So is every support of Obama wrong? Or do people just not like to hear them?

[patrice]

I like this kind of question, because it addresses how we identify what is true/right and not-true/wrong and it suggests that there is somekind of class of other things that influence those determinations.

I wish we could have had this kind of discussion FOR REAL in America before March 20, 2003, but better late than never.

I have some work to go do, so I will have to check this thread later, but I'm hoping to have an honest CONCRETE discussion of people's own organic explanations for how they create "knowledge".

Have a good day.

TTYL

Solidarity!

[dawg]

1. Of couse not.

Almost all of us voted for him. Almost all of us plan to vote for him again. What kind of rabbit hole have we fallen down that we can't find common ground between critical supporters of the Democratic party and, apparently, uncritical supporters?

[Warren Stupidity]

2. every support? every supporter? what?

I think if you are honest about things you support Obama when is right/does right, and you criticize Obama when he is wrong/does wrong. The dishonest people don't do that: they oppose/support regardless of the facts.

[Robb]

3. Oh, that's hilarious. To rebut:

Dishonest people portray support for Obama on one issue as evidence of blanket approval on every issue.

It's a particularly loathesome way to paint the supporter as an idiot.

[MjolnirTime]

5. Calling us idiots makes them feel better about the damage they risk doing to the Country

by opposing Obama's every move.

[pscot]

19. That ignores the potntial for damage

in unqualified support for arguably bad choices.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. How you got that from what I said is beyond me.

From either side, the honest people here give support where support is due and criticize when it is not. The dishonest people don't.

[Robb]

7. You did it again.

You're fostering the perception that if someone is supporting Obama on one issue, they might be one of those dishonest people who support him on every issue, and can therefore be dismissed as an idiot.

How many posters would you say support Obama on every single issue? One poster? Six? Enough to make this little witch hunt of yours worthwhile?

[Warren Stupidity]

8. and again you are inventing that position for me.

which is massively dishonest. I neither said nor 'foistered' any such perception. The fact that you have to attack some 'perception' that I am 'foistering' makes it rather clear that you engaged in a strawman argument.

I have no idea how many ideologically blinded posters ON BOTH SIDES we have here, but my guess is around a half dozen or so of each.

[Robb]

9. Nonsense. You said:

I think if you are honest about things you support Obama when is right/does right, and you criticize Obama when he is wrong/does wrong. The dishonest people don't do that: they oppose/support regardless of the facts.

You are referring to six people? Really?

[boston bean]

10. That is sort of being obtuse, no?

He is saying that people who do only one or the other aren't honest.

[Robb]

12. This must be a really big problem!

These six dishonest posters. Such a big problem they must be stopped!

Or is it more fun to insinuate everyone you disagree with might be one of those six?

[boston bean]

13. huh? nt

[11 Bravo]

15. Tell me your native tongue, and I'll attempt to translate for you.

Robb's point appeared clear and concise to this reader.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. it certainly seems to be more fun for you to insinuate things not said than to actually deal

with what was said.

But you have changed course and are now fixated on the number '6'. PFA. I don't really care what the number is. It could be off by an order of magnitude. I don't keep a list.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. one issue at a time.

"I think if you are honest about things you support Obama when is right/does right, and you criticize Obama when he is wrong/does wrong. The dishonest people don't do that: they oppose/support regardless of the facts."

yes that is what I wrote. Now how is that

"fostering the perception that if someone is supporting Obama on one issue, they might be one of those dishonest people who support him on every issue, and can therefore be dismissed as an idiot. "

and even if it does foister that perception (which it doesn't) then it of course foisters the exact same perception regarding people who oppose Obama on any one issue, not that it does that either. Instead you have invented a bizarre theory where what I wrote somehow declares all Obama supports idiots. I can assure you that theory exists only in your mind and not in anything I actually wrote, which is why of course you have resorted to "perception foistering".

[pscot]

21. Foister; to actively propagate

deleterious, misleading or utterly bogus information. It's hard to argue with people who eschew logic. I'm off to the urban dictionary with "foistering".

[Warren Stupidity]

22. and where exactly did I do that?

Where, for example, did I say that all Obama supporters are idiots, without also saying that all Obama critics are idiots?

It is hard to argue with people who invent strawmen.

[pscot]

24. Don't shoot. I'm comin out with my hands up.

Relax, dude. I'm on your side. Sorry if that was unclear. That's how shit gets started around here. Face to face some of these mis-understandings just wouldn't arise, but it's hard to convey nuance on a keyboard. And in the hands of some Obama loyalists, nuance is a dangerously maleable commodity.

[Whisp]

20. Mr. Stupidity calling others idiotic?

naw, can't be.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. another polite addition to the conversation

[Hutzpa]

25. Seems to me because some members can't have their

way in posting thrash about the president, the next best thing to do is succinctly attack
his supporters.

Nice, how I love this place.

[gratuitous]

4. Hanh?

I don't mind praising the president when he actually backs up some of his high-sounding words. But pardon the heck out of me if I see any number of objectionable practices and policies out of this administration.

But I'm a charitable guy. Here's a multiple choice question for supporters: According to yesterday's Washington Post, how many Pakistanis are estimated to have been killed by drone strikes carried out under the Obama administration? Keep in mind that we aren't technically at war with Pakistan:

A. 60-85
B. 600-750
C. 1,350-2,250
D. We don't do estimated body counts

Answer below:

[font color="white"]A, 60, is the lowest figure for those killed since September. The true answer for the last three years is C. USA! USA! I'm sure each and every Pakistani luckless enough to get himself or herself under a drone missile strike was very, very bad, so there's no way this could be described as a violation of our treaty obligations, such as indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations. Every last one of those motherfuckers had it coming, and we gave it to them, right?

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Of course not.

He does things I like, he does things I find to be bigoted and politics is not often binary. I support policy I like, I oppose policy I don't like. I don't much care for calls for 100% agreement with any politician.

[Robb]

14. I'll put the same question to you:

Since I agree with every word you just wrote:

How many people on DU do you suspect support 100% of the President's policies?

And, since you bring it up, what's your rough estimate of the number of posters who "call for 100% agreement" with Obama's policies?

[canoeist52]

16. I suspect it isn't about supporting Obama, but supporting bad policy.

Substitute the words "bad policy" for the word "Obama" and ask again, "So is every support of bad policy wrong? Or do people just not like to hear bad policy?