The right presents itself as the party of ethics, the party of family values.
Is it ethical to falsely accuse others of being evil?
Is it a family value to promote lies about others?
That’s why I think this should matter to the right, is because it’s not true. It’s inaccurate at best and a deliberate lie at times. And it’s coming from people who purport to abhor the sorts of action they are now taking.
So, now that you’ve had a chance to check back at what you quoted in post #95, are you ready to tell us what makes someone an “Obama supporter”?
No. “The right” isn’t a well defined group. If you mean “Republican politicians”, then yes, they do. Both parties claim to be the party of ethics. Nancy Pelosi says she’s running the most ethical Congress in history.
Of course not. Neither side should do it, but they both do. In the case of “Obama as Messiah”, though, that’s not accusing someone of being evil. I’d have a hard time interpreting “Obama supporter” as “evil”, either, even if it’s meant to have a negative connotation.
I don’t know what that term even means. It has about as much meaning to me as “new and improved”. I consider it nothing more than marketing by politicians. Kind of like “change you can believe in”.
It should matter to both sides. The only mystery I see here is why you give the left a pass.
Still waiting for you to answer where that is used as “anyone who doesn’t denounce Obama”.
As soon as you give us a definition. You are the one who retracted it. It’s your turn to come up with another answer to the question originially asked, and which you refuse to do now that you have retracted your previously offered definition.
Have you not re-read your post #95 and the the quote from my previous post, where I outlined my reasoning to reach the conclusion that that is what you meant. I was very clear. Here, let me show it to you again:
That’s either a false dichotomy or an excluded middle. But it is green!
As for a definition of “Obama supporter”, there are probably lots of different ways to look at it. I suppose the most accurate way to define it would be people who self-identify as a supporter. But “support” is a squishy term. You seem to be taking everything hyper-literally, so maybe you want to define it as someone who supports everything Obama supports and doesn’t support anything he doesn’t support. That might narrow it down to one person-- Obama.
No, I don’t think it is. Why don’t you pick it apart and show the errors in my reasoning?
So again, you aren’t going to give a definition for “Obama supporter”? Who do you identify as an Obama supporter, now that you’ve rescinded your previous definition of “anyone who voted for Obama”?
Why aren’t you able to quantify who fits this label that you use?
All I can say is that things must be really bad for the President if people on the left are doing flips and twists to avoid the label “Obama Supporter”. Shouldn’t it be a badge of honor?
I originally said that I thought an acceptable definition for Obama supporter would be anyone who voted for him. So, a non-supporter would, by definition, be anyone who didn’t vote for him. That includes a great many people who didn’t vote for anyone. There is no reason that any of those people need to “denounce” Obama or would even want to. Some might, and some might be completely indifferent. That’s part of the middle you excluded in assuming that my original definition implied that a non-Supporter must denounce him.
When did I use that label? I pulled it out of your OP. I’m not going to give a definition because there isn’t a single definition. And since I’m not in the habit of using it, it’s not something that particularly interests me.
Your ad contains an ironic and joking reference (“A light will come down-- (smile and shrug) from somewhere…”), a few words stripped of context, and a statement that “we shall heal…”. (Not “I”, not “me”, but “we”.)
So a couple of people including the candidate make jokes on strained Biblical references. The media plays them as topical quotes. The right wing spin machine then picks them up, grinds out ads like your citation, and all the follow-on talking points played over and over and over, claiming that Obama has a messiah complex, and that his supporters are blinded and deluded like followers of the Pied Piper.
And this to you is evidence that “the left”, in all of its diversity, saw and continues to see Obama as a savior in the same sense and with the same fervor as Christians view Jesus. All despite the absolute denial of virtually every single person who actually supported Obama, for whatever reason, over the (shudder) alternative. (I went with the weasel words “virtually every” since I’m sure there must be someone, somewhere, whose meds need adjustment but who actually does think Obama is something woo-woo special.)
So now that you’ve spent 2.5 pages arguing with me, after I’ve trounced every argument you’ve put forth and caused you to backpedal on your definition of “Obama supporter”, the subject of the thread isn’t of interest to you?
:rolleyes:
Ah, that explains your persistent participation in this thread, then, how?
I was just perusing the thread to see how many loose ends there were (lots) and I realized I forgot to comment on this.
You are being disingenuous or forgetful here.
You say that the right did not hold GWB up as “their man”, a god, etc. but I can put paid to that: back then, the right accused anyone who spoke up against GWB as a traitor commiting treason, giving aid and comfort to our enemies, etc.
There is no parallel with that for Obama’s presidency. The left (nor the middle) does not accuse the righties of being traitors, even when Republican governors are calling for armed insurrection or a break from the union. I don’t see the left using the fear of permanent incarceration to attempt to silence their political opponents, not even in verbal sparring, but we sure did see it during GWB’s first term.
Would you like me to post links to as many cites as I can find of righties saying that type of thing, often in those words, or will you concede my point?
Oh good…since you have declared victory for yourself and everyone has been vanquished, does that mean we can let this inane thread die now? Yes? WOOOHOOO! Drinks are on you, right?
Can you rebut even the point I made in my previous post?
Can you show me a parallel situation today, where Obama supporters are on national news calling righties traitors because they criticize Obama or his policies? I mean, we are still at war, right?
Well…I COULD, I suppose, though what would be the point? John was daft to get into this discussion with you, since all you are doing is changing the goal posts and disregarding any cites given you as not being enough. It’s a No True Scotsman debate, IMHO, and the thing is you won’t even show us what’s under the kilt, which is damned inconvenient.
So, I’m perfectly happy with you simply declaring victory and stating in loud ringing tones that all comers have been vanquished, and all that. What I really WANT to know is…are you buying?
Yes, ex-Bay Area, current Central Valley checking in. It is far worse here than you can ever imagine.
To answer the OP, these are Shibboleths. I have been tracking some online regarding RW views on marriage equality. Bottom line, they signal ingroup/outgroup status, while being on the surface polite enough to utter in “good society”. They are like secret handshakes really.
Because, xtisme, at least then you could say you made the effort. So far all you done is make unsupported declarations. When called on them, you balk and claim that it’s a waste of your time to post.
When your reasoning and memory are shown to be faulty or deficient, you don’t come back with examples to show that your perceptions are correct, you simply declare me obtuse and walk away.
You couldn’t even rebut the point I just made up thread, but you made 2 posts to say what a waste of time I am.
Why not just rebut it? Other readers will see what you wrote, and will then say “wow, that xt sure did fuck up Bo’s shit, didn’t he?” At least you’ll convince them that I’m all wrong and seeing things thru my own biases.
But all you do is throw your hands up in the air, and claim it’s all a waste of time, all without ever having any facts behind you.
You don’t necessarily have to sway me, xt. I’m not the only person reading this thread, judging by the # of looks it’s had. Maybe you’d sway some of them.
Might not be a bad idea since your side will be wanting their votes soon, eh?
ETA: It’s not a No True Scotsman debate if one side truly has brought no valid comparisons to the table. Thus far neither you nor John Mace or Bricker has answered many questions or even stated your definitions. You and he have evaded and run away, then declared that you (well, John) were never interested in the discussion in the first place. Do you think people read that and believed him? Do you really think people reading this are believing the things you’ve written to be accurate? Why would you think that?
EATA: the only cite I got from any of you was to a blog about Obama being the messiah. That’s it. One link. One page by a man that most of would say is prolly in need of more (or less) medication. I’m happy to concede that Obama’s supporters prolly includes at least one whackjob.
Saying that you’ll accept one definition, then later saying it wasn’t acceptable, but refusing to clarify what would make it acceptable… now that’s playing dodge ball.
John, you haven’t answered a single question in this thread. In fact, the only answer you gave, you later retracted.
You haven’t rebutted anything. I can’t even recall a single valid point you’ve made this whole thread. I mean, ffs, you even recanted your interest in the thread, and yet came back to post more, just like xtisme did. At least Bricker had the good sense to walk away after I showed up his logic.