Fine. why don’t you link to all my posts on this board that you think are supportive to Obama, to demonstrate how my declaration could be pervieved as in error.
Or are you going to do what I’m asking about in the OP, and simply call me names and impugn my motives, without any factual basis whatsoever?
ETA: Why does this happen, even when I ask about why and whether or not it happens? I think we can do away with “does it happen” at this point.
Your motives are impugned by your own words in exchanges like that which you are having with John Mace. He was crystal clear.
Obviously not, as I have now devoted 2 posts to trying to get him to clarify what he meant, even going so far as to practically diagram out his sentence like we used to in high school.
He either said that Hillary called Obama the messiah first, or he said that Hilary called Obama a teabagger. There isn’t any other subject noun that the word “it” can refer to in that sentence.
So it’s not “crystal clear”, as I’ve shown. I don’t understand what you think is crystal clear about it, as I’ve listed multiple ways that the pronoun can be interpreted, yet John Mace hasn’t said which of those things he meant.
As I said, if there’s a meaning that I’m missing, please re-state is so it isn’t obfuscated by a poorly placed pronoun,
Ah, here’s where the argument breaks down.
It is important if Hillary said it first.
That’s the whole point of the “teabagger” moniker, and why the left feels it’s okay to use it to describe the group: the group used it first to describe themselves.
No such parallel can be drawn with “the Messiah”, especially if you can’t show that it’s use was to self-describe. This wasn’t the case if Hillary said it, since Hillary and Obama were in fact opposition candidates at the time (if in fact she ever did). Obama never used it to describe himself, nor did his supporters use it to describe him.
If you can show cites that differ from what I wrote, please do.
Ok.
Snowboarder Bo: “I voted for the guy”.
We obviously disagree on what constitutes being a “supporter”. I understand that you think you’re not because you don’t support all of his policies, but you did support him in the election so you should be able to see the connection there.
But just to help out, here is quick translator that all of us on the right will use from now on:
Instead of Obama Supporter, we will now use: people who voted for, or wished to vote for Obama, because they agreed with his policies, some of his policies, his skin color, or he was better than McCain, who may or may not currently agree with some, most, few, or all of Obama’s policies.
Instead of you drunk the kool-aid, we will now use: An Obama Supporter (see above) who supported, supports, or will support Obama not because of knowing or caring about his policies, but because they like his campaign slogans, color, think he’s a good speaker, etc.
Instead of they think Obama is the messiah, we will now use: Obama Supporters (see above) who drunk the kool-aid (see above) and think that if he is president, he will do all kinds of magical things like: pay for their gas and mortgages, prevent car repossessions, and show their devotion by praising God for his presence, chanting and marching in his name, praising him in song, etc.
No, I voted for him. I didn’t support him. I didn’t campaign for him. I didn’t try and tell anyone else to vote for him. I didn’t contribute money or time or materials to his campaign. I voted for him.
I have no idea why you linked all that in an effort to show how partisan I am. I’m not in those videos, I didn’t post those videos, I had nothing to do with any of them.
How do you think they answer the query you quoted from me to start that post?
Like I said, we disagree on what constitutes support.
I say: you + vote for Obama = support
You say: you + vote for Obama = vote for Obama but no support.
I fully understand what you’re saying, just not the reasoning behind it. Fine.
And I linked to the other stuff, as examples of why those sentiments and terms originated on the right. Obviously that doesn’t represent every Obama voter or supporter, but here’s how I (and possibly others) look at it.
To myself, and some others on the right, Obama has failed and made many mistakes since taking office. To me, and some others on the right, this is as obvious as the sun in the sky. When I, and some others on the right, run into someone who continues to support Obama (in light of what to us, are obvious failures and mistakes) it’s easy to label them with one of those terms, because to us, they have been blinded by something other than the facts.
Of course there’s a difference between “vote for” and “support”. I was getting myself ready to vote for Hillary if I had to. Thought there was no way he’d do it.
Okay, you keep saying “supports Obama”, but you also say that the singular act of voting for Obama once makes someone a “supporter”.
Unless someone specifically denounces Obama, are they supporting him?
What does it mean to you to support someone?
Thing is, dude, I don’t understand your reasoning at all.
By your definition, Bricker and xtisme are Obama supporters. I know they voted for him, but I think both might take issue with being described as “an Obama supporter”.
So again, unless someone specifically denounces Obama, are they a supporter?
I’ll admit that it is tough for me right now to come up with a good way to put it words, so in the meantime I’d like to ask you the same question?
Given the following true situation:
I voted for Bush twice.
I donated to Bush’s election campaign.
I agreed with some of Bush’s policies.
I disagreed with some of Bush’s policies.
I was very disappointed with his performance in his second term as President.
If he was allowed to run for a third term, I would still vote for him against Obama.
Am I currently a Bush supporter?
If I was debating with someone regarding the merits of the Iraq War, and this information came to light, would I be written off as just a “Bush supporter”, “just a Republican”, “a war mongering nazi”, “stupid redneck”, etc. by some people on the left?
Yes. You were in the past, since you not only voted for him, but also actively sought to further his cause with your time, money, expertise and/or material goods. The fact that you disagree with him, but would continue to choose him over others in spite of that fact, could reasonably be used to call you a supporter currently.
Having proffered support, without actively removing it, you would remain a supporter.
You ask this in a way that is impossible to answer effectively in one sentence, because there’s too much in the question
“Just”? I suppose you can argue that someone somewhere will do this. If you mean, “Do you think generally…” then I would say, well, prolly not but it’s going to depend on what you say, isn’t it? The content of your debate oratory might make some people say “well, he’s just a Bush wanker” if your every statement was pro-Bush, especially if the general consensus on the situation doesn’t match what you’re saying. If all you do is make farting noises when your opponent is trying to talk, people prolly won’t think you’re just a Bush supporter, but an asshole as well.
But see, that’s what I’m talking about: the righties aren’t pointing to the lefties and rebutting what has been said or done. They rebut things that haven’t happened and talk about them as if they were fact, and demonize people on the flimsiest pretense. When called out to back up the reasoning behind their conclusion… there isn’t any.
I mean, come on, on this message board, we’re gonna allow “well the left did it, too” without corresponding documentation to back up that assertion? I mean, fine, people can think that, but now that it’s been called out to examine it, are you really gonna be content to “believe” that what you know is an accurate rendition of the facts, or would you rather do some examination and know that you have a solid foundation that your opinions are built on?
I said before, I’m willing to see xtisme (or anyone else) show that the left had the same level of vitriol in Bush’s first 2 years as we’ve seen in Obama’s first 2, but so far, neither he nor anyone else has shown anything like that.
And no one has shown why “voted for” equals “continues to actively aid and promote”, but the assertion has been made, multiple times, that this is true. I can show why it isn’t true, and I think I’ve done that, but I haven’t even seen an attempt to justify it several times in the limited # of posters and posts we have thus far.
Even you, in your first post, came in and attempted to mock my name and then, essentially, called me a liar, even tho you had no evidence to back up your assertion.
When I asked you to please post the evidence which supported your conclusion, you came back with… the post you had originally replied to.
To you, there’s no disconnect there at all? That’s an understandable, reasonable way to act? That’s how you want others to act towards you?
Do not mangle other posters’ names in Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]
I am not on the right by any stretch of the imagination.
Back in 2008 and for half of '09 the adulation over Obama was embarrassing. I’m not sure how you could fail to remember this since it wasn’t too long ago. It died out around the economic downturn, maybe a little bit before when it became obvious even to people who read the news badly that he was just like any other president. But for about a year and a half this guy had a rock star vibe. People were getting misty eyed and choking up when he was elected. It was just a sad spectacle.
Bush had a similar aura after 9/11 that was later denied by certain sectors, except it was less about him than an excuse for foaming at the mouth jingoism. Obama seemed to get more of the screaming and “take me now!” support from women; Bush was more about the manly pax-Americana types, the bigotry bloc, and scared “omG we gotta doooo something!” + Wilsonian crossover from the Dems. And he fueled the fire with some face palm worthy cowboy lines. I bet you remember that one though, right?
It’s not that I don’t remember it, I just don’t remember it as being the norm. The media coverage emphasized the rock star thing to death, for sure, but in their defense it was the first time in over 40 years that American politics had seen as youthful a face running for Prez. I agree that the misty-eyed types were somewhat embarassing to watch, especially as there was zero chance that we would have to endure another 4 years of GWB, which was the real complaint that most people had about his 2nd term: enough already. Heck, even W seemed to be mostly rdy for his 2nd term to end for the last couple of years there, IMO.
But that doesn’t give cause or reason for the name calling and false associations, etc. that I’ve brought up in this thread; it really doesn’t address that at all.
Or maybe there was a point in there that I missed?
This makes it easy.
I voted for Bush. How does that translate into supporting everything he does?
I had to vote for someone; that’s one of my responsibilities as a member of this society. How do you equivocate that one vote to unfailing, unflinching support for the man and all his actions?
And how do you apply that to everyone who voted for him?
Regards,
Shodan
Snowboarder Bo:
Is it fair to say that one of your points expressed upthread was that to the extent the namecalling against Bush was equal or worse than that directed towards Obama, it’s OK, because Bush deserved it more than Obama did based on his performance?
I don’t and never did. What is your point?
No, not at all. I’m just saying that there were concrete, articulable events and concerns which were rooted in verifiable facts that formed the basis of those protests against Bush (yes, and the fact that he was the opposition candidate; who would protest the person they support?).
Largely, those things that are ascribed to Obama and whoever is deemed a “supporter” have nothing to do with reality. As I said, the excoriation involves things that haven’t happened, either in the past or yet.
What’s that shorthand that get’s used occassionally about understanding is not excusing? I won’t say that either of them deserve the protests more than the other; they were both dumb enough to want that job, and protests come with it.
Similarly, the epithets and invective being hurled the way of any so-called Obama supporters doesn’t bother to check any facts. And as has been indicated several times in this thread, many righties feel that anyone who voted for Obama is a perennial supporter, but when called on that, they can’t even articulate why or how a vote is the same as donating time, money, materials, expertise, etc. to a campaign. Some would even seem to label people a supporter unless they actively denounce Obama, presumably loudly and often so that no one doubts their sincerity.
I mean, would these same people ascribe the same level of culpability to the Enron mailroom guy as to Ken Lay? How can that generalization that John Mace, elfkin, etc. made be justified at all? And why should it be?
My point is that there seems to be a rather obvious double standard here. I was a Bush supporter in exactly the same way that you are an Obama supporter. But you seem to be trying to find some way to condemn how I supported Bush without condemning your own behavior.
You claim (apparently) that Bush support was somehow more extreme than that for Obama. OK, it is rather easy to come up with examples of extreme rhetoric of just the sort that you allege came from the right about Bush.
Is that porridge sweet enough?
Regards,
Shodan