Re: Why lock?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Might you feel differently about the use of the word "sycophant"? Would you take umbrage at someone referring to you as a sycophant of your candidate if your candidate was enjoying widespread internet support?
[/ QUOTE ]
The question is a bit bizarre on its face. Even if there was some candidate who I agreed with on many of issues of great import to me, I don't particularly feel like they belong to me like my XBox or my pet cat do.
I voted for John Kerry in 2004, but in no way, shape or form would I consider him "my" candidate; I just found him less repulsive than the alternative. I suppose it's nice you've found missionary zeal in the Paul campaign, and consider him "your guy", but I don't really get emotionally attached enough to candidates to spend my time trying to convert random internet posters to vote for "my candidate". So to answer your question, if someone referred to me as a "sycophant of *my candidate*", I would probably shrug.
[/ QUOTE ]
See, now you're back to using the pejorative, and it looks like you've branched out into arguing semantics.
Is your world-view so dismal that you have to ridicule those who show enthusiasm for a person that is able to espouse a political philosophy that is in perfect agreement with their own?
Although, I suppose you've already answered that question since you admitted that you voted for the least repulsive candidate (and I'm assuming that you didn't vote for the candidate with whom you agree the most, rather, you voted for the candidate with whom you disagreed the least).
|