Say, in the Hillary Bill of Rights - the rules we are asked to follow if we do not care for Hillary - are we actually expected to praise the TTP if she is the candidate?
Cannot do it. Will not do it.

. . . that's a poorly constructed straw man you've presented there.

Methinks you couldn't recognize a straw man if he kissed both your blooming little cheeks.

. . . not clear if you're just carving out space to co=opt what are primarily right-wing attacks on Democrats; like republicans exploiting the tragic suicide of Vince Foster to get an open-ended investigation of the presidential couple, and critics of the Clintons including/associating that name along with their criticisms. It's a sly way to invoke disdain for the Clintons and it not only originated with the right-wing, it's still one of their mainstays.

Did that confluence of complaints really happen, or are you just conjuring up the worst you can imagine?

The arguments on many subjects that by making an argument, you are assisting the Rethugs.

I have agreed with you many many times. I have argued along side of you often. I have disagreed with you infrequently. However, all of my opinions are based upon my beliefs, and my principles. I have put forth the statement before that without principles, we are little more than rabid fans of a sports team. Believing that by painting our faces, or wearing a shirt we can affect the outcome of a game. Democrats are more than that, or should be more than some barroom fan of the home team.

Discrediting is the main weapon of far too many. I try to stay away from it, but I'm sure I've not been as good about doing that as I would like.

By any means necessary? Will that be the motto?

When Jeb Bush is appointing Supreme Court justices, you can just keep blaming Hill.

Sid

Last edited Mon Jun 16, 2014, 09:12 AM - Edit history (1)

More likely the "liberal opposition" isn't so liberal.

I'd like to know which posters are doing this consistently.

from issues on which the left and right are on totally different sides.

You pointed out good examples of the former, to which some might add opposition to corporate bailouts, foreign aid, massive wiretapping, the Federal Reserve, etc. Whether or not conservative opposition is for the "right" reasons in these cases, we should at least consider tactical alliances with the right on individual issues if it will further our goals. (Obviously being careful that conservative input into the "cure" could be worse than the "disease" we are trying to deal with and understanding that giving the right wing a "win" to crow about to their base might be a minor "dark lining" to an otherwise "silver cloud".

OTOH, examples of the issues where liberals and conservatives have little common ground would include higher taxes on the rich, stronger environmental laws and greater legal protections for unions, a stronger health care system and safety net and many others. They are very much supported by liberals and opposed by conservatives. Not much room for common ground here.

Of course most opposition from the right to any policy (whether there is shared opposition from the left or not) is based on fear, emotion and partisanship, while the left relies more on history, science and the facts when it opposes (or supports) a particular policy.

Meme of the third way kind. It really just does not make any sense either.

criticism of Obama from old left-wing white guys with criticism of Obama from old right-wing white guys. Weird grouping.