General Discussion

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

89. Your example is perfect to show what I'm talking about.

Wed Apr 2, 2014, 11:16 AM

Apr 2014

It perfectly shows how you aren't responding to what posters write. Instead, you're attacking what they did not write.

The liberal extremists screamed bloody murder stating that if Pres Obama approved it, it would institutionalize one of the Bush Republican policies that clearly violates our Constitution. The other side didnt offer any debate about how Obama's choice was best for the country, but restricted their arguments to ad hominem attacks.

That's because "the other side" on DU was not saying it was best for the country. Republicans were the ones saying it's best for the country.

The other side on DU was saying Congress passed laws forbidding the spending of any money to close Gitmo. Which has the benefit of being true.

You're blaming Obama for a problem he did not create, and Congress forbade him from fixing. When people point out that you're blaming the wrong person that is not an ad hominem attack. When you continue to blame the wrong person after people point out the Congress problem, they're going to start looking for reasons you keep blaming the wrong person.

If Obama asked Congress for a law declaring that puppies and kittens are cute, Congress would refuse to pass that law. Obama demanding Congress pass a law allowing him to close Gitmo will go nowhere. And so W's stain continues, thanks to Congress.

How about the TPP? What "baby-steps" are The Team recommending? The liberals are fighting this and The Team once again settles for ad hominem attacks.

Except that again, you are conflating "the other side" with Republicans. "The other side" on DU has not been claiming the TPP is wonderful.

Social Security is an issue that upset the liberal extremists when the President put cuts on the table. The Team didnt debate the "baby-step" benefits, their argument was limited to denial that he would actually pull the trigger.

Which means they didn't support it, despite what you appear to be implying.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

121 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How pragmatic were the pragmatists when it came to the Iraq War and gay marriage? [View all] Bjorn Against Apr 2014 OP

Actually, the pragmatists knew that if Obama supported marriage equality before the 2008 election JoePhilly Apr 2014 #1

Do you consider Hillary a "pragmatist"? n/t Fumesucker Apr 2014 #2

I believe Pragmatists think that ripping apart Hillary Clinton and dragging... Walk away Apr 2014 #82

In what way did I voice any opinion of Hillary Clinton? Fumesucker Apr 2014 #115

I'm sorry that you didn't understand that I was using a collective "you"... Walk away Apr 2014 #116

I appreciate your sorrow over my intellectual shortcomings Fumesucker Apr 2014 #117

I didn't mean it facetiously. Perhaps I was wrong and you... Walk away Apr 2014 #119

Obama could have come out as gay in 2008 and won Capt. Obvious Apr 2014 #5

Your first claim you have no evidence to back up Bjorn Against Apr 2014 #8

Here, I'll help you out with a football analogy Capt. Obvious Apr 2014 #10

Nor does your claim. JoePhilly Apr 2014 #14

You are putting words in my mouth Bjorn Against Apr 2014 #21

I never had a moment's doubt that invading Iraq was a bad idea yardwork Apr 2014 #80

correlation isn't causation dsc Apr 2014 #87

political currents changed dramatically over time. Pretending otherwise is dishonest. KittyWampus Apr 2014 #101

Those that claim they are pragmatic are really saying they love the status quo which is killing rhett o rick Apr 2014 #22

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. Scuba Apr 2014 #64

That a pretty irresponsibly idealistic view of the world. Walk away Apr 2014 #84

You lost me at "irresponsibly". nm rhett o rick Apr 2014 #86

I'm not surprised. Walk away Apr 2014 #95

People who called themselves pragmatists were sure Obama could not support marriage Bluenorthwest Apr 2014 #24

Obama is a pragmatist, right? JoePhilly Apr 2014 #39

And the change in policy in 2012 was way more the result of an bullwinkle428 Apr 2014 #44

No it wasn't Sgent Apr 2014 #50

And political currents have changed. And you darned well know it. Opposition collapsed. KittyWampus Apr 2014 #102

Those whose principles change AgingAmerican Apr 2014 #109

You have proven the OP correct AgingAmerican Apr 2014 #108

When team wins - it's due to pragmatism Capt. Obvious Apr 2014 #3

This message was self-deleted by its author Adam051188 Apr 2014 #4

It's always the idealists who stay home Capt. Obvious Apr 2014 #6

This message was self-deleted by its author Adam051188 Apr 2014 #9

... Fumesucker Apr 2014 #13

Here ... I'll help you ... with a Football anaolgy. JoePhilly Apr 2014 #7

This message was self-deleted by its author Adam051188 Apr 2014 #11

Not all of them. But certainly some are. JoePhilly Apr 2014 #16

The idealists fight for life, liberty and freedoms. The pragmatists groveled before George Bush rhett o rick Apr 2014 #25

Obama .. the pragmatist ... just got 10 million people ... JoePhilly Apr 2014 #29

How do you know that we would have gotten nothing? With your thinking we still would be a colony of rhett o rick Apr 2014 #32

You're on the sideline right now. JoePhilly Apr 2014 #36

I am on the field trying for a touchdown, it's you on the sideline content with a 20 point rhett o rick Apr 2014 #38

no on claimed that. JoePhilly Apr 2014 #40

and this is where one "team's" argument breaks down to its constituent parts bobduca Apr 2014 #47

Isnt the definition of pragmatism, "sitting in the stands"? My complaint isnt with the yardage rhett o rick Apr 2014 #110

They are on the sideline with PomPoms fascisthunter Apr 2014 #103

7 million out of 50 million, at a cost of a half trillion dollar per year giveaway to big insurance Doctor_J Apr 2014 #41

How many you helping? JoePhilly Apr 2014 #42

And the insurance companies still call the shots. zeemike Apr 2014 #51

Where are you getting 1O million? I saw 7 million earlier today. Autumn Apr 2014 #54

medicare expansion and state exchanges JoePhilly Apr 2014 #56

Um, bullshit Downtown Hound Apr 2014 #61

Dems had a super majority for about 72 days, not 2 years. JoePhilly Apr 2014 #65

When the defense is playing to stop your ground game it is a perfect time to throw the bomb. Ed Suspicious Apr 2014 #43

The Pragmatic President just got about 10 million people, health care. JoePhilly Apr 2014 #66

I'm glad he got the ACA. I spend much of my day defending it against actual people Ed Suspicious Apr 2014 #68

Ok, let's work through something here ... JoePhilly Apr 2014 #69

Here's the continuum. The way I read it is they think we went too far, Ed Suspicious Apr 2014 #70

Absolutely ... JoePhilly Apr 2014 #73

good post you Eagles fan! treestar Apr 2014 #63

I can't figure out ... JoePhilly Apr 2014 #71

I am utter, humble awe of the ass-kicking 4th and 26 you have been on this thread. msanthrope Apr 2014 #74

I grew up playing football ... JoePhilly Apr 2014 #75

labeling someone who works in accordance with deeply held convictions as an idealist is convenient.. LanternWaste Apr 2014 #88

It's absurd to keep pretending that Third Way Democrats have the same goals woo me with science Apr 2014 #12

You say that like it's a bad thing? Fumesucker Apr 2014 #18

Interesting food for thought. Zorra Apr 2014 #20

Heh. Well said. woo me with science Apr 2014 #45

I offer a different view. We live in a society that is heavily authoritarian influenced. rhett o rick Apr 2014 #78

+100000 And the pressure and propaganda to that end are constant. woo me with science Apr 2014 #107

The moment you start thinking for yourself you become an enemy of society Fumesucker Apr 2014 #121

It's absurd to keep pretending that the Third Way Democrats are on DU. jeff47 Apr 2014 #48

"Micro steps." " a series of small steps to reach the goal" woo me with science Apr 2014 #52

A microstep is "Don't ask, don't tell". jeff47 Apr 2014 #53

Absolutely correct. zeemike Apr 2014 #55

This! Oilwellian Apr 2014 #111

I think you are giving The Team way too much credit. Let's use indefinite detention as rhett o rick Apr 2014 #77

Your example is perfect to show what I'm talking about. jeff47 Apr 2014 #89

You seem to be trying to rationalize what I am saying. My point is that one side does not rhett o rick Apr 2014 #91

Third Way Democrats are re-branded Republicans. Corp leaders arent stupid. rhett o rick Apr 2014 #76

It's absurd to think that Ideologues can have a reasonable discussion. There are so many DU'ers KittyWampus Apr 2014 #104

163. Here goes. Zorra Apr 2014 #15

A great post from a great DUer.... Bluenorthwest Apr 2014 #28

Thank you, very much, for posting that. Luminous Animal Apr 2014 #34

EPIC! Rack it! Great post. Ed Suspicious Apr 2014 #49

Oh God. Thank you for posting that. I had that bookmarked Autumn Apr 2014 #57

That was amazing Oilwellian Apr 2014 #114

Pragmatist here gwheezie Apr 2014 #17

The "pragmatists" aren't very pragmatic Doctor_J Apr 2014 #19

I would love to see the list of pragmatic DUers who you base this on. Walk away Apr 2014 #85

I don't care whether they believe in these things or not Doctor_J Apr 2014 #99

I ask the President not to make thoses cuts... Walk away Apr 2014 #105

They were preparing defenses for the NSA and drones. Looking "forward" donchya know? Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2014 #23

Being a "pragmatist" ProSense Apr 2014 #26

Believe me, DU was radically opposed to the Iraq war. Skidmore Apr 2014 #27

I was lurking then, the site was much more left leaning in those days Bjorn Against Apr 2014 #30

I wasnt around here back then but I find it hard to believe there were many supporting the iraq war DCBob Apr 2014 #31

Look at the "pragmatic" politicians who supported it Bjorn Against Apr 2014 #33

I wouldnt call them pragmatists.. those are conservative Democrats.. DCBob Apr 2014 #35

There is a reason I have been putting the word "pragmatist" in quotes in this thread Bjorn Against Apr 2014 #37

Self-described, typically. Pholus Apr 2014 #58

I was here and couldn't believe Proud Liberal Dem Apr 2014 #67

Third Way Democrats = Republican-lite blkmusclmachine Apr 2014 #46

Self-described "pragmatists" are often just sports fans. Marr Apr 2014 #59

it's like "Biblical literalist": just something to brandish, nothing to do with *reading* the text MisterP Apr 2014 #60

False Frame treestar Apr 2014 #62

You appear to be saying that pragmatists are rare in American politics Fumesucker Apr 2014 #72

If Clinton-Sachs isnt a pragmatist maybe she is an opportunist. rhett o rick Apr 2014 #81

I thought you were aiming at DUers treestar Apr 2014 #90

It was pragmatic to support the war. What other excuse could Clinton-Sachs have? rhett o rick Apr 2014 #79

Were they being pragmatic or thinking it was the right thing to do? treestar Apr 2014 #92

I cant believe we still need to justify not supporting the I-War. rhett o rick Apr 2014 #93

No I do not, quit misrepresenting just to argue treestar Apr 2014 #94

I appreciate the question and will be glad to answer it, however, we are discussing something rhett o rick Apr 2014 #96

You might have a point if there were many (any) DUers who supported the IWR or opposed gay marriage DanTex Apr 2014 #83

See post # 15, link for you below Zorra Apr 2014 #97

I'll check it out, but first, thanks for linking. DanTex Apr 2014 #106

The don't seem to notice what our JoePhilly Apr 2014 #113

The prevailing headwinds against gay marriage finally abated. Hence, such dramatic forward progress. KittyWampus Apr 2014 #98

Is that what they call leading from behind? Capt. Obvious Apr 2014 #100

No, we've had to cut through that type of horseshit every single day to force the issue Zorra Apr 2014 #112

Pragmatist here, and I was against the Iraq war stevenleser Apr 2014 #118

One thing about people who call themselves "pragmatists" or... bvar22 Apr 2014 #120