I agree that those things are valid points for debate and differences of opinion.
The trouble is, that isn’t everything that was being talked about during the campaign, and it certainly isn’t now. Also, I still have yet to see anyone even make an attempt at explaining why they think that “voted for” = “unflichingly stand behind no matter what”, even tho we’ve had a couple of people assert that that is accurate.
Nice little ad hominen attack there. Classy.
Well, they did
[/quote]
Yes, I’ve seen you assert this before in your prior post, with one link to a blog to try and back up your contention. If you think that is “support” for your argument, I can see why you might think that “voted for” = “worships”.
Yes, you keep saying that, but so far all we have to bolster your words is a link to a single blog by a lunatic with a fixation problem. True, he’s prolly a Democratic voter, but how do you make the leap from “there’s one website” to “this is what everyone who didn’t not vote for Obama thinks”?
Wow, I don’t remember anyone getting starry-eyed when GWB first ran for president. Aside from that tho, I’ve already shown that the Obama-as-Messiah meme was largely promulgated by the media, not by any depth or breadth of real world activity. That’s why you refernce Oprah, and Farrakhan and the MSM and not all the new Church of the blessed Barack’s that have opened. They haven’t. It’s fiction.
Heck you’ve come in here and asserted twice now that the phenom existed or still exists; why do you only have the one link to a crazy person’s website to prove it?
Where did I say that? Please quote me. I know you can and will, because to have just made something up in attempt to denigrate me without having a factual basis would be a silly way to prove me right without meaning to, wouldn’t it?
And it’s already been shown, and you admitted, that your timeline on the use of those terms was wrong, and thus the parallel you try and draw meanders away at an obtuse angle.
Right, the difference here, as I stated clearly upthread, is that this IS NOT about demonizing Obama. Righties are demonizing the voting public. I would like to know why, and what they think they are going to get out of it.
Now, if you’re gonna say you’ve answered that question, and none of the points I’ve made causes you to look at your own reasoning there and question it’s accuracy…
Again, that isn’t an instance of self-use to decribe. That is an opponent describing, which is why attempts to equivocate this with the Teabagger moniker fail.
The second clip is just Obama making a good speech.
But all those things I brought up are meant to demonize people. How many generalizations are true? Neocon (used as a synonym for Republican), Repugs, Rethugs, Tighty Righties, Forces of Darkness, Teabaggers are not terms of endearment.
Ah yeah, we semi-established that earlier. Your links pretty well cement the Hillary thing, at any rate. She may not have ever directly said “People think Obama is the messiah” but she was implying it loud and clear there.
Do you see the difference in validity here tho? Does the whole “self-described” vs. “described by an opponent” make any difference to you, or do you feel it’s an invalid distinction?
I linked to a website with a bunch of quotes from fairly prominent foks, like Oprah Winfrey and others, all of which can fairly be characterized as fulsome to a fairly grotesque degree.
You started off the thread by alleging that the Right was being all false and nasty because they pointed out that the Obama adulation was pretty extreme in many cases. So you have been provided with evidence that this is indeed the case.
And frankly this -
is just bizarre.
Well, isn’t that the damn point? No one got starry eyed over Bush; some got starry eyed to the point of insanity over Obama. So righties aren’t projecting - they are commenting on a real phenomenon.
You haven’t proven it; you asserted it, There’s a difference.
I have provided a cite of multiple quotes of multiple people as different as Oprah and Farrakhan. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing.
No, they aren’t terms of endearment. The are, however, mocking a real group of people, and there is some basis for the terms. There neocons in our country. They are a real subgroup of the Republican party. I doubt you could show many cites where “Neocon” was used synonymously with “Republican”, but I’ll be happy to take a look.
Repugs and Rethugs, as I’ve said, are mocking variants of the group’s own name for themselves. Have I ever mentioned the word “Demoncrat” in this thread as something I find abhorrent? No? Then please stop bringing these terms up. They are self-descriptors being mocked by their opponents. I have no problem with childish shenanigans like this. It’s stupid and immature, but I can’t recall ever having said I had a problem with mocking another’s self-image like that.
Tighty Righty, well the people are on the right. Where’s the gross distortion or falsehood there?
Forces of Darkness? Hyperbole. Obviously over-the-top descriptor meant to convey negativity to the group and it’s members.
Teabaggers? As has been established, this was a term that the group at one time used to describe themselves. It is now used as obvious hyperbole to describe the group and/or it’s members.
Obama supporters? now being used to describe anyone who doesn’t denounce Obama
In all your examples, the people are a part of a voluntary organization and they are called negative things by their opponents.
But even those of us who don’t fall into the category of “people who joined a voluntary organization to promote Obama” are being referred to as if we had. And then that organization is referred to as evil, socialist, etc., etc., which makes all of the people who just voted for Obama evil as well, by extension.
This is the argument you have brought forth, although you still haven’t bothered to try and justify how you came to think that “voting for” was the same as “voluntarily and consistently made efforts on his behalf”.
I never claimed you claimed they were; I was making sure that we agreed that that claim has no legs before it popped up. Thank you for confirming.
Another strawman you built; you must be quite good at that by now.
Please quote me where I alleged the right was being all false and nasty because of that. Can you quote me on that? Because I’m pretty sure that what I’ve alleged mostly involves this label being falsely applied to members of the voting public.
You have provided a link to one website. I have no way to know that anything “quoted” on that site is accurate. Are you now saying that this is a valid reference site for verification of third party statements?
No, I wasn’t. When was that site put up? Do you even know? Prior to 2008, the notion of Obama as messiah did not exist. By the time the media and others had forged it into a meme, by the summer of 2008, the everyone knew that people said that people said Obama was the messiah.
That’s not a history of worship. That’s a couple of months of pop culture simmering, is all. Bush’s business dealings with Harkonnen and the people involved had a history. Obama’s community service had a history. But a few weeks of an internet meme brewing?
One site, Shodan. That’s your basis for knowing that this was a widespread phenomenom.
“Forces of Darkness” is OK, but “Obama supporter” is something you find insulting and troubling. Got it. Your ability to rationalize the behavior of your political allies is… astounding.
But can you supply the source of your claim that “Obama supporter” is being used to mean “anyone who doesn’t denounce Obama”?
So 2 comments from celebrities. 2 comments from media performers reported in news media.
And anyway, the Clooney comment comes across to me as “wow he’s charismatic”. Berry’s comes across as, frankly, what I wish Halle Berry had to say about me.
Your ability to misconstrue what has been written is equally astounding. “Obama supporter” is being used in a derogatory manner. I’ve explained this:
Therefore, yes, the term is being used as an insult. The fact that I perceive the intent doesn’t alter the intent; this isn’t Schrödinger’s Insult.
And as the term is being applied by you, an Obama supporter is anyone who voted for him. Clearly, many people who voted for him will feel that this is not at all an accurate descriptor, since they donated nothing to the campaign. Do you think that Bricker and xtisme are Obama supporters? I don’t. But I know that they voted for him.
Since your criteria for being an “Obama supporter” ignores what others might describe themselves as or their motivations in voting for Obama, it follows that the only things that would place a person firmly into the “non-Obama supporter” camp are either a)not having voted for him or b) renouncing your vote and denouncing Obama, since a vote cannot be taken back once cast (and until just now it never occurred to me that maybe, to you, that support can never be rescinded).
But “Forces of Darkness” is just a hyperbole. It’s attacking a real, clearly defined group and is therefore OK. Is that not what you are saying?
I said it was an acceptable short-hand, even if not entirely accurate. But if that bothers you, fine. I’ll retract it. It’s no longer acceptable.
Now, please show us where it is being used to mean “anyone who doesn’t denounce Obama”.
How many quotes do you need? 10? 100? 1,000? We’re just trying to establish that Obama as a messiah figure is not something manufactured by the right wing. It’s an accurate description of the way some of his more ardent followers acted, and a description used by at least 1 major figure in the Democratic party.
You say there is no history of Obama worship. When we give you examples, you say that’s not enough examples. Please establish your goalposts at one specific location so we can debate within them.
No, that is what you are saying I’m saying. I never said any of it was OK. The closest I’ve come to that is acknowledging that this sort of thing (I said “protests” earlier) comes with the job of President.
I will say I find it much more acceptable to call out a self-defined group as a group than I find it acceptable to call out an other-described group as a group, especially when that label is deliberately inaccurate.
Oh, so you get to move the goalposts, and then I have to continue using the same playbook? WTF is that?
lol funny that, how you mention moving the goalposts after you just did it.
Okay, here’s what will prove to me that this was more than a media-driven meme: find me the real Church of Barack or similar. Find me recordings of sermons that do nothing but praise him that occur regularly, like a church radio show or a daytime talk show. Show me a congregation that worships an image of Barack on the cross. Find me quotes from people who were worshipping Barack Obama or making “messiah” comments more than 8 months prior to the election (to show that there’s a history of it) and then show me that those same services continue unabated today.
We’re talking about millions of people who voted for Barack Obama who are all being lumped into the category of “Obama supporters” and you can’t even back up your contentions with more than one website with 3rd party quotes with no documentation?
(Yes, I know that was Shodan who linked that one, not you. Royal “you” there, eh.)
Millions of people, and you come up with Oprah, Louis Farrakhan, Halle Berry and George Clooney. Oh, and his opponent at the time, Hillary Clinton. If there was a history of this, and a significant proportion of the voting public engaged in this “Obama as messiah” worship, why aren’t you able to show more than a handful of things?
I mean, when I tell you that shitloads of people worship this Jesus Christ guy as the messiah, I can point to all kinds of things that illustrate my point. See all the churches? See that word “priest”? See that guy on the cross that’s in the vast majority of American homes? See that group from Westboro Baptist that is protesting? See how the church has existed for years, centuries even? See how there’s a bible in every hotel room in America?
I could go on and on with examples of imagery and items indicative of a worship of JC. I could find you hundreds of examples of Jews and their imagery and their doctrine. Same with Muslims, and even Scientologists.
What do you have? Are you going to point to ACORN? They’re gone, and most of us weren’t members or supporters of ACORN anyway. Are you going to point to how Barack’s books sold well? That people were happy to have a charismatic, intelligent person that wanted the worst job in the country?
But even that is tangential to the main thrust here, which is why that label is being inaccurately applied and what the people doing it believe they will accomplish.
So, now that you’ve agreed that an Obama supporter isn’t merely someone who voted for him, what does make someone an Obama supporter?
Nope. I agreed to change the definition of a term per your suggestion.
That’s nothing but a long winded No True Scotsman fallacy. And so what if it was wholly media driven (which I don’t think it was). Why would that matter to people on the right? They see it in the media and they mock it. Is that really some great mystery?
I’m going to defer answering that question until you tell us where you get the idea that an Obama supporter has been used on this MB as “anyone who won’t denounce Obama”. I’ve asked you that several times and you keep ignoring it.
I don’t see the distinction. Please explain the practical differences you see between “moved the goalposts” and “changed the terms”, because I don’t see much, if any, difference.