Wow. You do surprise. You completely miss the point, and then do it again.


-> 
-> 
-> DD>* A pathological hatred of the president posing as patriotism
-> DD>* has infected the Republican Party. Here's new data to prove it:
->
There is nothing in this statement that has to do with, reflect, or imply 
a connection of pathological hatred and strongly disagreeing.
You jumped to the conclusion that they were/are/being accused of being
connected.


-> TR> Since when does verbally and strongly disagreeing with a president,
-> TR> become `pathological hatred'?

It doesn't. They are not connected. Unless you want to say talking, and
screaming are not distinguishable. That's the level of your argument.


-> 
-> 
-> DD>It doesn't - and no one in the article quoted said it did.

Well, that clears that up. Done and done....uh....
-> 
-> 
-> TR> Then....as those are *your* initials in front of that statement, are
we
-> TR> to believe that it is *you* who said it did?

No one said it did. That is the interesting angle that you do/will not see.
Interesting.


-> 
-> 
-> DD>Show me the quote where is says "verbally and strongly disagreeing
with a
-> DD>president" equates to a "pathological hatred"...

You cant get more clear than that.


 You are seeing things that
-> DD>are not there - again.

Well THAT certain ends the misunderstanding....uh....  
-> 
-> 
-> 
-> *You* typed (and I quote):
-> 
-> 
-> 
-> "A pathological hatred of the president posing as patriotism has
infected the
-> Republican Party. Here's new data to prove it:"
-> 
Well done! 
-> 
-> You `did' type that....did you not?
-> 
Exactly.
 
-> And I answered (and I quote):
-> 
-> 
-> "Since when does verbally and strongly disagreeing with a president

This, introduces a completely different subject into the conversation. Why
is it that you INSIST on equating the two different and dissimilar things. 

-> 
-> *You* pop up with the notion that it equates to `pathological hatred',

(Sigh) Wrong-o...



--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5