is it really necessary?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Interpretation... call me a hate-monger. Got it. Try making that wrong.

YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND OR "INTERPRET" THIS FROM ANOTHER ANGLE AND NOT TAKE IT PERSONALLY...UNDERSTAND THAT FOR MANY, FOLKS LIKE O ARE IDOLS....LOVED, ADORED AND WORSHIPED(FOR REASONS I'LL NEVER UNDERSTAND)...IF YOU CRITICIZE SOMEONE OR SOMETHING THAT IS LOVED, ADORED AND WORSHIPED, YOU ARE GUILTY OF THE OPPOSITE OF LOVE...WHICH IS NATURALLY, "HATE"...WHICH IS WHY THE TERM IS SO GENEROUSLY LADLED OUT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE TRUE MEANING, USUALLY IN A DEFENSIVE MANNER INTENDED TO DEFLECT/DISMISS RATHER THAN PROVIDE REASONABLE OR RATIONAL ARGUMENT WHEN YOU CAN'T RATIONALIZE WHY YOUR "IDOL" HAS SO MISLED AND FAILED TO MEET YOUR HIGH EXPECTATIONS IT'S EASIER TO BLAME OTHER'S FOR HIS FAILINGS RATHER THAN BLAME THE ONE YOU LOVE....WE SEE THIS A LOT....

recall that Clinton's style of politics was referred to as "blood-sport", a label that they embraced and seemed proud of...and that was fine as long as his side was drawing the blood, criticism resulted in the label Clinton "hater"......with this administration it's very much the same...more like "Chicago thug politics"...sorry..."Chicago-bully"...funny that it was Clinton who first labeled Obama a "Chicago-Thug" from what I can recall....