You know, I was going to put that in my post using the technique of putting those words in your mouth and then retorting, but I figured that would not be respectful to you. I would wait for you to naturally respond that way and then retort. I thank you for supplying the comment on your own.
As Las Vegas Ron replied, "being better than they are" is what "they" count on. Conservatives, by nature, are not aggressive activists like the leftists are, which is why the leftists have no trouble playing dirty. They know that conservatives will shy away from a fight, to the extreme of staying home from an election.
That's why the innuendos that they hurled around before the election were those of being racist if we challenged Obama's experience, being racist if we challenged Obama's schooling, being racist if we challenged Obama's religion, being racist if we challenged Obama's friends, being racist if we referenced Obama's full name, being racist if we challenged Obama's constitutional qualification, and even being racist if we didn't vote for Obama. The result is that it drove conservatives to either vote for Obama or stay home.
So, "being better than they are" is bringing a knife to a gunfight, or rather, not bringing a weapon at all and hoping to reason with them.
THERE YOU GO..., that pretty much explains what the “Obama Derangement Syndrom” people (here on Free Republic) are doing. You said it — “providing innuendo” — and that’s all.
As for defining "Obama Derangement Syndrome," it is nothing of the sort. I am not endorsing this behavior out of blind hatred for Obama. I've been endorsing this behavior to be used against ALL Democrats ALL the time. Call it "Democrat Derangement Syndrome" if you must, but I am not an ODS victim.
That being said, I am also not one who is blindly putting my faith in the various court proceedings going on. However, I am also not shy about joining in on the various court threads to debate the possibilities. My focus has been on the PR aspects of the "whisper campaign" of all of this, that is, using the Democrats' techniques against them.
ODS would assume that the Roberts/Scalia/Alito/Thomas alliance would naturally rise up to force a fair hearing of the concerns, which has not happened. I was an early voice suggesting that the Supreme Court would never touch this out of fear of civil unrest, regardless of the merits. I can point to postings over the summer on the various BC threads where I've taken this position.
Therefore, it is the other, softer, backdoor, "whisper" methods that work so well for Democrats, that must be used here. That's what I advocate, and have been advocating for all issues Democrat ever since signing up here.
The mantra is "Perception is more important than reality. The perception of guilt is just as damaging as being guilty." That's why Democrats were so focused on "guilt by association" during the Jack Abramoff scandal, whether the Republican was involved with him or just took a small campaign donation. It's also why the MSM worked so hard to surpress the equivalent Rezko scandal of Obama, or the Hsu scandal for Hillary Clinton. They know the value of shaping perceptions, even if they aren't true to the degree of proof required in a court.
Look at how the Democrats and MSM trying to create the perception that Bobby Jindal has ruined his chance to be President based on Tuesday night's 10 minute speech. Barney Frank is telling everybody that Republicans caused the banking meltdown, and Republicans didn't applaud Obama out of fear of Hannity and Limbaugh. Harry Reid says we're losing in Iraq and the economy is getting better. I guess we're better than they are to the point of not trying to do anything that might taint Obama's authority, because we can't prove it in court, or even get a court to hear it.
But you're focused on the wrong court -- the court here is the court of public opinion. And innuendo, and whispers, and unproven charges, and hyperbole are the tools before that court.
-PJ
Thanks for the ping. Note my comment above (a few above by now probably). Same topic, sort of.
You referred to me saying this — “THERE YOU GO..., that pretty much explains what the “Obama Derangement Syndrom” people (here on Free Republic) are doing. You said it — “providing innuendo” — and that’s all.”
Then you started your reply by saying — “As for defining “Obama Derangement Syndrome,” it is nothing of the sort. I am not endorsing this behavior out of blind hatred for Obama. I’ve been endorsing this behavior to be used against ALL Democrats ALL the time. Call it “Democrat Derangement Syndrome” if you must, but I am not an ODS victim.”
—
Okay, let me say something more about this Obama Derangement Syndrome, in connection with the “innuendo” reference of yours.
I said this exemplifies exactly what is going on with Obama Derangement Syndrome because all that is provided is innuendo, allegations, speculations and various “reasonings” as to why Obama is not qualified — but yet — no one is able to produce any evidence to a court of law which would require the court to act (and a court *would act* with hard evidence). Since that hard evidence for a court of law is lacking — all that is left is the innuendo and allegations and other (as listed)...
It’s called “derangement” (in the phrase) because whomever thinks that a court is going to act on allegations, without evidence and expect them to do something to remove a President from office — is certainly *deranged* (in more ways that one...).
Now perhaps you’re not in that crowd and merely want to do the “political dirty tricks” as a “methodology” for the Republicans (since, as you put it, the Democrats do it, too).
Well, I think a number here on Free Republic don’t look at the “innuendo” as merely a “political strategy” — but for them — they look at “innuendo” as *proven fact* — and get mad at the courts because they don’t act on the innuendo.... LOL... (i.e., the “derangement” part...)
So, while you may be “cooking up political strategy”, that doesn’t bear on the court case and needing *hard evidence* in a court of law to get a judge to act.
—
And on down your comments, you were saying — “Therefore, it is the other, softer, backdoor, “whisper” methods that work so well for Democrats, that must be used here. That’s what I advocate, and have been advocating for all issues Democrat ever since signing up here.”
Well, as for me, I can’t engage in a whisper campaign, unless it’s “whispering” what I know to be true. BUT, if that’s the case (that it’s true), I’m not going to be “whispering” it. I’ll be yelling it... LOL...
So, I’ll stick to the truth of the matter. And that’s why I post on these Obama Derangement Syndrome issues — because I’m posting to the *truth of the matter* — in what is going on here.
As far as *what is true* about Obama’s qualifications — that’s an *unknown* at this moment. Since no one has provided the hard evidence in a court of law — all one can do is guess and speculate and “reason” from this or that and so on.
I can truthfully state that Obama has not shown his original birth certificate, but correspondingly, I can truthfully state that apparently no one else has been *required to do so* by law — other than a few who have “voluntarily” done so, as a “political gesture” (like McCain, for example). For Obama, he was not going to do it even as a “political gesture” but *only* if required to do so. And we certainly found out that he wasn’t required by law to do so.
—
And then you were saying — “The mantra is “Perception is more important than reality. The perception of guilt is just as damaging as being guilty.” That’s why Democrats were so focused on “guilt by association” during the Jack Abramoff scandal, whether the Republican was involved with him or just took a small campaign donation. It’s also why the MSM worked so hard to surpress the equivalent Rezko scandal of Obama, or the Hsu scandal for Hillary Clinton. They know the value of shaping perceptions, even if they aren’t true to the degree of proof required in a court.”
Oh, you already have some “adherents” to your philosophy here. Your strongest proponents of this “whisper campaign” and “perception of guilt is just as damaging as being guilty” — are the Obama Derangement Syndrome people, here on these posts.
They exercise their belief in your philosophy by calling those who disagree with their position as “liberals” as “Obots”, as “trolls” as “Democrats” and as “DU posters” (who come over here) in an effort to “make guilty through perception”...
Yes indeed, you’ve already converted some on these threads, as I’ve seen posted to me... LOL...