Kos: critisize O? "Well **** You!"

are they based on hatred of a party or candidate, instead?

 

You're not good at comedy.

My party affiliation and my choice of candidate is based on my opinions (instead of my opinions being a result of blind support of candidate or party).

But you knew that.

 

is your support of yours based on hatred? you and your little brother have alot of nerve suggesting dems hate you guys considering some of the language you've used to describe lib-pigs

 

The funny thing is I'm the exact opposite, but was called the same as you. I disagree/d with *a lot* of Obama on policy (taxes, NAFTA, Iraq, etc) during the primaries, but supported him because of his governing style. For me (as a down-the-middle moderate), all his recent actions are great from a policy perspective and demonstrate the governing style that I actually like (starting from one side and coming to the center to find areas of broad agreement).

But like you, I was accused of never disagreeing with Obama, drinking the koolaid, blah blah blah. It's as though people only read what they wanted to.

 

So true.

 

Well I can be dense at times but you were being pretty defensive regarding Obama. I recall you even getting upset that some posters, myself included, were chiding you for your idealism about Obama.

 

I never thought you drank the Obama kool-aid or drank far less of it than some other posters. I primarily disagreed with you on what I thought were very unfair characterzations of the Clintons and what I considered a double standard when the Clintons and Obama did similar things.

 

I was defensive about people saying I thought he was the Messiah or could do no wrong, because I never felt that way and I said so often. As you were one of the primary people that kept saying it, you're absolutely right on both counts: (a) I was defensive because you kept saying the same silly things, and (b) you apparently can be rather dense at times.

Nothing has changed on my end. The only difference is that you have, for whatever random reason, agreed to hear what I've been saying for months.

 

If you ever cited a specific example of them doing the same regrettable things (as distinct from simply insisting they were), I must have missed it.

There was no comparison in the Obama campaign for the things I criticized Clinton for. They ran very, very different campaigns.

 

Perhaps some felt your chiding was in response to a suspected support of Hillary. At that time, there was a lot of tension from Sen. Clinton staying in the primary. People have a knack for quickly assessing "sides" in the D&D, whether it's accurate or not.

This debate is silly and taken a little too seriously. Whether you change your mind or not about a person goes along with the fickle nature of politics. I can only hope to be right about Sen. Obama. Even if he does things I like, I can't be totally right, nor would I benefit greatly from my hunches or analyses...

 

Not to rehash the past too much but I did often cite similar (not exactly the same) things done by supporters, campaigns and candidates.

 

Not me. I knew he supported Hillary and that didn't bother me at all. What bothered me was the utter lack of substance to the complaint. It boiled down to exchanges that began, to me, to read like this...

RJ: He's not the Messiah, you know.
BJ: I don't think he's the Messiah or anything like that and I never said I did. Here's why I support him...
RJ: He's not the Messiah, you know.
BJ: I didn't say that. What I said was...
RJ: Well, he's not the Messiah.

Months later...

BJ: I never said he was the Messiah.
RJ: I'm so happy to hear you say that.
BJ:

 

There was nothing suspected about it. I was on record as supporting Sen. Clinton after Richardson dropped out.

Very true and you're right it is a little silly. I have nothign against BJ or Major and they argue their side well. This being the D & D though pardon me for some chiding.

 

Since you've returned to suggesting that my support for Obama during the primaries was somehow blindly idealistic, I would love it if you could name even one example of that in which I failed to respond fairly and on the merits. I sincerely doubt you can.

 

I have nothing against you either and most of the time we agree. And I don't mind chiding at all. I just wish that, in this instance in particular, you would back it up with a little substance.

 

Well pardon me for chiding about your chiding.

 

Honestly Invisible Fan is right that this is silly and if you insist I will go back and dig through the prior debates and we can rehash this all again.

Obama has won the primary and for better or worse I've thrown my lot behind him and have complimented you on the job you did supporting him through the primaries. I didn't agree with your views and stand by my opinion but will let bygones be bygones.

If you want me to say that I am conceding the debate to you I will say so.

 

Its D & D people supposed to be chiding.

 

he's just mad because he wasn't a fan of his

shishir, lay off the obama supports

 

I neither insist that you go back and dig through anything nor that you concede. (There's no prize for winning an internet debate.)

But I will bring up the past when you mischaracterize it, either by acting like me saying O's not infallible is something new or by suggesting that he and Clinton ran similar campaigns. Neither of those things is true.

This isn't about rehashing old stuff; it's about the whole point of this thread, which was created by basso as some sort of gotcha thing based on the stupid idea (held by you and others still apparently) that my support of Obama was somehow blind or naive and that there is any contradiction whatsoever with me disagreeing with anything he would ever do.

It's insulting and it isn't true and the search engine will easily bear that out. That's all.