The conspiracy theorists are at it again! Skeetergate!

[Coito ergo sum]

Like Clint Eastwood, you seem to be arguing against an invisible foe sitting in a chair....you're the only one who can see and hear him.

I know, because people who support Obama won't criticize him, even when he does something wrong -- like the memo extrajudicial assassination of American citizens in countries regarding which no authorization of military force has been issued either by the US Congress or the UN.

You don't care.

[Coito ergo sum]

Um, wut?

I was just agreeing with you. Obviously, you don't care.

[Ian]

Like Clint Eastwood, you seem to be arguing against an invisible foe sitting in a chair....you're the only one who can see and hear him.

I know, because people who support Obama won't criticize him, even when he does something wrong -- like the memo extrajudicial assassination of American citizens in countries regarding which no authorization of military force has been issued either by the US Congress or the UN.

You don't care.

Just stop. You sound ridiculous.

Obama supporters never criticize him... yeah, what planet do you live on?

[Gerald McGrew]

So much of what CES is outraged about consists of "if this would have happened, then..." scenarios. Even on a thread where I expressed my disapproval of this policy, CES still says I "don't care".

Non-thinking tribalism at its worst.

[Ian]

He'll probably challenge me on my last post, so I'll just pre-empt him...

CES, if you're going to insist on hearing an Obama supporter criticize the man... I've been very disappointed with his stance on gun control up until recently, and even now I think what he's proposing is half-assed (read: politically safe and thus wishy-washy). I think he's coddled/turned a blind eye towards Israel too much. I think he needed to fight harder for single-payer in the health care overhaul. I worry that he's going to cave to the teabaggers on across-the-board government cuts (that's more of a personal concern). I think the Patriot Act needed to be watered down even more than what it still is. Et cetera.

But usually when I discuss the President at all with you it's only because I'm just reacting to some silly criticism you're making. Why do I need to continue on and make my own threads singing his various praises or critisizing his various flaws? Maybe I should, because you translate this reaction as "liberals never criticize Obama". Give us a break already.

[FBM]

Official Whitehouse Exif data: http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse ... hotostream

This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

Somebody may be getting a knock on their door soon...

[JimC]

Substantive criticism of politicians is one thing, but obsessive attention to trivial stuff dilutes any real analysis and panders to the media.

[Coito ergo sum]

Like Clint Eastwood, you seem to be arguing against an invisible foe sitting in a chair....you're the only one who can see and hear him.

I know, because people who support Obama won't criticize him, even when he does something wrong -- like the memo extrajudicial assassination of American citizens in countries regarding which no authorization of military force has been issued either by the US Congress or the UN.

You don't care.

Just stop. You sound ridiculous.

Obama supporters never criticize him... yeah, what planet do you live on?

The real one.

Link to examples, Ian.

[Coito ergo sum]

So much of what CES is outraged about consists of "if this would have happened, then..." scenarios. Even on a thread where I expressed my disapproval of this policy, CES still says I "don't care".

Non-thinking tribalism at its worst.

You expressed one of the few tepid objections, yes. I'm not speaking in absolutes here. This is about the overall, general response.

It's the tribalism that I'm objecting to, Gerald. I'm trying to get people to see that there are things that ought to be objected to regardless of who is President. FFS -- on humor threads where people post cartoons, just take a look at the White Knighting that goes on to protect Obama's honor from jokes and cartoons.

[Coito ergo sum]

He'll probably challenge me on my last post, so I'll just pre-empt him...

CES, if you're going to insist on hearing an Obama supporter criticize the man... I've been very disappointed with his stance on gun control up until recently,

You make my point. Your objection to Obama -- "he's good --but, he could do more..." He didn't HAVE a policy on gun control until recently. FFS, dude. He didn't propose any real groundbreaking measures. His policy was "status quo."

and even now I think what he's proposing is half-assed (read: politically safe and thus wishy-washy). I think he's coddled/turned a blind eye towards Israel too much.

That's a weird objection. Coddled Israel? He's been a big concern to Israel, as he has been much harder on them and/or less supportive of them than the Bush Administration was. But, o.k., if you say so.

I think he needed to fight harder for single-payer in the health care overhaul.

Again -- your objection is not to something he did, but something he did not do -- something he was unable to accomplish. Easy objections "he's good, but didn't go far enough." Tepid.

I worry that he's going to cave to the teabaggers on across-the-board government cuts (that's more of a personal concern). I think the Patriot Act needed to be watered down even more than what it still is. Et cetera.

But usually when I discuss the President at all with you it's only because I'm just reacting to some silly criticism you're making. Why do I need to continue on and make my own threads singing his various praises or critisizing his various flaws? Maybe I should, because you translate this reaction as "liberals never criticize Obama". Give us a break already.

My raising of the issue of the terrorist assassination memo -- which I note was not a thread created by any Obama supporter - is "silly?" Most of our discussions of late have come up on humor threads, when you White Knight Obama because you can't bear to have him joked about unless the "joke" is a serious dissertation with which you whole heartedly agree after putting the issue addressed in the light most favorable to Obama.

Liberals don't generally criticize Obama. The Maddow clip above is very apropos of that. She criticizes Holder and the Justice department memo -- a little -- really, she doesn't criticize it. She criticizes Holder's failure to amplify and explain the factual analysis that goes into the decision of whether to kill a person in Yemen.

I'm not talking about YOU in particular, on this issue, Ian. You're one person, and of course there are going to be isolated examples of Liberals who think Obama could have been more proactive on gay marriage and think he could raised taxes more and done more to make universal healthcare, etc. But, the issue with this memo is that -- you know it, I think -- if it came out under Bush via a John Ashcroft Justice Department, there would be massive outcry, not just tepid voices of muted concern. Don't you think so?

[Coito ergo sum]

Substantive criticism of politicians is one thing, but obsessive attention to trivial stuff dilutes any real analysis and panders to the media.

There hasn't been obsessive attention. it's a thread on a thing that has been in the news prominently.

And, one, I don't think the picture was a fake. I think it was a photo-op, and I think the only "fake" thing about it is Obama's attempt to position himself as "pro-gun" so that he can sell gun control. He tried to pretend that he skeet shoots all the time. I thought the language he used was masterful in doing that as he was able to navigate the conversation with the press without actually lying, but leaving the impression that he is an avid, regular gun sportsman. It's very instructive to have examples like this from time to time, because people really do need to learn to zero in on exactly how a politician phrases their statements and/or denials, etc.

Take the Menendez case -- the Senator who is rumored to have hired "underage" prostitutes in the Dominican Republic after taking free private jet trips there with a wealth donor. He makes a general denial of having "done nothing wrong." No denial of whether he hired a prostitute, and -- guess what? Prostitution is LEGAL in the Dominican Republic. So, if he hired a prostitute, he wouldn't be doing anything wrong .... there. The closest thing he had to a complete denial was through a spokesperson who said that it was false to say he "engaged" with prostitutes. Careful word use there, too, and would be true even if he fucked a prostitute, as long as someone else engaged her services, which is what is said to have happened (the wealthy donor did the engaging of the prostitutes or had other people do so, and the Senator just fucked them). The word "engaged" is plainly chosen because it gives the impression of non-involvement -- but, that's not what it means, exactly. That kind of thing.

[Gerald McGrew]

You expressed one of the few tepid objections, yes. I'm not speaking in absolutes here. This is about the overall, general response.

It's the tribalism that I'm objecting to, Gerald. I'm trying to get people to see that there are things that ought to be objected to regardless of who is President. FFS -- on humor threads where people post cartoons, just take a look at the White Knighting that goes on to protect Obama's honor from jokes and cartoons.

Already demonstrated to be false.

[Robert_S]

Substantive criticism of politicians is one thing, but obsessive attention to trivial stuff dilutes any real analysis and panders to the media.

There hasn't been obsessive attention. it's a thread on a thing that has been in the news prominently.

And, one, I don't think the picture was a fake. I think it was a photo-op, and I think the only "fake" thing about it is Obama's attempt to position himself as "pro-gun" so that he can sell gun control. He tried to pretend that he skeet shoots all the time. I thought the language he used was masterful in doing that as he was able to navigate the conversation with the press without actually lying, but leaving the impression that he is an avid, regular gun sportsman. It's very instructive to have examples like this from time to time, because people really do need to learn to zero in on exactly how a politician phrases their statements and/or denials, etc.

Take the Menendez case -- the Senator who is rumored to have hired "underage" prostitutes in the Dominican Republic after taking free private jet trips there with a wealth donor. He makes a general denial of having "done nothing wrong." No denial of whether he hired a prostitute, and -- guess what? Prostitution is LEGAL in the Dominican Republic. So, if he hired a prostitute, he wouldn't be doing anything wrong .... there. The closest thing he had to a complete denial was through a spokesperson who said that it was false to say he "engaged" with prostitutes. Careful word use there, too, and would be true even if he fucked a prostitute, as long as someone else engaged her services, which is what is said to have happened (the wealthy donor did the engaging of the prostitutes or had other people do so, and the Senator just fucked them). The word "engaged" is plainly chosen because it gives the impression of non-involvement -- but, that's not what it means, exactly. That kind of thing.

Obama's not trying to sell himself as pro gun. He's trying to portray himself as someone who has actually fired a gun.

So this Menendez guy: Is he running around saying that the wrong kind of sex is ruining America? Is he actively trying to keep prostitutes or the people who use their services from getting married? If not, then you really do need to get your panties untangled and take a deep breath.

And you have "rumors". How many Republicans have been caught actually engaging in the kind of sex that they publicly condemn.

Do I really have to mansplain this to you?

[Gerald McGrew]

Obama's not trying to sell himself as pro gun. He's trying to portray himself as someone who has actually fired a gun.

It shows how ridiculous the right is with Obama. He was specifically asked if he'd ever shot a gun and he answered "Yes, we shoot skeet at Camp David all the time". Of course the nuts on the right then demanded proof, so Obama released a photo. Now the nuts are scrambling to prove the photo is a fake. It's the same dynamic as the birther issue.

And actually, it's just like arguing with creationists. When they ask, "where are the transitional fossils", they're not asking because they're genuinely interested in the answer; they're asking because they're convinced they don't exist and they think they've got you stumped. That's why no matter how many you show them, they'll continue to deny their existence.

It's the same here. They didn't ask Obama if he'd shot a gun because they really wanted to know; they asked because they were sure he never had.

[Coito ergo sum]

You're confusing my discussion of the Menendez incident with a moral judgment about prostitution or underage prostitution. I was only using it as an example of the careful wording that politicians learn to use. Non-denial denials. Very specifically chosen words to convey a meaning, while leaving open another meaning, etc.

I don't care if he ran around with prostitutes, but the phrase "I did nothing wrong," is used very often by people being accused of some sort of offense. Like Michael Jackson responding to accusations of sex with children with general statements of "I would never harm a child." Well, of course not. Pedophiles often don't think that their interaction with children is harmful, and it doesn't answer the question. Likewise, saying one did nothing "wrong" is not the same as denying the underlying conduct.

And, like Clinton using the phrase "sexual relations"in his denial.

I'm not arguing the merits of any of the allegations against Menendez, Clinton or anyone else here. Just discussing the wording of their denials and responses.

But, Obama is trying to set himself as pro gun to some extent. He wants to say "I like guns -- it's just the nasty, crazy guns I don't like." It's good position to adopt. Because if he was totally a non-gun guy, then people would suggest that he means to eliminate guns altogether. But, one can get a lot farther with the agenda if one can claim that one shoots guns "all the time" and then posture the debate to be that the vast majority of gun owners would not be effected by the new rules. I mean - that's necessary to get gun control across. Fuckloads of people have guns here in the US, and of course, they're more apt to be in favor of a gun control that doesn't impact the weapons they own.