INSTRUCTION MANUAL
Most conservatives and some liberals -- pay attention to those words "most" and "some," because they will become important later on! -- prefer to argue in generalities, both in terms of whom they attack and the grounds on which they attack them, because that makes it easier both to hurl charges and to defend oneself from countercharges later on.
If you're reading this manual, it is probably because you have just been given a Houle Hoop -- the device that makes this tactic easier! You will learn below how to deploy your Houle Hoop so that it can be adjusted as often as needed to ensure that people will be dazzled by your ability to avoid contradiction for any claim you make!
Step 1: BEFORE DEPLOYING YOUR HOULE HOOP
Specifics are for losers. Numbers are quite specific; don't let them capture you. You may deploy numbers whenever appropriate, but make sure that people know that, if challenged, any idiot should have known that you were speaking figuratively. So say things like "95% of this site agrees with me and 5% disagrees," because no one is really going to tote up who does or doesn't agree with you, and if they do you can always say that the people who visited a specific diary aren't representative of the site. Don't be like George Bush: always have an exit strategy!
Comparative terms are safer. Say things like most critics of Barack Obama on this website are ridiculous and should be ignored, but some are legitimate and should be listened to. Who's who? That's the hard part -- you might have to justify your categorization in long and boring and possibly losable argument. Luckily, you don't have to say! If challenged, that is when you are ready to deploy your Incredible Adjustable Houle Hoop!
Step 2: DEPLOYING YOUR HOULE HOOP
You will start with a situation like this: you will say that most people who disagree with you are either (1) opposed to the Democratic Party, (2) have a personal axe to grind against Obama, or (3) are trolls. These are the groups pictured in Figure 1 as being within the Houle Hoop. Note that another group, (4) Legitimate Critics, are outside your Houle Hoop. Despite describing the other categories and why they should be ignored in lurid detail, you need say almost nothing about Legitimate Critics other than acknowledging that they exist (or may exist.)
Figure 1 -- "Ignore people within the Houle Hoop; Legitimate Critics are OK."
Now: let's say that someone challenges you, saying that
"Hey, I'm criticizing Obama's policies in several discrete areas (like national security policy, prosecuting Bush officials for wrongdoing, or management of the financial services bailouts), but not because I am opposed to the Democratic Party or personally negative towards Obama or a troll, but because having considered it and thought about it, I disagree with his policies and want him to be a successful President!"
This poses a danger to you! What these people are doing is trying to place themselves inside your Houle Hoop, claiming that they are being unfairly subjected to your criticism, as depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2: "Red Alert! Legitimate Critics have crossed into the Hoop of Invective!"
Now, you could have prevented this by saying exactly which certain people are and are not legitimate critics and on what basis you classify them, but that would have required making actual arguments about substance and subjecting yourself to the need to engage in substantive debate about your claims rather than a competition of screaming invective (which you can either win or easily convince yourself that you won.)
If you could do that, you wouldn't need to use the Incredible Adjustable Houle Hoop!
You only classified people by their supposed motivation for criticism, about which you could make any assertion you wished! You don't want to deal with a well-motivated critic who just happens to be making exactly the same argument as someone who belongs inside the Houle Hoop! You're in danger of having to debate substance!
This is where you take advantage of the Houle Hoop's Incredible Adjusting powers! As seen in Figure 3, you contract the Houle Hoop so that you can say that your criticism -- which applies to "most" critics of Obama -- was never directed at the particular Legitimate Critic in question at all! So: there's no need to argue the substantive point!
Figure 3: "Why did you assume I was talking about you, you idiot?"
But you don't want to stop there: you have to make the Legitimate Critic (or person you're willing to pretend was one, still without bothering to address the substance of the criticism) feel stupid so that they won't come after you again. Even after you've spent by far most of your diary discussing people who belong in the "most" category, be sure to emphasize that you did mention that the "some" category existed (even if pretty much only as an aside) and that if someone didn't realize that the Houle Hoop wasn't intended to include them, it must be because he or she is an idiot, "incapable of reading a diary," or being intellectually dishonest. (Note: Invective, Invective, Invective! Don't give up that home field advantage!) Also be sure to remind them of how brave and ground-breaking it was for you to state in effect that "some criticism of Obama is legitimate and some is illegitimate."
But what if you come across someone who doesn't clearly fit into one of your categories, but whom you still don't want to debate about substance. Easy! The Houle Hoop adjusts in either direction! Let's say that you have a person whom you can label as an "Advocate" (as opposed to an "Analyst," which is what you are, and make sure not to insert a "c" there), who would appear to be outside your Houle Hoop, as in Figure 4:
Figure 4: "Uh-oh -- what am I going to say about Greenwald?"
No problem! Just expand your Houle Hoop of people who can be ignored to include this new group of "Advocates," who can be ignored because -- whatever lawyers actually do -- they supposedly only want to consider one side of the argument.
WARNING: AVOID GETTING IRONY ON CLOTHING OR EXPOSED SKIN, AS IT MAY BURN!
The result, with this new group of "advocates" safely being ignored, is depicted in Figure 5:
Figure 5: "Don't trust constitutional scholars, trust political hacks operatives!"
Side effects of overuse of the Houle Hoop may include remorse and possibly even self-loathing. Do not let this stop you! Remember that most users of the Houle Hoop are conservative, so if you are conservative you have plenty of company and if you are liberal you are just evening the score.
Best of luck using your Houle Hoop in future blogospheric debates! But, for God's sake, do not let these instructions fall into the wrong hands!