Attack Watch

Post Reply New Topic

Not you. The OP.

^
'Keet actually pretty much got it right even if you weren't addressing him; stupid is stupid, and I would have posted this regardless of the political affiliation of the people involved. Are we going to try and make this yet another thread about me personally rather than the stated topic? .

Okay.

As is the paranoid right-wing polemic you copy-and-pasted. It's just a freaking campaign site. It does not encourage "spying" on conservative neighbors or any such brain-dead hyperbolic nonsense. People like this author can hide behind humor all they want, saying the comparison to fascist/communist propaganda is all in jest, but that just doesn't cut it because deep down they really do seem to believe they are going to be persecuted.


Your political affiliation seems to be that of whatever is published by the CATO institute. Otherwise you most likely would've never heard of the site. I certainly hadn't before it became yet another right-wing meme to be spread around the internet.
I don't know, are we? I suppose, if that's what you want. We really do seem to think we are important and deserving of special attention. Don't we?

As for the topic. Personally I think the Obama campaign would have been better off linking to a site like factcheck.org which actually goes after false accusations from both sides. It might shoot down some of his own spin, but overall he'd still be miles ahead of the opposition on the truth-o-meter.

It's still nowhere near as Netflix's problem with the owner of the @Qwikster Twitter account.

That bit about squeezing the Charmin was worth a few lulz though.

There are so many people concerned only with finding "lulz"....

And there are many people so concerned with things they can have little effect on that they think it rational to risk raising their BP to the point of having a stroke.

But neither of those would bear any resemblance to me.

P.S. I can also walk and chew gum at the same time.

By "Bush II" I mean 'Bush the second,' or the first heir of the Bush political legacy; I think "Bush 2.0" fits Obama fairly well, though. He's better-spoken, but the policies aren't very different.

It's an expression of despair. People laugh bitterly when the other option is crying.

I go with 2.0 because he seems to extend Bush's policies. It is Bush up to eleve . Soon enough we'll have twice as many wars going on at the same time than in Bush times.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 22 Sep 2011, 1:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Again with the blaming Bush...

Actually the reality is more like this:



No wonder they can't figure out their Left wing ideocy doesn't work.

Sounds fun. Can you pass the freedom fries?

"right wing polemic"? "Braindead hyperbolic nonsense"? Because you say it is? Why don't you try dropping the spin and actually detail out the issues you're having, rather than falling back on loaded words and empty language. Or are you deliberately trying to troll me and think this will somehow irritate or annoy me because you're aping another poster who fixated on me in the past? In that case I've really got better things to do, I've long since stopped paying attention to baseless attacks and transparent smears.

"Hide behind humor", huh? So who gets to draw the line between "legitimate" political humor and, I don't know, crypto-spin in the guise of humor or whatever you want to call it? (hint: Take a look at my Jon Stewart thread for more on this topic) You?

This is an opinion piece for one, and the author doesn't merely rely on the Attack Watch fiasco but uses it as one piece in a greater pattern of behavior by this administration. The parallels are there, even if you don't want to see them because they make your chosen "side" look bad.

My problem is with Obama and his administration, possibly the greatest bait and switch I've seen in this country since becoming politically aware, not with Democrats or liberals in general. I do think it's hypocritical of many of them to sit on their hands while Obama does everything they loathed when Bush did it, especially when Obama has gone so much further than Bush, but that's a different thread.



Wow, you've really got my number, I'm like totally stinging from that harsh rebuke.

I'm an unorthodox libertarian, I've never hidden this fact. Cato is a libertarian think tank, of course I'm going to have a lot of common opinions with them. I also have some significant differences with them, but I certainly don't feel any obligation to list them to "prove" something to you. I think I've actually posted more stories from Counterpunch and Salon than I have from Cato, though I will admit to using Reason as a bit of a cheat sheet when looking for articles to repost here that I think represent a point I'm trying to make or a story I want to publicize. This is the part when you make some noises about Koch Brothers funding, and then I call you on acting like Inuyasha, so you can just save some time and skip that little dance.

Again with the spin, too. "Right wing meme"; the only one to blame for this is whoever was naive enough to think it up and whoever was dumb enough to approve it. If (god forbid) Sarah Palin was in office and started soliciting people to report each other for making fun of her, I think we'd have to shut down the whole internet due to Godwin violations alone. Nobody had to make this one up or even spin it, the story practically wrote itself.



Hmm, I'm the one that posts threads for topical discussion only to find them repeatedly devolving to personal attacks against me, I it would seem that my feelings on the matter don't really play a role. I'm not sure why a handful of posters in PPR just can't seem to stay away from me and wants to talk about me all the time, it's really kind of creepy, but whatever. Baseless attacks are just that, baseless, most of the time I don't even have to bother rebutting them as they're so weak and obviously false to anyone who's at all familiar with me. Knock yourself out for all I care, I've got work and a wife and too many other things going on to waste my time worrying about things said on the internet.



Yes, that would have been a smarter move, but smart hasn't really had much to do with this administration lately.

Perhaps so.

Maybe if you had the chance to live under a real police state you would understand why I said "hyperbolic nonsense". I thought that Naomi Wolf piece on "Fascism in America" was stupid as well at the time. This is all about politics and nothing else.

Anyways, it's odd that you interpret any criticism as an attempt to troll you. I haven't singled you out any more than you've singled me out in the past.


What the author does not mention in the article/letter says quite a bit about author's true political motive. There's no mention of the treatment of Bradley Manning or the Assange fiasco. Every instance of "bad behavior" mentioned is one the author knows will incite conservatives. He knows his audience. You posted a partisan trash piece.



I'm so above this, blah blah blah, I have a life and you don't, blah blah blah. If you don't have the time or care to be rebutting them then why do you keep this going? I said four words and it triggered you to go off on me personally.

Although I do not know the complete history of whatever animosity you currently possess, I would like to concur that even if there are so many arguments among you it is not trolling in its truest sense. While such argumentation can at times have chords of anger intermixed, it is not so much malevolence as it is merely having strong opinions regarding subjects and thus expressing one's opinions. Trolling is more often mindless chatter intended to entertain oneself at the expense of others, which a thoughtful debate is not.