Skip to main content

View Diary: An Unashamed Apologist for the Left (671 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Feel like HR your tip jar to make your point... (33+ / 0-)

    ironically, of course, coming from myself, another unashamed apologist for the left.

    I find context and doing the heavy lifting with regard to words is often verboten here, which is a shame. Etymology and connotations are always worth a look because there is always something to learn.

    Obama apologist is certainly not a HOS word as some have tried to claim it as.

    Those who deflect debates about the issues with complaints about tone usually have a lot to atone for.

    by priceman on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 03:56:35 AM PDT

    •  Well... You can TRY to HR the TJ Price. (12+ / 0-)

      Do your worst, I'm ready.

      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

      by PhilJD on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 04:03:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's a shame this diary had to be written (48+ / 0-)

      I had to deal with this very issue several months ago, over some administration iniquity or another (maybe chained-CPI).  I tried to use "apologist" as a neutral term for those on the other side, thinking it would be less offensive than what I really thought of their position.  Much dudgeon of course ensued, from people who clearly didn't know the meaning of the word.  Sounds like that's still going on.

      The problem these people have, I think, isn't the use of a word that is in no way an insult (though some apparently don't know this).  It's having to defend some odious position or another, and being told that they're flat out wrong, and in some cases that their beliefs are actively harmful.  This causes deep offense, especially when true.  

      The solution to the problem would seem to be obvious, but apparently it's not.  Much easier to shoot messengers than to change the message.

      We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

      by Dallasdoc on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 05:56:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep. And that's why (25+ / 0-)

        Being called an 'apologist for the left' would have a much different effect on me, than getting called an 'Obama Apologist' would have on them.




        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

        by DeadHead on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 06:12:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's the thing (11+ / 0-)

        that makes it perplexing to me.

        I tried to use "apologist" as a neutral term for those on the other side, thinking it would be less offensive than what I really thought of their position.
        Many times I could have used, and indeed rather wanted to use an insulting term, but instead chose the relatively polite term "apologist" or "apologia".  I started using it often when there was a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the term "Obamabot", which I was never too fond of to begin with.  But then I started getting dinged for using "apologist" too. I think I've actually been HR'd for it before, though that didn't stop me from using it because it was just one of the usual periods of time when the authoritarians were doing one of their crackdowns on criticism.  

        Another term that is not really insulting and that I've seen used in both news articles and blog posts on some of the bigger blogs is "Obamacrat". It's used to define the difference between Democrats who are fiercely devoted to Obama policies, whether they are in line with the party platform or not, and traditional Democrats and progressives. I don't see why it's insulting because many people who would fit that label openly declare that they put all their trust in Obama, and some say they have true faith in him, spend enormous amounts of time defending him, and turn against anyone on the Left who criticizes him. But they object to the term Obamacrat.

        In fact they object to it so much that when I used it the other day, this was the response:

        Calling people Obamacrats or 'bots' is just as disruptive as saying that someone is a racist because they criticize the President.
        Prior to that I had used the phrase "Obama camp" and somehow that was confusing or insulting to the commenter too, so the only reason I used "Obamacrat" was because I was asked for an explanation.

        You simply can't win this battle.  The apologists can call you a racist, a hater, afflicted with Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS), a Hair on Fire (HOS) conspiracy theorist, a firebagger, a Tea Party of the Left, a Paulite, a libertarian, and accuse you of being responsible for losing entire elections because you criticized the president, but if you call refer to them as apologists, even if they are defending cuts to Social Security, drone programs that blow civilians to bits, etc. then they complain and rant about it and even HR you.  This is the state of affairs at dkos.


        "Justice is a commodity"

        by joanneleon on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 08:04:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When you use terms like (4+ / 0-)

          "authoritarians" and "crackdowns on criticism", it's not surprising you get HR'd.

          Try listening to people with whom you disagree without calling them authoritarians.  Maybe it's you who can't take cricitism or opposing views without assuming the other person is authoritarian or whatever.

          Reasonable people can disagree.

          Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

          by delphine on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 08:10:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hahaha (7+ / 0-)

            Thank you!  You've illustrated exactly what I was saying.

            I could go and search your comments to illustrate the way that you are a prime example of the language police around here, and a true hypocrite in that you take liberties in how you refer to critics with insulting terms, but object when even mild terms are used by people like me, but I simply don't care enough to do it.

            You'll simply pick out yet another word or term to object to, and never address the substance of the comment or the points being made.  You've done me a great favor with your comment here. Thank you.

            Exhibit A ^^^

            P.S. I can pre-empt your next comment where you will object to my use of the term "language police" and never address any of the points that I'm making in this comment.  That's how it's done, folks.  Drag it out forever. Distract from the valid points being made.  Muck things up so much that by the end of the thread the conversation does not even resemble wha the initial disagreement was, or the topic of the diary. And it's the same people who do it over and over and the same people who cheer it on by rec'ing the comments.  Hi, Diogenes2008!  I can already predict the other names who will show up rec'ing it too.


            "Justice is a commodity"

            by joanneleon on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 08:33:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Also (4+ / 0-)

              if you don't like being described as an authoritarian, then stop acting like one.  


              "Justice is a commodity"

              by joanneleon on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 08:34:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  this^^^^^. exactly. nt (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dallasdoc, ek hornbeck

                "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it." ~George Orwell "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." ~Charles Beard

                by poligirl on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 09:47:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  How am I acting like (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Reggid

                an authoritarian?

                You guys high fived each other over that tripe?

                I'm the one trying to get a dialog started about the NSA, asking specific questions that I don't know the answers to, that I could use some input on.

                They have nothing to do with Obama, and nothing to do with Snowden or Greenwald or Holder or the actual lying sacks of shit at the NSA.

                I thought if I wrote the questions in a comment, people would go "Ahhhhhhh!  We can have a discussion!"

                But folks ignored in favor of this sort of argument here.

                Questions, not statements.  Questions because I'm not sure how I feel, where the dividing line is, you know?

                But we never get to that discussion because we're too busy calling one another names or pretending that our insults are not actually insults.

                *sad.

                Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                by delphine on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 12:12:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I don't mind libertarian (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Timaeus, poligirl, shaharazade, Jarrayy

            if someone who calls me that uses the term in its historical context, although most use the term as a slur.

            On that note, many people clearly are on the authoritarian side of the divide. Simply put, they believe the authority of the state may, when need arises, supersede individual rights, such as in cases of "collateral damage," extrajudicial killings, tactics of bombing funerals or first responders to previous drone bombings in order to kill more terrorists, rendition, spying, etc.

            These are examples that are unequivocal uses of authority, placing security needs of the State over human rights of people.

            Support of this makes one an authoritarian. It is no more an insult than being a (civil) libertarian. If that is a policy you support, own it, and be proud of it. But to support such a policy and then deny it is based on the belief authority of the State can trump rights of individuals is illogical. Own your authoritarianism the way I own my (non-right-wing) libertarianism.

            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

            by ZhenRen on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 09:25:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I've never liked the term "libertarian," because (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ZhenRen, poligirl, Jarrayy

              all of the self-identified libertarians I've known in real life were assholes.  I always thought of them as pseudo-intellectual and self-absorbed.  

              But otherwise I certainly agree with your comment here.

              The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.-Bertrand Russell

              by Timaeus on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 09:29:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Libertarian is a word (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                poligirl, shaharazade, Timaeus

                with various meanings. But the right wing has tried to usurp the meaning, turning it into a brand. I see no need to cede such a useful word to an oxymoronic, Orwellian use. And I'm pretty sure Orwell, in particular (due to his history) would agree.

                It's been used by libertarian socialists since the mid 1800s to refer to free socialism/free communism, and is quite the opposite of the more recent American right wing usage.

                And there is the more general meaning, referring to civil libertarians.

                I like the word.

                "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                by ZhenRen on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 09:38:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Sure, okay. (0+ / 0-)

              But since I've never said any of that, then I'm obviously not authoritarian.

              Except if people say I am and then high five one another!

              *Exactly!

              And that makes it so.

              I won't own what I don't own.  I won't defend it because it's not what I believe.  I deny it because it's not true.

              My questions, that I posed in another diary, that I want to discuss, that would help me digest all that's going on:

              What do we do about this?
              Do we make FISA court a real arbiter?.  Even with a proper warrant (I.e., one that Kossacks would find solid), surveillance is likely to scoop up a bunch of folks who aren't the primary target.  

              Scenario:  NSA gets a proper warrant and sets up surveillance on a terrorist cell.  Said terrorist cell is selling drugs to finance its operation.  Hapless college student wants to score some drugs for a frat party.  NSA overhears the deal.  Can they arrest the college student?  Can they then spy on him as well?  

              If your answer is no, then what if it's not a hapless college kid buying drugs, but a drug lord admitting to murdering people?  Should the NSA be able to use that, send the info to the CIA or FBI or whomever?

              How then do we decide what the NSA can or cannot do with stuff they accidentally pick up with a legal and  PROPER warrant?

              If we do away with the whole Patriot Act/NSA/FISA apparatus, what do we put in its place?  Which begs the next question:
               
              Is surveillance ever okay?  Are there some secrets our government has to keep from us?  What about keeping it from us in order to keep it from North Korea or the next would-be 9/11 bombers?
              What about surveillance on other governments?  Only if we're at war?  Only if they have nukes?  Never?  They spy on us so it's okay to spy on them?
              Is there another way to conduct surveillance on possible terrorism, a more effective way, a way that doesn't involve collecting a crapload of everyone's data?  
              Do we somehow just have to stomach a little bit of secrecy on the part of the government (not with our data, but with its methodology and/or covert activity?)  I use the Valerie Plame example - she gets outed, and an operation tracking proliferation of WMDs gets killed.  Don't we want that to remain a secret - not only her role but the entire operation?
              These are questions I have, and I don't have the answers.  I truly want to discuss this.  

              But we don't discuss it because supposedly I'm an apologist for Obama and you're all supposedly apologists for Snowden and Greenwald and everyone is an apologist for someone and it's all polemics and no discussion occurs.

              Weeks later, and we have never had a real discussion about this at Dkos, because we can't get past the idea that we didn't all automatically agree to the same extent and fervor that is apparently required.

              Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

              by delphine on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 12:25:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Honestly, I don't think they really want one. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Reggid

                As you just had happened to you, they are more interested in claiming they won the internet.  They pretty much seem to have little different than L33t gamers.

                A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

                by Tempus Figits on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 02:06:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Please document this assertion (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Dallasdoc

                  It's easy to spew vague accusations, but not always so easy to substantiate it. What on earth are you carrying on about? Won the internet?

                  "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                  by ZhenRen on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 02:46:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This entire thread n/t (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    delphine, Reggid

                    A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

                    by Tempus Figits on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 03:39:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  The fact that (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Reggid

                    you are refuting questions.

                    How do you refute a question?

                    You answer questions.

                    You refute someone you assume is saying the opposite of what you believe.

                    Below you actually said I was authoritarian and then turned around to paraphrase me!

                    You:  The espionage on citizens is such a wide net, no doubt all sorts of information about people will be discovered, which could be used against them in a plethora of ways. This isn't freedom, or liberty, it is living under the eye of big brother, and no, I don't trust people working for this corrupt government to use the information according to ethical standards.
                    Me:   Even with a proper warrant (I.e., one that Kossacks would find solid), surveillance is likely to scoop up a bunch of folks who aren't the primary target.   . . .

                    How then do we decide what the NSA can or cannot do with stuff they accidentally pick up with a legal and  PROPER warrant?

                    What is it that you are assuming about me that is blinding you to what I am actually saying?  

                    Well, really asking.  They're gathering up our shit.  Warrants aren't the answer.  What is?  What do I advocate for?

                    Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                    by delphine on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 03:58:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It seems you're saying... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Dallasdoc, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN

                      there is no alternative to spying em mass, if we are to make America safe.

                      I think your dilemma comes from the notion that keeping America safe requires the totalitarian spying. You seem to be assuming that if the massive surveillance is discontinued, we will all be losing sleep over the possibility of another 9/11.

                      It's a false choice.

                      If it comes down to that, then I think we need to overhaul the entire foreign policy, stop creating terrorist responses to our global actions. We killed many times more Americans and far more non-
                      Americans (yes, they have civil rights too) than occurred in 9/11 by fighting the war on terrorism. So just who are the terrorists?  

                      We managed to be safe enough for the last couple of hundred years without this advanced digital technology to spy on every person in the US, and most of the rest of the world.

                      That would be my approach. If we put as much effort into getting along with the world, we wouldn't be incentivizing so many enemies to blow us up, but as long as we assert the self-proclaimed privilege of drone bombing families attending funerals, torturing people, supporting oppressive regimes (Israel), violating sovereign territories, propping up fascist dictators, trying to topple socialist democratic governments all around the globe, and generally screwing over the world in capitalistic competition for resources, we might not have to worry so much about totalitarian espionage, because we would be making friends rather than enemies.

                      I'm not suggesting we don't need an intelligence service, but certainly we don't need this 1984 Big Brotherism to stay safe, if not for our own provocative and unethical behavior on the world scene.

                      So, as to espionage, there must be limits. The argument that we must sacrifice freedom and human rights for security is an old right wing scare tactic, and there are far better ways to promote security than through the barrel of a gun and a totalitarian surveillance state.

                      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                      by ZhenRen on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 05:49:38 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Edit: (0+ / 0-)

                        Spying "en mass".

                        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                        by ZhenRen on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 05:51:14 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm only asking questions. (0+ / 0-)

                        I specifically say that I don't want the spying, yet you say I'm reaching the conclusion that this wholesale spying is required to keep us safe.

                        I said nothing of the sort.  I said the opposite of what you are saying.

                        I say that people who think reforming FISA so that warrants are really scrutinized will NOT solve the problem because even proper warrants could result in a huge grab of information of unrelated people.

                        I said this is a bad thing.  I asked how we could address the issue if we believe there still needs to be an intelligence service.

                        I asked the question.

                        I did not say we have to sacrifice freedom and human rights.  I asked whether we have to accept some secrecy.  

                        You use a ton of words that aren't remotely related to anything I said.  Barrel of a gun.  Totalitarian surveillance state.  Sacrificing freedom and human rights for security.  Massive surveillance is necessary, lose sleep over another 9/11.

                        I can't even believe you get recced for a deliberate misreading of my questions.

                        I specifically say that I don't want massive surveillance.  I specifically say that I don't even think a reformed FISA court goes far enough because there would still be massive data grabs of innocent unrelated people.

                        I asked how we solve that.  

                        I ask whether we think surveillance is necessary at all.  

                        And if so, I ask,  then how do we put safeguards on it so there is no "massive totalitarian surveillance".

                        And in all of that, you conclude that I'm saying we need massive surveillance so I won't quiver in my boots over another 9/11.

                        You can't see how much you read into my words that is totally off the wall wrong?  

                        You got it wrong, and you are very sure about what you have concluded, and someone recc'd you.

                        This site has become really strange.

                        Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                        by delphine on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 07:48:16 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I answered you (0+ / 0-)

                          We don't need this totalitarian surveillance to be safe. Some experts state it isn't helping all that much. Regardless, my conclusion is to take an entirely different approach.

                          Read and think about my answer. You keep asking your "questions" and you say no one is giving a reply. I just did. And you ignored everything I said.

                          It seems you think your question is achieving some sort of Socratic dialogue, and thus you want to keep asking it. And when you're answered, you ask it again, ignoring the answer.

                          Pretty transparent. Not all that clever.

                          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                          by ZhenRen on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 08:07:00 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Your (0+ / 0-)

                            "answer" is an accusation that I support totalitarian surveillance to be safe.

                            I agree with you.  We DON"T need a totalitarian surveillance state.  I have never said anything different.  

                            My questions really are "Okay then, how do we proceed?  What do we advocate for?"

                            Look, we need an intervention or something.

                            We are FUCKING AGREEING and still arguing!!!

                            Why is that?

                            Why do you "answer" by accusing me of a bunch of stuff I never said and never intimated that I felt?

                            And then say I'm not listening to your "answers"?

                            I'm not fucking playing games here, not trying to be "clever".

                            You did not answer my questions.  You spewed a bunch of stuff about me that isn't true.  That's not answers.

                            We both agree that some surveillance is needed, but we can't trust the government to police itself.

                            Neither one of us has the answer as to how to proceed, how to have an intelligence apparatus while controlling it so that it doesn't grab up our data.

                            We agree.

                            We agree and yet you accuse me of the opposite.

                            We agree and yet you accuse me of playing games.

                            W.T.F.?

                            Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                            by delphine on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 08:26:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then ignore what I said about you (0+ / 0-)

                            (which was minor) and read the rest. I answered you. If you agree with me, that's great.

                            That's all that's necessary here.

                            But I have answered you.

                            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 08:30:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  I'm working at the moment (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dallasdoc

                and my browser keeps crashing.

                I could answer your comment at length, but at the moment I'm short on time.

                But I do submit you're an authoritarian, as your examples indicated.

                Drug selling/buying, information captured as part of terrorist investigations, are a case in point. We don't have to criminalize every college student buying drugs. Yes, if that information is discovered inadvertently, then authorities should ignore it.

                In fact, the drug war is one of those authoritarian exercises the US is obsessed with, when we could just stop criminalizing drug use, take it out of the hands of criminal elements, and give treatment to addicts.

                So I find your example illustrative of my point. The espionage on citizens is such a wide net, no doubt all sorts of information about people will be discovered, which could be used against them in a plethora of ways. This isn't freedom, or liberty, it is living under the eye of big brother, and no, I don't trust people working for this corrupt government to use the information according to ethical standards.

                I'm replying in between work stuff, and I may answer any replies, but it could be hours later.  

                "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                by ZhenRen on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 02:44:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Reggid

                  Because I ask the questions?

                  First one:  No, I don't think the guy should get in trouble for selling drugs.

                  I think drugs should be legalized.

                  How's that for authoritarian?  

                  I'm asking the questions.  I don't know the answers.

                  The questions cannot be authoritarian.

                  They are real questions.

                  What in the hell is going on around here?

                  This is what Tempus is talking about.

                  I'm being completely genuine.  You're going out of your way to find authoritarianism there.

                  1.  What do we do?

                  2.  Folks say we need to make FISA warrants real.  MY point is that even if we do that, there is still a shitload of stuff they'll scoop up that has nothing to do with the subject of the warrant.  So maybe that's not a good solution.  

                  3.  If folks want to stick with making FISA warrants real as a solution to this, then we have to decide what to do with this shitload of stuff they scoop up.  Do we go after shit like drugs (Again, I think drugs should be legalized, so much for your assumption, thanks)?  I say NO.  

                  Okay, then, do we use this scooped up shit if it's a murder?  

                  We already have a problem with them holding the scooped up shit longer than they're supposed to.

                  So I'm thinking FISA reform isn't going to solve the problem of our shit getting scooped up with warrants on other people.

                  In other words, I want to do more to protect our information.  Is this authoritarian?  Uh, no, it's to the left of anyone who thinks fixing warrants will be enough.

                  Okay, so if FISA warrants aren't going to protect us from having our shit scooped up and held and used against us, then what do we replace them with?  How do we conduct surveillance without automatically scooping up everyone's shit?

                  Some folks here say that we should not conduct surveillance at all, not even foreign.  I don't know if that will work in the world the way it is.  There's just some stuff out there we won't know about without surveillance.  I think it's naive to think we can conduct ourselves as a nation with a self-imposed blind spot.  

                  But then who is watching the watchers?  This is where I get caught up - I don't want them to gather my stuff or your stuff or anyone's stuff en masse, let alone keep it.

                  but I don't think we can do away with surveillance altogether (the Plame example being only one).

                  So my question is - what do we do?  

                  It's simplistic to say "get a (real) warrant" as illustrated above.  Real warrants scoop up other stuff as well.  

                  As you can see, not a fucking authoritarian bone in my body.

                  I don't want them looking at me, but I do want them watching where they're supposed to.  How do we solve this?

                  I do want to hear what people think.  Because I'm trying to understand this, trying to organize it in my mind.  

                  Because I don't know the answers and I want to hear what others think.

                  Without fucking calling me names and pretending an insult isn't an insult.

                  Person to person.  Let's be real.

                  Or prove Tempus' point.

                  Your call.

                  Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                  by delphine on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 03:54:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  They hate being called on their shit (12+ / 0-)

          That's what it comes down to.  They get stuck by their own partisan loyalty in defending the most repulsive crap shoveled from above, but they simply cannot abide being called out on it.  Thus the semantic distractions, the impossible etiquette standards (always applied unilaterally), the hidden and not-so-hidden accusations of racism, and the inevitable dodge that it's all about hating Obama.

          These are the recourses of a side with no honest arguments to make.  That's what I see more often than not.  God forbid they actually change their minds, and not defend repulsive crap.

          We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

          by Dallasdoc on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 08:14:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think at this point (9+ / 0-)
            God forbid they actually change their minds, and not defend repulsive crap.
            there have to be a substantial number of people who regret defending some of Obama's polices and might even wish that they could change their position, but they are so wrapped up in resentments toward critics and have such a large body of work here attacking us and fiercely defending him and the Dem party leaders that they are too stubborn to admit that they've been fooled by Obama and really, deep down, do not support the trajectory he has forged.


            "Justice is a commodity"

            by joanneleon on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 08:37:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  maybe in some (7+ / 0-)

              cases. Offline I meet a lot of people who are intrenched and locked into partisan/ideological political positions. They seem more interested in in the us vs. them of liberals vs conservatives. They are not apologist's for policy just hooray for our team.

              One of my neighbor's a liberal Democratic environmental biologist puts out the American flag out on random days. I asked him why he fly's it as it seems so out of character. He says he does it to show that the Republicans do not own it. Course there are no Republicans on our block so I think it's a stance thing. He's a partisan apologist who's stance comes form being against the Republicans.

              That makes more sense to me then getting so wrapped up in defending the agenda and policy of a pol's character and persona regardless of what in reality they advocate and implement. Any argument against this administration trajectory, policy or intent is met as an insult to the persona/character of the president and in extension, against them.  

                   

              •  Because it couldn't possible be... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Reggid

                that he finds it offensive having one party claim that they are the only ones that are patriotic.  That that party frequently claims that any disagreement of their take on policy is due to willful tribalism.  That only their take on issues of the day is the correct one and anyone that might disagree, even if it just with the vehemence, are immediately trying to suppress them.  Sure am glad that there isn't anyone on DKos that is like that.

                A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

                by Tempus Figits on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 02:21:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  He certainly doesn't (4+ / 0-)

                  defend or support the environmental, economic or 'foreign' policies of this administration. Same with the local, state policies being implemented by our so called Democratic major or Gov. He says he is a Democratic in theory. The theory being the principles and policy that this lot of so called Democrat's refuse to fight for or implement once elected. He is like most of us against the Republican's but not at all happy about the alternative. He's a Ichthyologist and does studies regarding polluted waterways for a non partisan environmental org.    

            •  Nope... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Reggid

              There have been some things I have defended Obama on and some things I have been critical of.  On the whole, he has been one of the best Presidents, if not the best in my life time.  Oh and poll after poll after poll show that the majority of U.S. citizens are closer to my position than yours.  But please, continue to provide examples of how open your mind is.

              A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

              by Tempus Figits on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 02:12:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Ah, but insult (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhilJD, shaharazade, priceman

        Is in the eye of the beholder.  And dang, there are a LOT of beholders out there!

      •  Well, let's be real.... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhilJD, Dallasdoc

        The people who take mortal outrage and HR people for using the word "apologist" are engaging in obvious derailing tactics, to move the conversation away from the topics being addressed. In fact, I feel like most HRs on this site are pretty bogus.

        Unless it's a CLEAR violation of the rules (I.e. advocacy for violence, conspiracy theory), people should either address the comment or just ignore it. For the most part, trying to silence someone for expressing an opinion you don't like, or don't think is communicated well, is antithetical to the progressive values of free speech.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site