I'm thinking that I know the difference between a troll and between someone who posts differing opinions backed up with a reasoned argument. This is not an Amway meeting - differing opinions are allowed. And they're allowed even if they are specifically designed to get under someone's skin, as long as they are debated and debatable.
There have been many examples here of where Obama has done something that was just OMG outrageous, mainly because it was Obama who did it, despite the fact that previous presidents, conservatives included, have done the exact same thing, and when that hypocrisy gets pointed out, people cry troll.
Frankly, people who use terms like Obumma, Pantload in Chief, King Putz, and all the other adolescent euphemisms inappropriate for intelligent debate are more guilty of being a troll than anyone who posts an opposing viewpoint with a reasoned argument, because the euphemizers are subsisting on raw emotion, which is what trolls live on.
Even this entire thread, where the president is called a "dirt bag" for doing nothing whatsoever wrong, legally, morally or ethically, is a troll (and could actually be considered SPAM for the "cause" link that was posted). Someone else's uninformed opinion was posted without comment (other than calling the presiden't wife a name, and how mature that is) and is nothing more than trolling in and of itself. If someone has an issue with Obama, and they have to call him names to make their argument, their argument has no credibility, no reasoning behind it, and very little intelligence to back up their position. They reduce themselves to the "I don't like it because I don't like it!" position, which is a very liberal thing to do. I do love a good irony.
