Jophiel wrote:
You think Huckabee is the only source of news? The WSJ story was six days ago and I could probably find people huffing and whining before that.
What people huffing and whining? One WSJ article, where most people on the right just said "Yeah, that's typical of this president". And then what? Most of the "news" on this has been left wing sources making a big deal about how supposedly upset the right is over this. When, in actual fact, most on the right didn't notice. Yeah, upon it being pointed out, it does seem like a classless thing to do, but as I just mentioned, this is like a drop of water in the sea of Obama classlessness that we've grown accustomed to.
Quote:
Seriously, I know that coming up with cereal box sociology about "The Left" is your bread & butter, but try to get informed once in a while.
I post regularly on a forum full of liberals who actually do this constantly? The whole "look at this silly/crazy thing conservatives are doing/saying" does seem to be a pretty common topic. Jade Helm thread? Entirely about how outraged conservatives were supposed to be over military operations, when in fact the number of liberals outraged over this supposed conservative outrage outnumbered the actual outrage (which I wouldn't even label conservative) by like 100 to 1. Same deal here.
As I said, you guys live off this stuff. It's how you communicate politically. You support your positions, rarely by saying why they are good, but usually by saying how bad the conservative position is. I'm sorry, but I'm going to point this out when I see it. And this is yet another example of it. Maybe you're blind to the methodology, but it's pretty freaking prevalent. Support SSM because hating gay people because of your religion is wrong. Support socialized medicine/food/housing/etc because making poor people suffer because you believe in free markets is wrong. Support "Hands up don't shoot" because accepting a disparate impact because you actually believe in equality under the law is wrong. Support Global Warming agenda because balancing the cost of the agenda against the likelihood of actual global environmental impact is wrong.
The Left is entirely about creating a "us vs them" conflict, working hard to make the "them" side look as bad as possible to get blind support for "us", and then going forward with whatever agenda they want once they have enough "us" on their side. In many cases, the "us" side doesn't even start with an openly stated set of objectives. Just opposition to the status quo. The first thing they do is build support. Then they generate solutions. But, of course, since they got that support by demonizing the other side, once they get around to actually doing things, most of their support is afraid to question the actions that arise for fear of being demonized themselves. It's a very dangerous political methodology, but it's one the Left engages in constantly. And heaven help anyone who's a member of certain identity groups if they happen to disagree with any thing the left is doing. Again, because they build support on agreement of opposition, not agreement of action. The methodology relies on people getting so caught up in what they oppose, that they don't stop to think about what they are supporting.
So yeah. As I said, I'll point this out when I see it.
Edited, Sep 23rd 2015 4:50pm by gbaji