When Is Politicizing An Event/Occurance/Victory/Mistake OK?

[MarcATL]

It seems to me like the RWers like to play both sides of the fence.

When its beneficial to them politicizing anything is perfectly acceptable...they argue and say things like "So and so is a politician, that's to be expected."

However, when it's NOT to their benefit they tend to argue and say things like "How day they politicize such a sacred thing."

I remember the 9/11 Snuff Film the GOP put on during their convention when McCain give us all Palin. That was THE worst case of politicizing an event in American history if I'm not mistaken.

They seem to still want to use that event as a political stick...when and if it benefits them of course.

Now they are all up in arms, getting their panties in a bunch because they perceive some people as politicizing Obama's victories in the death of Osama and the pending doom of Khaddaffi.

So somebody please tell me, what's the protocol....when is it OK to politicize stuff?

 

[Avatar4321]

If you want to politicize it go ahead.

 

[MarcATL]

If you want to politicize it go ahead.

You haven't answered the question Mr. Empty Calorie.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

I'd say that, as long as your message isn't tasteless or bigoted, just about anything is fair game for political spin.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It seems to me like the RWers like to play both sides of the fence.

When its beneficial to them politicizing anything is perfectly acceptable...they argue and say things like "So and so is a politician, that's to be expected."

However, when it's NOT to their benefit they tend to argue and say things like "How day they politicize such a sacred thing."

I remember the 9/11 Snuff Film the GOP put on during their convention when McCain give us all Palin. That was THE worst case of politicizing an event in American history if I'm not mistaken.

They seem to still want to use that event as a political stick...when and if it benefits them of course.

Now they are all up in arms, getting their panties in a bunch because they perceive some people as politicizing Obama's victories in the death of Osama and the pending doom of Khaddaffi.

So somebody please tell me, what's the protocol....when is it OK to politicize stuff?

The rule is actually pretty simple, if it benefits your side go for it, if it benefits the other side it is wrong. That is why you support it when Democrats do it, and oppose it when Republicans do it. Pretending you don't get it just proves how much of a hack you are.

 

[Londoner]

Now they are all up in arms, getting their panties in a bunch because they perceive some people as politicizing Obama's victories in the death of Osama and the pending doom of Khaddaffi.

So somebody please tell me, what's the protocol....when is it OK to politicize stuff?

Obama was advised to bomb the compound because it is much safer. He made the call to use Navy Seals.

Had Obama's risky gamble failed, like Carter's infamous helicopter disaster, the Rightwing would have used it to bring down his presidency.​

Had this failed, Limbaugh would have called him a rookie. The Right would have harped on his lack of experience. Every single pundit would be saying that Obama cannot keep us safe.

But Obama refused to be distracted the Right. made the call not to bomb but to send in helicopters and Navy Seals. He did not have basing rights; he didn't have a safe place to launch the mission. This was one of the gutsiest presidential calls in history.

(Our President is making important decisions to protect this country. He is trying to keep the troops safe. Meanwhile, Trump and the Rightwing Media are trying to distract him with Birther nonsense. The American Right is at war with the country. This is like Gingrich using Lewinsky when Clinton was trying to get Bin Laden in '98. Richard Clarke, the terrorism czar hired by Reagan, said that the Right was more concerned with Lewinsky than protecting us from the mountain Al Qaeda threat. Why do you think the Republicans never got Bin Laden? Because they are not concerned about protecting this country. They are only concerned with using fear to win elections or implement domestic surveillance programs. Wow, just wow. )

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The rule is actually pretty simple, if it benefits your side go for it, if it benefits the other side it is wrong. That is why you support it when Democrats do it, and oppose it when Republicans do it. Pretending you don't get it just proves how much of a hack you are.

And of curse one need only switch around ‘Democrats’ and ‘Republicans’ and the rule still applies.

 

[skookerasbil]

Yo ATL..................

 

[Immanuel]

It seems to me like the RWers like to play both sides of the fence.

When its beneficial to them politicizing anything is perfectly acceptable...they argue and say things like "So and so is a politician, that's to be expected."

However, when it's NOT to their benefit they tend to argue and say things like "How day they politicize such a sacred thing."

I remember the 9/11 Snuff Film the GOP put on during their convention when McCain give us all Palin. That was THE worst case of politicizing an event in American history if I'm not mistaken.

They seem to still want to use that event as a political stick...when and if it benefits them of course.

Now they are all up in arms, getting their panties in a bunch because they perceive some people as politicizing Obama's victories in the death of Osama and the pending doom of Khaddaffi.

So somebody please tell me, what's the protocol....when is it OK to politicize stuff?

The rule is actually pretty simple, if it benefits your side go for it, if it benefits the other side it is wrong. That is why you support it when Democrats do it, and oppose it when Republicans do it. Pretending you don't get it just proves how much of a hack you are.

Funny thing is I find it to be the opposite (when other people are doing it that is). For instance, last night I was disgusted by some of the comments from people that I generally agree with when they stated that the announcement of the death of OBL was basically done to boost his numbers for the coming campaign. Not their words, but the gist of what they said. While there were left wing comments that were equally politicizing. To me, it was the right wing ones that bugged me. What the left ones didn't bother me one bit.

Immie

 

[skookerasbil]

Tell me this MarcAtl isnt the perfect illustration of a miserable mofu far lefty? Here...........for the first time in months and months I might add..........he has a chance to celebrate for a few days, but instead is all OCD worrying conservatives might get in a few points on the torture stuff...............

.............which is stupid because conservatives already won that debate years ago now.


Miserable, jealous OCD asshole lefties cant help themselves I guess...........

 

[jeffrockit]

Now they are all up in arms, getting their panties in a bunch because they perceive some people as politicizing Obama's victories in the death of Osama and the pending doom of Khaddaffi.

So somebody please tell me, what's the protocol....when is it OK to politicize stuff?

Obama was advised to bomb the compound because it is much safer. He made the call to use Navy Seals.

Had Obama's risky gamble failed, like Carter's infamous helicopter disaster, the Rightwing would have used it to bring down his presidency.​

Had this failed, Limbaugh would have called him a rookie. The Right would have harped on his lack of experience. Every single pundit would be saying that Obama cannot keep us safe.

But Obama refused to be distracted the Right. made the call not to bomb but to send in helicopters and Navy Seals. He did not have basing rights; he didn't have a safe place to launch the mission. This was one of the gutsiest presidential calls in history.
)

All of which was put in place @ 4 years ago...well before Obama took office. Bush and Obama share in the removal of OBL. To state otherwise is simply partisan politics. To use this end of a murderer and US victory as political fodder is just wrong. If the mission had failed, the right would have been equally wrong to use it to score political points.

 

[Steelplate]

Before I comment on politicizing events, I want to ask a question.

Jeffrocket, The bank bailouts were put in place by George Bush, but because they didn't take effect until Obama came into office....That debt became part of the "Obama's killing the country with spending" mantra.

But an operation that takes place three years after Bush left office that successfully took out OBL, and you want Bush to have partial credit?

Ok... now onto politicizing events.

Politicians will do what they do. I'd much rather have them brag about their accomplishments than to run down their opponents with all the negative campaign ads, and yes... that goes for either party.

 

[The Rabbi]

It seems to me like the RWers like to play both sides of the fence.

When its beneficial to them politicizing anything is perfectly acceptable...they argue and say things like "So and so is a politician, that's to be expected."

However, when it's NOT to their benefit they tend to argue and say things like "How day they politicize such a sacred thing."

I remember the 9/11 Snuff Film the GOP put on during their convention when McCain give us all Palin. That was THE worst case of politicizing an event in American history if I'm not mistaken.

They seem to still want to use that event as a political stick...when and if it benefits them of course.

Now they are all up in arms, getting their panties in a bunch because they perceive some people as politicizing Obama's victories in the death of Osama and the pending doom of Khaddaffi.

So somebody please tell me, what's the protocol....when is it OK to politicize stuff?

Even a panty-waist shit-for-brains like you recognizes that Obama's job is to govern, not run a re-election campagin. And McCain's job was to run a re-election campaign, not govern.
There's your answer.

 

[asterism]

Before I comment on politicizing events, I want to ask a question.

Jeffrocket, The bank bailouts were put in place by George Bush, but because they didn't take effect until Obama came into office....That debt became part of the "Obama's killing the country with spending" mantra.

But an operation that takes place three years after Bush left office that successfully took out OBL, and you want Bush to have partial credit?

Ok... now onto politicizing events.

Politicians will do what they do. I'd much rather have them brag about their accomplishments than to run down their opponents with all the negative campaign ads, and yes... that goes for either party.

3 years? What kind of calendar are you using? You are also misinformed on the bank bailout timeline as well as the other spending that was 100% Obama and the Democratic Congress.

Obama gets credit for continuing a Bush policy. The President gets major credit for taking a calculated risk and getting out of the way so our guys could get him. It's a war and that's how things go. It worked so he succeeded.

 

[editec]

The game is to turn politics into CULTS OF PERSONALITY.

And judging from the number of threads that are posted here that are nothing but PERSONALITY assassinations, it resonates well with the politically clueless.

 

[California Girl]

It seems to Marc that RW do it..... notice that he completely overlooks that the left do the exact same thing. This is because Marc is an intellectually bankrupt fool who, if he ever reaches an IQ into double digits, might reach the level of 'partisan hack'.

 

[sparky]

and it's as effective as those who buy into it.....

 

[MarcATL]

Notice how these radical RWers have all been bashing Obama with the meme of..."he's just another Bush."

Not realizing that they're simultaneously bashing Bush for his ABYSMAL policies, leadership and Presidency that led this country to the brink of disaster and damn-near financial collapse.

Only to turn around with the meme that "give him credit for continuing Bush's policy for killing Obama."

It makes absolutely non sense. Not to mention that its an outright lie, but radical RWers are notorious for lying and/or believing myths.

No surprise. It's their cluelessness, both willful and ignorantly that baffles me about these people.

Uncanny.

*SMH*

 

[signelect]

What a stupid thread, we have all been over this. If I do it and it works out well I win, if you do it and it works out well, I helped you. Both sides take credit and pass blame. Obama made a good call. Let it go at that, and yes he will take the credit and use it in his campaign. Just like the Republicans would have done.

 

[The Rabbi]

Notice how these radical RWers have all been bashing Obama with the meme of..."he's just another Bush."

Not realizing that they're simultaneously bashing Bush for his ABYSMAL policies, leadership and Presidency that led this country to the brink of disaster and damn-near financial collapse.

Only to turn around with the meme that "give him credit for continuing Bush's policy for killing Obama."

It makes absolutely non sense. Not to mention that its an outright lie, but radical RWers are notorious for lying and/or believing myths.

No surprise. It's their cluelessness, both willful and ignorantly that baffles me about these people.

Uncanny.

*SMH*

What does this have to do with the thread?
Notice that left wingers are also bashing obama for being "just another Bush."
Only someone swayed by Obama's negritude would continue to support him.