Meet Obama's New Chief of Staff: Rahm Emmanuel

[elprincipe]

akuma587 said:

elprincipe said:

The problem with many people, including yourself in this and other posts, is that once someone expresses an opinion you assume that certain things follow from that opinion instead of actually reading what is written.  I expressed wonder at hypocrisy and wondered what hypocrisy would follow, but I never said anything about an "assumption that every one of Obama's other appointments would be a partisan one."  That is your quote, not mine, and I'll thank you to not speak for me or tell me what I said when it's not what I said.

Similarly, you assume again in your second paragraph that since I have a certain opinion about Rahm Emanuel that "Obama has turned into a recalcitrant liberal."  Again that is what you said, not me.  See a pattern?

This is why I despise partisans so much, because they assume that everyone else is a partisan (kind of like fanboys, come to think of it), and thus assume that because they hold one position or opinion they hew to the orthodoxy of every conservative or liberal position.  As we see in your example, because I express a knowledgeable viewpoint that doesn't adhere to your liberal viewpoint, you assume I have a down-the-line conservative viewpoint.  I guess it's the only option since you can't argue with me about Emanuel other than to point to the recent fawning articles (again, designed to ingratiate reporters with the new chief of staff).

 

I'm just gonna repost what you said:

elprincipe said:

"It's sad, although not unexpected, that a "post-partisan/bipartisan" President-elect Obama has chosen one of the most vicious partisan hacks in the House of Representatives as his chief of staff. What next, Barbara Boxer for EPA? Jim McDermott for Defense? Jim Moran for HUD? I can't wait to see what hypocrisy surfaces next, or on second thought maybe I can."

I never claimed you were a partisan or even a conservative.  Hell, you could have supported Hillary Clinton for all I know.  And where in your posts is there any kind of information you are posting to support your viewpoint?  I can claim my position is knowledgeable because I read other sources too.  But its not like that does any good if I don't bring any information to the table.  Just because you said it I should automatically take you at your word?

The original post had no inflammatory language in it whatsoever.  You come in and tear the choice apart without providing any information whatsoever to support your claim.  You accuse me of acting like a partisan or a fanboy when you obviously came into the thread with little intention of encouraging a debate based on facts, since you didn't provide any.  That's like me posting an article about a video game, you coming in and saying the video game sucks and that the developer has turned into a piece of shit yet you say very little about the actual game itself.  Then you get mad when someone responds to your inflammatory post in an inflammatory way?  That is hypocrisy.

Its not about whether or not you are a partisan, its about whether or not you make claims with evidence to support them.  You act like you have done no wrong here, and are misdirecting all the blame back to me.  You came into the thread with nothing constructive to say yet you blame me for saying something about it.  Its like starting a fight with someone who did nothing to you and then pissing and moaning when they hit you back.

 

 

Get out of town.  You're the one who said I was assuming "Obama was a recalcitrant liberal" as well as other things.  You're the one that questioned my opinion, offerering your sole bit of evidence to refute what I said: an article sucking up to Emanuel.  You act as if I'm not lauding the choice I "don't have anything constructive to say."  Now I get it: you only expect people in your threads to agree with you.  Okay, you should have noted that in the OP if you didn't really want to talk about the selection and instead wanted to brown-nose Emanuel and Obama.  Carry on.