--- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchy...@...> wrote: > > Zinger again! Judy, this post and your previous post > for Sal was just too easy. You would think the fish > in the barrel would at least put up a fight and make > things more interesting around here by at least > offering a fact based discussion about Obama messing > with their civil liberties. Truth be told, not only > do they lack the intellectual ability for such a > discussion, sadly they lack interest as well. Pity, > that. It confirms my suspicion their allegiance to > the cult of personality is more important to them > than the welfare of our country.
It occurs to me that the reason idiots like Sal, do.rkflex, and Barry (Vaj soon to chime in, no doubt) are accusing us of criticizing Obama only out of unhappiness that Hillary lost, and claiming that we wouldn't be criticizing Hillary if she had won, is because *that's how they'd be behaving* if the situation were reversed. They're already demonstrating it with Obama. They're just very shallow people. Basically, they can't walk and chew gum at the same time, politically speaking. If their candidate had lost, they wouldn't be able to *separate* their disappointment from how they view whoever beat him so as to evaluate the latter objectively, just as they can't separate their glee that Obama won from their evaluation of how he's doing. Because that's how *they* are, and they don't have the imagination to see that it's not the only possible way to be, they *assume* that everybody else is just like them. The way to make all criticism of Obama disappear, they think, is to beat up on the critics. They don't know enough about the issues to actually engage in a discussion and are too lazy to inform themselves. That's 50 for me. See youse Friday or Saturday.
