Outrage long overdue

I think Paul should bring this up in the campaign.

And...

I'm guessing NONE of the top Repubican conenders would defend this now. Paul should get Medina to ask for a public apology.

 

You'll note I stated:

... thus clearly showing that I'm aware of a current election to replace Bush. Also, note the point of the OP:

Amazingly, both my acknowledgement of the election to replace Bush and the reason of the OP (giving Paul a worthy cause to champion) were simultaneously ignored so as to stone the messenger with:

Really? Guess you missed this:

Thus proving that neither me nor libertarians in general "hate" Bush. I'd ask for a shred of evidence to the contrary but that would require you to 1) link to an article or 2) cite verifiable statistics... both of which I have done in this and above posts while you have solely resigned yourself to three opinion oriented posts containing precisely three sentences apiece and no, (count em!) zip, zero, zilch resources. My political sin seems to be holding a leader I VOTED FOR to a standard somewhat higher than Comedy Central during a time of war.

In fact, the closest you come, carpro, to even remotely defending Bush's gaffe is by flippantly dismissing the entire scenario as "petty." In light of George Medina's loss of his son, I don't think most people would defend someone mocking the reason for that loss regardless of what that reason is/was. For instance, if a drunk driver accidently killed a man and than parodied his mistake by quixotically looking under a desk for his AA schedule of meetings-- meetings which would have helped in preventing the needless loss of life-- I doubt you'd find that funny. If partisanship demands defense of insensitivity and wholesale conspiracies of "hate" by those who link to The New York Daily News (a conservative publication no less!) than perhaps it's time you window-shopped for a new worldview.