So what you ae saying is that he is a right wing lemming, just shitting on the president with nothing to back up his claims simply because he doesn't like the message? That he could have easily supported his lemming like claim by providing proof of that criticism instead of carrying water for dear GOP leaders and following orders to tar and feather the president and anyone who agrees with him?
No, you're right. Your use of the word either was equally as critical of the post in question for being equally baseless for all the same reasons you cited against anyone who questioned it...
You are correct, I am saying this. I was also pointing out that two wrongs don't make a right.
Too many threads go like this:
Poster 1 " I think this... (perhaps with reason why not always)"
Poster 2 " You are [sometimes insert insult] and are wrong (almost always without saying why) "
Poster 1 " No you are wrong, [insert insult] "
Poster 2 " No you are wrong, [insert insult] [insert insult] "
Poster 1 " No you... [insert insult] [insert insult] [insert insult]"
Poster 2 " No you ... [insert insult] [insert insult] [insert insult] [insert insult]"
etc, etc, etc, and sometimes with a Poster 3,4,5 getting involved in the [insert insult] bit on both sides of the discussion. In comes a moderator on occasion to crack the whip.
It could have easily have gone like this:
Poster 1 " I think this and here is why "
Poster 2 " I think you are wrong and here is why "
....meaningful and enlightening discussion follow in which both posters can either agree to disagree given no right or wrong answer is obvious or agreeable or it is agreed that one poster was in error and stands corrected. The whole time remaining civil and cordial to one another.
I can't claim innocence either since I have many times been involved in the first scenario. Although I would prefer the second.