Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill
|
Jill, you do not have a rational reason to vote for a Democrat, ever again, for any office. You do have falsehoods, rationalizations, and excuses, but I, as one of the people of freedom, a small-government sort of fellow, do not.
The Democrats successfully win elections relying on the votes of the socialistic, the parasitic, and the dull-normal fellow travelers.
Lets me out of that constituency, doesn't it? I registered Libertarian Party, so I don't exactly have a dog in the Dem/Rep fight. You do know which dog I root for.
It's not that I couldn't see some blogger bloviations -- it's that I care mighty little for them, hewing to the sort of opinionmongering that is giving the due credit to both -- Obama got schooled in the business of fighting a sub-rosa war and after two years' experience has had an unequivocal victory in this sort of unconventional, non-state conflict in which symbolic sorts of victories have more weight than they do in contentions between states.
An attack upon the policy record hardly means an attack upon persons. But again, and again and ten billion times again: stupid should and must hurt until it educates the educable to quit pissing on that electric fence. When you are committed to an ideology that obliges you to choose the lesser, the more collectivist choice, does that say you're intelligent?
Turning to a posted link or two: it is a complete mischaracterization of the
Washington Times editorial to call it "flailing of the rightwingers" when it is a straightforward account of who did what, and how long. When I lived in Prince George's County, Maryland, I was much in the habit of buying both each day's
Washington Post and
Washington Times, leaning their editorial positions up against each other to see what insight dropping a mental plumb between their respective slants might give. Sometimes it was illuminating. Eventually I got the idea the Times staffers were the less dickheaded, and rather the less statist. Encouraging, really.
Does
Quote:
|
George W. Bush started the hunt for Bin Laden and almost everything Obama has done to get Osama has been a continuation or an enhancement of the programs Bush put in place. That’s not an effort to steal credit from Obama, because he does deserve credit, but it’s just giving Bush some rightful credit for the part he played in helping to kill Bin Laden.
|
sound to you like flailing around to be unfair to Obama? This is all a matter of public record, and it's all over the place. If you think this is utter flailing, shame on you. You could always
reread the piece. Indeed you should, for you have grasped little of its essence. I could keep on citing paragraph after paragraph from that linked article of its evenhandedness, but a tw-ish wall-of-text isn't my style. I'm not an obsessive.
Pp. 130-131 of
this thread in CityData's forum are a typical-enough Internent firefight, yeah. An example of the sort of thing I don't waste a lot of caring upon. And your point might have been?
Honestly, Jill dear. Don't post stuff that invites condescension; use the old noodle. We are smarter than you'd like, or would like to acknowledge, tougher than you could handle, and we're fertile too. See Sarah Palin. And we make more sensible arguments, as anyone reading Jonah Goldberg's
Proud To Be Right really has to acknowledge.
We read things presently beyond your ken, but you can catch up. If you have the courage of your convictions, I invite you to test them.