which I'm sure is biased a bit. But I'm afraid we've entered an era where one side bashes the other 24-7, and the divide continues to widen instead of narrow.

The other basis of my argument is that the hostility between parties usually stems from personal problems, and politics is a convenient outlet to vent those problems. Most of what we argue about is so trivial in our own lives so there is no logical explanation for them to cause such hostility between the 2 sides. Politics cannot create the anger. The anger has always been there and politics brings it out. Michael Moore and Limbaugh are the same in that sense.

No, of course he does not get a pass, and I realize it has occurred with most Presidents. As I mentioned earlier, the first time I began feeling this way was was in '03 when liberals brutally attacked Bush. It was the ugliest I have ever seen Americans behave and I prayed I would never have to see us stoop so low ever again. But here we are and it seems worse now in my opinion, which I'm sure is biased a bit. But I'm afraid we've entered an era where one side bashes the other 24-7, and the divide continues to widen instead of narrow.

The other basis of my argument is that the hostility between parties usually stems from personal problems, and politics is a convenient outlet to vent those problems. Most of what we argue about is so trivial in our own lives so there is no logical explanation for them to cause such hostility between the 2 sides. Politics cannot create the anger. The anger has always been there and politics brings it out. Michael Moore and Limbaugh are the same in that sense.

x2

No, of course he does not get a pass, and I realize it has occurred with most Presidents. As I mentioned earlier, the first time I began feeling this way was was in '03 when liberals brutally attacked Bush. It was the ugliest I have ever seen Americans behave and I prayed I would never have to see us stoop so low ever again. But here we are and it seems worse now in my opinion, which I'm sure is biased a bit. But I'm afraid we've entered an era where one side bashes the other 24-7, and the divide continues to widen instead of narrow.

The other basis of my argument is that the hostility between parties usually stems from personal problems, and politics is a convenient outlet to vent those problems. Most of what we argue about is so trivial in our own lives so there is no logical explanation for them to cause such hostility between the 2 sides. Politics cannot create the anger. The anger has always been there and politics brings it out. Michael Moore and Limbaugh are the same in that sense.

If you are a liberal who felt this way in 2003 when Bush was so harshly attacked then you pretty much stood alone from what I could see but I respect it. The difference between us is that I don't think calling Obama a failure or calling him a hypocrite is over the top if there is evidence of it. And I do think there is evidence of it. I have never and would never, ridicule his family or post ugly stupid memes or anything like that. But I think he is arrogant. And I think he is a narcisist. I don't automatically feel that way about everyone I disagree with. Heck I disagree with the majority of my friends and family. This all started because you decided to accuse me of having a racial motive for attacking Obama. I assure you I do not. The only time I even think of his race is when you or someone else brings it up. And that's as it should be. I prefer to judge him by the content of his character which on a political level at least I find wanting. Now I would like to end this. I intend to spend the next two years calling it like I see it. And I expect my political opponents to do the same.