Odd. Did I say you HAD said anything about Kucinich or Obama? Are my replies be strictly limited by the specific comments of those who disagree with me? I suppose that would include limitations on vocabulary and phrasing as well? I mean, I didn't say anything about deflection, why are you talking about deflection?
There was a reason I "parroted" the "usual talking points" about W. This virulent anti-Obama rhetoric comes from those who have never reconciled the obvious anti-democratic traits of the previous administration with their wishful thinking about it. Now, much of the right is acting as if the present administration is the greatest threat to humanity the world has ever faced. I'm no fan of Obama, but this debate needs some perspective. Bush unleashed more horror upon the world than the combined machinations of every terrorist who ever lived. Given that, NOW lets discuss--rationally--the shortcomings of Obama and what we can do to make this a better country. That leaves a great deal to discuss.
If you were familiar with the entire breadth of my comments, you would know that "parroting" is not my style. It's true I voted for both Obama and Kerry, but that doesn't mean I was happy with either choice. Heck, I haven't been happy with my choices in a long, long while. I've attacked many of Obama's stances, though some of those probably wouldn't make you happy (but then, making any individual happy isn't why I speak out), as much of my objection, though not all, has revolved around his decision to continue--or even worsen--some of the biggest abuses of power exhibited by the former administration, for one example, his decision, since reversed, to make holding suspects forever without charges or trial into something quasi-legal. There are some things about Obama I like, but the fact that he is not really principle driven (like his predecessor) is not one of them. Parrot? Never.
Perhaps you're not fully familiar with the term "projection," that is, as a defense mechanism (I assume you weren't suggesting I was showing a film). Projection amounts to the taking the things within ourselves that we hate, and seeing them in others, then striking out at those external manifestations. The original poster attacked a wide swath of Americana, saying that if a person really wanted the best for this country, they couldn't possibly be liberals--i.e., the only way you can be a true American is to be conservative. I pointed out how narrow the thinking is that led to such a remark. You suggest I'm projecting. Did I say there was anything wrong with being conservative? No. Or being a member of any particular group? No. My only objection was to the "holier than thou" attitude--an attitude that I did not exhibit myself. I have no problems with conservatives, only its virulent, anti-everything else form. We can disagree--that's fine--but let's not bash everything else.
I serve no ideology but rationality. I parrot nothing. You don't see me repeating the latest sayings of Obama, or Kucinich.
And certainly not those of Hannity or Rush. My eyes are wide open and looking dispassionately at both the left and right. Neither side coopts me.
Sadly, this trait you speak of seems to know no ideological boundaries. The right was, in the main, only too happy to see Bush and Cheney fenestrate the Constitution in the pursuit of power. "Yeah! More power to the right!" It was perfectly okay--more, it was a righteous undertaking. Now, Obama shreds the same document (though so far, not quite so completely--but give him time) and the left shouts "yeah!" or turns the other way (though to be fair, various prominent progressive have been blogging about Obama's abuses of power since even before he came into office, e.g., with his turnaround on telecommunication immunity, and have stayed on him since--such as Glen Greenwald). And so it goes. Abuse is perfectly okay--as long as it's your team that's doing the abusing. I say "phooey!"
Sadly, there is much truth in what you've written. While there are many principled progressives who have howled mightily against Obama's refusal to put down the Cheney playbook, too many have turned a blind eye, or have actually embraced this turnabout, or tried to morph it inot some really deep, complicated manuever where the true values of Obama will come out on top at the end. Bologna. It's a repition of the Bush years where time after time Bush betrayed conservative and American principle in the pursuit of power, and too many conservatives went along. Some say America is a principled country--but from where I sit, it appears--with prominent exceptions--anything but. If what you say is true, then you are definitely closer to my kind of person than 90% of the liberals I've met. Cheers!
There is nothing 'wounded" about me. It's the far right conservatives who are acting as if the sky has just fallen and they're all victims to this horrible catastrophe. It's REASON who is the truly aggreived party here. Not me. I'm just fine, thank you ;-)
So, it's okay to TEMPORARILY commit war crimes? That makes no sense, IMHO. When you've committed a war crime, you've forever committed such a crime. And all the imperialist presidency's horses, and all the president's men, can't unbuild these crimes again. In any case, it was clear that Bush/Cheney had no desire for the "war on terror" to ever end, lest they have to give up those "temporary" powers--some of which were never granted by acts of Congress. Some were simply grasped in defiance of statute, treaty, Constitution, and long-standing American principle. Like the signing statements. Like the torture. When were these extraordinary accretions of power supposed to end? Obama has abused his power as well, but he'll have to travel a good ways to before overtaking W in claiming an equal share of imperialist chutzpah. I wouldn't put it past him, but he's got a long way to go.
I'm confused. Is English your third language? My comments seem quite clear. And "Troll"????? I know it may seem wacky for someone to stand up amidst a gaggle of conservatives and speak their mind even though it isn't entirely in-line with the far-right mantra, but "troll"?? I'm not running for cover like most of the troglodytes do. Nor am I writing with the prime motivation to provoke. I'm speaking my mind. And what could you possibly be referring to with: "What about your silence NOW??" And what silence would that be?
You sound confused. if you would like me to guide you through my comments, phrase by phrase, and explain them--either using other simpler English phrases or translating them into another language for you, please let me know, as I would be happy to do that. Cheerio!
(Continued) I expect you'll find that position quite a lonely one, but you've a right to it . . . more--it's your duty as a principled conservative to voice that view. Good luck with that.
Incidentally, I see myself as neither Democrat nor Republican, neither liberal nor conservative, but as a rationalist, willing to take look-see from all perspectives, choosing the view that makes the most sense. It's why I have spoken out against the problematic machinations of Obama and Clinton almost as fervently as I have the catastrophic errors of Bush/Cheney. But as regards health care, I'm willing to give this mixed bag of blessings and curses in the just passed bill some time to see if it results in a net positive or negative. Only the perspective of time will give us a clear answer. Cheers! And thank you for your response!
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Experiment