Reply #407: i don't see why i should use "defender" when i mean "apologist".

[tomp]

would i be allowed, for instance, to say, "defenders of obama's treasonous failure to prosecute bush/cheney, inc."? because that's what i actually mean. so how is that really different from "apologist"? if you force me, at pain of tombstoning, to say something i don't mean, or say nothing, you are censoring me. are you really meaning to exclude certain words from use on du?

part of the problem with politics is that so seldom do politicians say what they actually mean. part of the solution is that we do not emulate that tactic here.

i do not consider it disrespectful to tell someone i think they are wrong and why. i do not think it is not "ad hominem" to hold someone accountable for their views. if i think obama is a traitor for not prosecuting bush/cheny, inc., it is perfectly consistent for me to think supporting obama in that position is treasonous. i think i should be allowed to say so. i suspect you disagree.