arguments simple and repeats them again and again is likely to gain the
advantage. It is an easier sale, especially when the topic is as scary
IT’S ONLY A “DEBATE” BECAUSE YOU FUCKMOOKS FRAMED IT AS SUCH. To the rest of us, it was the president giving a speech and an old dude everyone hates who happened to be blithering at the same time. This was an entirely media-constructed “event” and now it’s being commented upon and analyzed as if it sprang full-formed from the head of David Axelrod.
Their back-to-back speeches on Thursday gave Cheney “a lot of
credibility” and put Obama on the defensive, said Republican pollster .
In other stunning news, PETA doesn’t think you should wear fur, the Pope doesn’t want you fornicating so much, and everybody in my house thinks I look very pretty today. SERIOUSLY?
In the Guantanamo argument, Obama’s critics didn’t worry about
legalities, court decisions or complexities. They invented an argument
about letting terrorists move next door to Americans.
no one had ever suggested such a thing, it worked, and the Democratic
Senate voted overwhelmingly to deny Obama an $80 million appropriation
to close the prison camp by eight months from now, as he had promised.
I can’t IMAGINE why that should have been the case. Could it have something to do with the fact that TV “journalists” allowed Republican talking heads to repeat it ad nauseum on their shows without even once demanding that someone produce credible evidence of this being an actual, you know, thing?
The rest of the piece goes on to list the many ways in which Darth Fucktard is wrong and dishonest, and then it starts to close with:
“Rather than keeping us safer, the prison atAmerican national security,”
Obama said. “It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the
willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that
operates in scores of countries.”
That’s complicated. Republicans are still keeping it simple.
WITH YOUR HELP. THANKS.