It's President Obama's term. He used that in referring to FOX NEWS and the claims he's a racist, is not a natural citizen, was socialist, etc.

Now, rational people like weapon are using it as a derogatory term against 'lies' directed at conservatives. Wow. That's ironic. She says BS won't respond. Well, here's a sample of her questions: "have you read 'fair tax'? Will you come to a meeting? You think there's nobody smarter than us extolling the plan?
why do you feel it is your place to make statements about me that are based completely on your stereotypes of the groups to which you think I belong, rather than asking my position on something? Why do you claim to know my beliefs better than I know them myself, then admit that you don't know where I stand at all?

Come on, now weapon. Are these really the basis to 'call him out"?

To me, these are rhetorical at best. "Why do you claim to know....." isn't a question. It's a statement. Asking someone why anyone chooses to know something is silly.

This is not being called out. It's being asked a rhetorical question, like "why would you be such a dummy for believing that crap?"




But the calling out thing.

BS has obviously made some statement that weapon feels isn't 'right'. Be it about abortion, or whatever, and she demands some response to some question about the statement.

BS doesn't acknowledge weapon, apparently, and she therefore determines he's not responding to being 'called out'.

Well, weapon, here's a generalization: TOUGH. I don't know about BS, but I do know that my comments, statements, whatever, seem to generate a disproportionate share of 'comments' and demands for explanation. I simply don't have the time to, nor the desire to respond to every single question, criticism or comment. And many (most) of those comments don't even rate a responsive comment. And therefore, under this logic, I am accused frequently of 'lying', or failing to back up a statement.

But not every statement needs defense. Nor does it need explanation.

When I make a general claim that the Republican administration lied to Congress and the American people, I do not need to detail EVERY statement made in order to make a blanket statement that the administration LIED. In my circle, and to most people, it's as apparent as the nose on your face. It's just fact. To question that is to simply put forth a general denial and a posture for a fight. I'm not defending my statements. They stand alone.

So, I'm tired of the right trying to use the very terms and tactics of the left against us. It's a weak attempt at rationalization and justification.

I neither know about nor care about your beef with BS.

What I care about is thie tendency of the right (general statement) to play the "I know what I am, but what are you?" game with the left.

Bush was a terrible failure. Even my conservative friends admit "They were a little disappointed in the President'. Hell, I don't see much defense of the man even among you, the most ardent supporters of whatever Conservatism is, today. Obama was a direct response to Bush.

Now, it appears the Conservatives are trying to rally. Fine. Knock yourselves out.

But the systemic attempt to simply discredit the President or any supporters by micromanaging the argument is not productive. What ever happend to discussion?

And that's what I see with this attempt by the right to 'call us out'. An attempt to micromanage the argument. Using known lies by a major media conglomerate is one thing. Calling FOX out for the statements of beck, hannity and Oreilly is one thing. Demanding a response to the innate and obtuse questions regarding a statement is not getting called out. It's just petty.

Pick another term. Come up with your own. But using this term is petty and annoying, when dealing with a generalization, or a general statement. Simply saying "I disagree, and here's why...' should be sufficient.

It's interesting, but not unique, for the opposition party to use this tactic of rumor and lies, of pointing the finger at one and demanding some explanation of the obvious, and then criticizing the failure to respond as some tacit admission of a great hoax. It's really been popularized and put into the mainstream by KKKarl Rove more than any other person in recent memory. His known penchent for this tactic is legendary. Now he's on FOX as a 'commentator' advising people that a health reform bill is 'bad' for America, and he cites all kinds of crazy 'studies', usually done by the Insurance Industry, as proof, and of the silence of the opposition as futher proof that no alternative response is an admissoin. You know that he just laughs to himself as he says his nightly penance, er, prayers. He's so ridiculous as to be laughable, and yet, to millions of Americans, he's a voice of reason. It's exactly like beck putting a 'red' phone on his set, and publicly inviting the President to call him and explain why the sun isn't made of green cheese. Who in their right mind would actually believe the President of the United States would call a man who publicly calls Obama a racist would expect a call from the President is beyond me. And then, when, surprise surprise, the President doesn't call, beck claims a total victory, and you people eat it up.

God help us all.






Failing to respond is not an admission, especially on this board. It's damn near impossible.

• it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests