General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why the arguments of Obama's defenders leave many cold. [View all]Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The OP speaks of defenders who defend wrong headed policy along with good policy. Do you really not see that? The word used is 'defenders'. You chose to type 'supporters' as if it was the same word, then you "all of Obama's supporters are morally bankrupt and contemptible'. Which the OP most certainly did not say. The tactic you are employing is dishonest. Argue with the OP's words, not your impression of them, your rewording of them.
Read this thread. Not one of the offended readers has stepped up to say 'I am a defender who is offended'. Nope, each one says 'you call supporters names'. Why do you think that is? Why do each of the offended posts use words other than the OP's own as reason for their offense? How is it honest to claim he said 'all of Obama's supporters'? How is that anything but false witness against the OP? To claim he said what he did not say. Just not fair play at all. At all.
And tactics like that are exactly what the OP is addressing. It is not pleasant to see. It reflects poorly on the President and it is not support in any real political sense of the word. It is exploitation for one's personal emotional agenda.
Do these 'Supporters' you speak of get extra ballots, or just one like the rest of us who cast them for Democrats?