I'm going to hurl a few three letter "words" at President Obama's legacy

[cui bono]

195. That's just not true.

When I say something positive about the president no one calls me an apologist. That's because I'm critical of him as well.

Apologist is for those who simply cannot stand to hear any criticism of Obama. And let's face it, there is plenty to criticize. Look, there are people defending him spying on Americans more than BushCo did. Defending him prosecuting more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined. Defending him offering up SS to the GOP. These actions were wrong when BushCo did them and they are wrong when Obama does it. But there are people who will defend it all just because Obama did it. He can do no wrong in their eyes. They are even defending him on the TPP. That is outrageous. So yes, they are apologists. That's just a fact. If you or anyone else thinks that's a slur, well then they can look to themselves and figure out why they have a blind loyalty to a politician that is putting forth moderate (sometimes not so moderate) Republican policies.

Critical thinkers look at the policy, not the man, and they criticize the policy. There is no hate there, other than the policy.

'Hater' just isn't the same as 'apologist'. Your false equivalency that both sides are doing the same thing is just that, false.

And you say Obamabot is "not allowed here" yet 'ODS' is left standing all the time. 'Hater' is left all the time. Just thought I'd point that out. Not sure why you are complaining about 'apologist' and trying to say I was whining from the beginning. I'm not the one who's doing the "whining" here and you are the one who started this with that statement against me even going so far as saying "Waaaa Waaaa stop calling us haters and so on....blah blah blah".

So why did you start this whole exchange and why are you trying to paint a false picture of me as you did?