Tim McGraw & Garth Brooks are "Obama Supporters"...

[Estil]

And what do you define as a "rational discussion of politics"? :P

[the_std]

And what do you define as a "rational discussion of politics"? :P

Usually someone willing to discuss issues without resorting to phrases that show their bias?

[Andara Bledin]

While I certainly don't believe Obama is any kind of bad guy or has any real malicious intent (good luck getting most of the left back during the Bush years to concede that point)...

See this right here... Yeah, this little 'gem' ... You're not helping your point by engaging in sniping attacks against those you're debating against.

Especially when you're demonstrably wrong, since most of 'the left' never thought Bush was malicious - most of us thought he was fantastically incompetent and only ever got anywhere because he was propped up by his daddy, who favored him because he was the son that had the same name. There's a difference.

[Estil]

See this right here... Yeah, this little 'gem' ... You're not helping your point by engaging in sniping attacks against those you're debating against.

Especially when you're demonstrably wrong, since most of 'the left' never thought Bush was malicious - most of us thought he was fantastically incompetent and only ever got anywhere because he was propped up by his daddy, who favored him because he was the son that had the same name. There's a difference.

Do a simple Google image search "Bush Hitler" and you'll see exactly what I mean (as for the second paragraph I think I heard that more right after the election). And I also have a bit of personal experience in this regard too. When I was in college I heard there was gonna be an anti-war protest over at the free speech area right before the liberation of Iraq was to commence. Well I decided to stand silently at very front part of the area with a small US flag and a simple poster board staying simply "SUPPORT our President SUPPORT our troops SUPPORT Iraqi liberation GOD BLESS AMERICA". The idea of course being that the student body should see that there are at least two sides to every issue. And then when the student newspaper interviewed me about why I was there I simply explained that while nobody wants or likes war, I believe that Saddam Hussein needed to be step down or be overthrown to ensure a true just and lasting peace for the Iraqi people and that I stand behind our President and our troops in that regard. And while I was simply answering the reporters' questions the anti-war people were screaming and hissing for me to shut up, when I wasn't even talking to them at all (I guess they were upset because they expected to have a monopoly of viewpoints on that day)!

My point being is that for people who traditionally are supposed to be the ones championing tolerance, diversity, open mindness for all, they sure do often seem to be very nasty and intolerant towards those who are not fellow liberals.

[Gravekeeper]

My point being is that for people who traditionally are supposed to be the ones championing tolerance, diversity, open mindness for all, they sure do often seem to be very nasty and intolerant towards those who are not fellow liberals.

Your baseline for liberalism is that you once stood next to an anti-war protest over one of the most misguided wars in history launched under false pretenses with a pro-war message and people yelled at you?

Also, did it not occur to you that support/opposition for the war was *not* neatly split along political lines and some of the people yelling at you were also conservatives? Seeing as there was never majority public support for an invasion without UN backing. Many conservatives opposed the war as well. Not to mention the Libertarians.

It was actually very difficult for any of the anti-war conservatives to get a word in edgewise. As the right side of the media shut them out in favour of pushing the White House narrative.

[Estil]

Yes I do indeed remember that many conservatives and libertarians opposed the war...but somehow they were able to make their case without silly things like drawing Hitler mustaches on Bush, branding him a war criminal (when there are more than enough REAL brutal dictators all over the world far more deserving of such outrage) and so on. I have no doubt if Gore was President instead of Bush and he made the same moves (look up how Clinton/Gore/Hilary/etc were making the same claims to fame regarding Hussein and WMDs so that is certainly not an unreasonable hypothetical scenario) the mainstream media and the liberal "talking heads" and such would be treating Gore like a human rights hero for liberating a country from such a brutal dictator.

[Hyena Dandy]

Okay, look, maybe I'm an idiot. I am up past my bedtime after all. That said.

WHAT ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT.

Estil, it feels like you keep changing the subject to a different 'Liberals Are Evil' thing. This isn't an argument based on facts or evidence. This is an 'Ethnic Tension' argument. ( http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/04...ess-arguments/ That thing)

If we can all agree on what the topic is, then I think we'd all be happy to have a debate on it. Unless we can do that, though, this is pointless.

You bring up the Dixie Chicks, that gets responded to, you switch to CNN and schoolgirls, and calling Bush Hitler.

PICK AN ARGUMENT AND STICK TO IT. This isn't even moving the goalposts, it's f*cking Calvinball.

[Gravekeeper]

This isn't even moving the goalposts, it's f*cking Calvinball.

^ That. Also, +1 for Calvinball reference.