And the right-wing media would devote itself to making a number of fairly obvious points, among which:
And in that scenario, the right-wing media would have the better argument.
Haberdash: He is a mentally ill person and a troll. You can also see him making wild distortions of what others say and expressions of the bigotry in the secular blogger thread.
Apparently he didn’t start actually posting until the past few weeks, despite his registration date. But all of a sudden, he’s unavoidable.
His level of stupidity is downright impressive.
Your posting history is available for review. Might you consider yourself a “Libertarian”? Do you prefer Rand Paul or Ted Cruz?
I have found this to be a common behavior in hyper-partisans (perhaps more prevalent on the right, whose media outlets are fundamentally built on outrage). My father-in-law seems capable of only two modalities toward a given political figure: either the politician is totally beyond reproach, or he/she is the worst scum on Earth and ought to be assassinated for the good of the country. So any nuanced discussion about Obama is impossible, because after all we’re talking about someone who is literally destroying America. When I, as an Obama supporter, rattle off a whole litany of things Obama has done that I disagree with, he just stares at me incredulously, like it simply does not compute that I can *simultaneously *hold those positions.
My guess is that posters on this board who accuse liberal posters of blind messiah-worship simply cannot believe that liberals’ criticisms of Clinton or Obama are actually sincere.
It is the habit of the very strongly ideological, i guess in the american terms, they are hyper partisan. I normally have only seen this among the hard left groups like the communists (the real ones).
it is strange to see it from another side, but…
Every Obama supporter I’ve ever heard give himself credit for this considers “won’t dissolve Congress and rule by decree” or some other variant of “needs to Obama harder” as the “thing he’s done that you disagree with.”
As I recall it, despite the irregular circumstances of his election and the “We wuz robbed!” feelings, W pretty much got a pass until 9/11 and for some time after. It was only when he started showing Dick Cheney’s true neocon colors that he started getting bashed.
I am an arms dealer specializing in demographic warfare. I expect Hillary to be one of my best customers. I have statistics launchers, fully automatic hand held racial dog whistles, and intercontinental ballistic ad campaigns.
I think it’s not just the stupidity. It’s the winning combination of the stupidity and how sure he is of himself.
Cite for even one instance of “won’t dissolve Congress and rule by decree”?
I’d disagree about his getting a pass before 9/11. I think Dubya got a pretty good hammering over the 2001 tax cuts, for instance.
I think your ‘and for some time after’ 9/11 remark is on target, though.
During the entirety of the past six years, he hasn’t dissolved Congress and ruled by decree. Nor has he administered death panels to GOP Congresscritters. So there!
The epistemic closure of Democrats did not arise until the Obama cult of personality was formed in 2007-2008. There’s an expected level of simple disagreement with the people you didn’t vote for, but the fingers-in-ears, “the Leader is always right and anyone who disagrees is a racist” hero-worship is a relatively new phenomenon in the mainstream.
Do you think there are any Obama-voters who genuinely believe “Meh, he’s an okay Democrat, and I disagree with lots of what he’s done, but he’s way, way better than the Republicans”?
Are all Obama supporters “fingers-in-ears” fanatics? All Democrats? Is it possible to disagree with you honestly and reasonably, or must everyone who disagrees with you be a fanatic cultist?
I’m in the market for phased gender rifles in the 40-watt range. PM me.
I find it interesting that Powell didn’t stand up to his GOP bosses until he had retired from public life. During his career, he was more than happy to cover up masacres and start wars to further his career.
You will not get anything but a rant out of him.
but I find this discourse from the americans on the right very strange as it is not what I can see. What I see is the americans on the left can never cease complaining about how their own leaderships fall short of their desires much more than the ones on the right although all the very strongly partisans on both sides make up excuses.
These are all decisions or actions Obama has taken that I’ve disagreed with, disapproved of, or been disappointed in. Most of these happen to be foreign policy-related, where I would put myself somewhere to the left of Obama. (I was excited about Rand Paul’s candidacy until he threw in the towel to the hawkish wing of his party.) I’ll add, also, that Obama’s oratory is much over-rated and has never really lived up to his 2004 DNC speech, and most of the time I’m pretty lukewarm on his personality, truth be told.
I think that liberals are often too quick to dismiss their ideological opposites as being brainwashed by “Faux News,” so incivility and lack of charity can be found on both sides of the aisle, but just know that you’re not winning any arguments by caricaturing liberals as a bunch of mindless zombies. Especially not on this board. You should look to posters like Bricker as an example of how to gain respect from and occasional convince those on the other side.
That said, if you derive recreational pleasure from what is the rhetorical equivalent of flinging your own feces against a wall and seeing how much of it you can get to stick, please carry on.
Man, you’re projecting so hard I can see you from my house. On another planet.