Originally Posted by Slurpy
No, of course your not. Your original post, and every single one in this thread, just coincidentally happens to contain every ringle talking point pushed by the right wing/GOP, no matter how little truth it contains. But yes, it's very believable that you actually don't parrot these things mindlessly, as is the obvious explanation, but you just so happened to come up with these exact same point all by yourself, by looking at the facts and your own rational thinking, right? And they JUST SO HAPPENED to be the same, discredited talking points and attacks pushed by people in 'conservative media' which, of course, you're not exposed to and are independant of.
Go ahead. Tell me which one of my points have been "discredited." By the way, I never said I wasn't exposed the conservative media outlets at all.
Right. Your original post is a textbook definition of living in a bubble.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
It's clear you have no interest in any real, serious debate, nor at looking at the other side of the issue.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
All your posts in this thread make this undeniable.
Undeniable? Wow, that's pretty strong.
You have an agenda of hate/ignorance, and you play fast and loose with the facts to justify this hatred by pretending you're outraged about something else.
I love that when a liberal realized someone disagrees with him, he claims that person is hateful and even ignorant. By the way, what is an "agenda of hate and ignorance?" An agenda? Yes, you've got me there. My goal is to spread hate and ignorance across the globe.
It's the only reasonable explanation for things like the benghazi fury, when these same people (like yourself)
Actually, I think there are a lot of reasons to be upset about Bengahzi. Four dead Americans. Lack of security. Stories about the nature of the attack which are not credible. The list goes on.
did not share the same level of outrage (actually, not at all) at the last President, when MANY THOUSANDS of Americans died by attacks under his watch, both here at home AND in foreign countries, and dozens of embassies were hit. Yet we're to believe these same people (like yourself) are legitimately outraged over FOUR deaths, which the President had nothing to do with, and desperately trying to spin it as a scandal and foreign policy disaster, in a desperate attempt to push the cliche, and paint a democratic President as 'weak' on defense, 'incompetent', and best of all, that he isn't THAT concerned about these death because of his disdain for Americans, or somehow helped facilitate them through malicious intent
I see. So more people died when Bush was President in 9/11, embassy attacks, and two wars...so we should be much more angry. Tell me, how many dead Americans does it take so that we're allowed to be upset about it?
And what do you mean that Obama had "nothing to do" with Benghazi? Of course he did. He's the President. That doesn't mean he's exclusively to blame for the deaths. But you must face facts: His administration was incompetent in handling the entire affair, from the the three months leading up to the attack, to past two months. They pulled out security forces despite previous attacks. They denied more security. They didn't act to save lives during the attack. They pushed the phony "video" and "spontaneous act" narrative, when we know they didn't believe it was true. We don't know how much the President was directly involved, but we do know that the proverbial buck stops with him. Oh, he was involved alright.
Yet this fury was nowhere to be found when we got 3,000 deaths under Bush, and 5000+ deaths by his misguided wars. This type of hypocrisy is transparent, and nothing more than partisan bullshit. Yet, 'independent thinking' people like you buy it hook, line, and sinker, and propagate it proudly. Do you not see how ridiculous it is? I can't understand how you wouldn't. It' shameful, not laudable.
There is a perfectly sensible explanation: I don't blame Bush for 9/11, nor do I agree that "his" wars were misguided. Incidentally, while the President has to take responsibility on Benghazi, I don't necessarily "blame" him for what happened. What I do blame is his response, and his generally incompetent and weak overall foreign policy. I do blame him for the White House deliberately pushing a false narrative about the attack a few weeks prior the election.
You know what I was called by people like you, and your friends in conservative media for opposing the Iraq war because I knew that it would cause countless needless deaths? A traitor. Tell me, did you also oppose the war, or did you cheerlead it like all your conservative friends, and no doubt happily believed the WMD bullshit in order to justify it? I guess you weren't too concerned about American deaths there, eh? You know who else were called traitors? Those that wanted answers over 9/11. These same people who accused other of being traitors for actually being concerned about American lives, are those that are now calling for states to secede, and pundits/politicians who are doing everything in their power to destroy Obama for 4 deaths by cynical politicization. People like John McCain, who didn't bother to go to the intelligence briefing about Benghazi which would have given him answers, because he was too busy doing a PR stunt "demanding" answers during that time. These liars and jokers, are the people you parrot, word for word, lie for lie.
Do you really believe you were called a traitor for merely opposing the war? Who called you a traitor, specifically? The only borderline treasonous acts and statements I saw were well after we had troops in harm's way. If you were out there screaming bloody murder when we had troops on the ground, you should have been called a lot of things. If you were out there saying "I hope we lose" as singer Natalie Maines did, yeah, that's borderline treasonous when one roots against her own country. If you were screaming that Bush was a stupid, lying warmonger as our troops were fighting, that's a problem too. But again..I'd be interested in who called you a traitor for merely opposing the decision to go war.
By the way, I agree McCain should have gone to the briefing. But wouldn't run around calling John McCain a partisan hack if you want to be taken seriously. He and Graham are both moderates, and McCain is literally a war hero.
I'm a conservative, it might surprise you to know. I voted for Bush the 1st time.
That is surprising given your tirade above.
Because I've always had more conservative values. But unlike you, I was honest and objective enough to realize and admit that the party has gone down the shitter since then, and 'conservatism' is not enough reason to stick with a party that simply has gone completely insane, thrown all real intellect in the trash, and panders to and promotes the most vile aspects of human nature (xenophobia/bigotry/racism/ignorance/anti-intellectualism/anti-science/islamophobia/)
First, I don't appreciate it when you imply I am not honest or objective simply because we disagree on what the Republican party stands for. I don't happen to agree it stands for xenophobia, racism, anti-intellectualism, anti-science and Islamophobia. I do think the Democratic party and its media allies love to portray the GOP this way. I will also grant you that there is a certain element of the party I'd like to see go away, particularly the hardcore Christian conservatives who drag the party far to the right on social issues.
while having done everything in their power the last 4 years to undermine the President at the cost of the country.
I don't agree with your view on that, nor do I think it cost the country. I think our system worked exactly as it was supposed to, in that the opposition prevented Obama from getting everything he wanted I realize the narrative now is that the GOP was merely obstructionist and tried to set up Obama to fail. In reality though (or at least, in my view) they simply couldn't go along with Obama's agenda. Obama favors greater size of government, increased regulation, higher traditional energy prices, a weaker military, less American influence around the globe, direct government investment in private corporations, higher taxes and a single payer healthcare system (Obamacare is the stepping stone to one). The GOP doesn't agree with any of this, nor do I. Obama dug in on the pork-laden "stimulus" bill and the healthcare bill. The result? Almost zero Republican support. You seem to be just as angry and petulant as Obama about Republicans actually daring to disagree with him.
So stop lapping up their bullshit, and start thinking for yourself. My vote for Obama was less due to my love of the man (I'm not the biggest fan), but more due to the rejection of the modern republican party/right wing and all the despicable things they currently stand for.
I do think for myself, thank you. I get news and information from a variety of sources, and frequently check sources on the polar opposite of the political spectrum to get other perspectives on a particular issue or event. Now, it is true that I also consume conservative media, though I honestly look at it more as entertainment, and realize that it is coming from a certain point of view. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Points of view are fine so long as we label them and take them into consideration.
As for the "right wing" of the party, I again agree that I'd like to see a change, especially on the social issues. However, I don't know what "despicable" things you are referring to. Some people oppose gay marriage, abortion, etc, but that does not make them despicable or radical. It's simply a question of whether or not we want them to have a prominent place in the party. I'd much rather the GOP not focus on these issues.
Edited by SDW2001 - 11/19/12 at 4:52pm