When there are only 20 Republicans left in Congress...

What part did I get wrong?

You can't prove someone is NOT doing something because it would be proving a negative so the first part of your statement is unprovable when you say liberals aren't complaining.

The second part of your statement has a highlighted term in "WOULD" which means you are projecting it would occur but hasn't.

That only leads to you are saying something you can't prove is happening is different from something you can't prove is happening and we should be upset about it.

Well c'mon, it is hard to tell; you spend all your time here concern-trolling every decision Obama and Pelosi make. I mean, you complain more than the right-wingers do, though in less dire terms.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, I told you the day I voted for Obama that I'd hold his feet to the fire and make sure he hold true to what he's said he would. You told me at the time that you'd welcome those discussions and you'd do the same.

Here you are, not welcoming these discussions.

Did I say I didn't welcome these discussions?

No. You will note that I engage both left- and right-wingers in discussions of Obama's policy choices all the time.

I'm just pointing out that there is very little difference between much of the rhetoric that you use, and that which they use. And for others, you can see how it would be confusing to them.

Cycloptichorn

Take the earmark thread I created. Obama said no to earmarks for 2 years. The left complained and complained about republican earmarks for years. Let's see how many complaints we see now.

I didn't mean to state "would have criticised Bush" I meant to say that they DID critisize him. I gave several examples.

I do beg your pardon, "the left on this board." When challenged, you listed several specific examples, such as the war in Iraq and the bail-out, but now when you've had people answer those specifically, you are referring to how "the left on this board" (if we are still allowed to use that as your operative category) would have reacted if the Shrub did this or that. Which is why i say you are back-peddling. As an example (i've already detailed my reaction to ths situation in Iraq), i was unhappy about the bail-out, and have said so here, and have said so in relation to Mr. Obama's plans. Had i commented about the Shrub's bail-out plan, i'd have been just as unhappy, but it didn't come up, because i didn't comment on it here. At all events, complaining about Obama and not Bush with regard to a bail-out plan would hardly constitute evidence for your thesis.

But that was when i labored under a misapprehension to the effect that the bail-out would be in the form of loans. It is understandable why i believed as much, given that AIG is to get a loan, and the Detroit boys are to get loans. When i learned that this was just a cash give-away for the bankers, i was even more appalled. But that has nothing to do with Obama, because i'd have been as appalled had this come from Bush. The true villains of this piece are the irresponsible sons-of-bitches who tanked their banks because they couldn't restrain their greed, and let lunacy replace their good judgment.

You have made no case here, Maporshce, and you completely fail to convince me that you are not a devoté of right-wing ideology, no matter who you voted for. In fact, i'm more convinced of it than ever.

People have answered you. Are you now saying we're all liars? Can you come up with quotes which prove that?

Which does nothing but highlight how little you know.

I would LOVE to highlight specific examples, but do not have the resources to do so. I'm also complaining on a different thread how impossible it is to search on this site for specific posts by specific users.

Are you saying that Bush/Republicans weren't criticised for things like earmarks, or shipping people off to foreign countries for interrogations?

Well, your failure to support your bullshit about how "the left on this board" reacted to equivalent situations certainly does not flatter your intellect. You haven't shown how the situations you referred to were equivalent, and you haven't shown that "the left on this board" have employed a double standard, you've just alleged it an left it at that. Which shows how much you know.

I find that a little unfair and inaccurate.

My rhetoric is no where near as insipid as theirs. I'm probably more pissed about it than they are because I feel lied to.

Obviously much less than the perpetually-correct Setanta.

This just shows how little you know. Republicans themselves objected to the Shrub's policy on earmarks. If you are contending that "the left at this site" criticized the Shrub for ending earmarks, but have been mute on Obama doing the same, it should be simple matter for you to come up with the proof, since you must have read it in threads you can identify. This site has a "My Posts" function, which is what i have always used to track down other people's remarks in threads in which i've posted. Otherwise, it seems to me that you just want to fling accusations, but don't want to be obliged to back them up.

As for "shipping people off to foreign countries for interrogation," you first have to show that this has been done with the full knowledge and consent of Mr. Obama, and was not a result of a process begun during the administration of his predecessor. You're long on whining here, but short on proof. In fact, you've provided no proof.

Why should i "stop with" it? You're here alleging, with no proof that "the left on this board" have displayed a double-standard with regard to policies which you allege are common to both Obama and Bush. It's hard not to see you as right-wing when you make a distinction between yourself and "the left on this board." Did you expect people to take that as evidence that you are yourself "on the left on this board?" How silly.

If I had said something like "why is nobody critizing Obama on X, Y, and Z", then many would point out that the right on this board are doing a lot of criticism (on everything). I wanted it to be clear that I'm questioning why I'm not seeing much criticism from the left on this board (as opposed to the right, not as opposed to myself).

Maporsche--Setanta is a cowardly little twerp with a highly fragile ego. I eviscerated his argument a few years ago and made him look like the pusillanimous old fool that he is. Now he is afraid of me.

That might be resonable enough, if you had not left out the part about "as compared to Bush" (before you get all pissy about it, i'm not attributing that to you as a quote). Once you offer a comparison to whether or not "the left on this board" is not criticizing Obama for matters in which they did criticize Bush, you make your own motives suspect. This was not simply a case of you saying (and this is a quote of what you've just written) "why is nobody critizing Obama on X, Y, and Z"--you made a point of the comparison to criticism of Bush.

Re: maporsche (Post 3587995)
Maporsche--Setanta is a cowardly little twerp with a highly fragile ego. I eviscerated his argument a few years ago and made him look like the pusillanimous old fool that he is. Now he is afraid of me

um...yeah...it's reasonable enough w/o your "if".

It's only reasonable with the "if." It was your choice to compare the alleged (and unproven) response of "the left on this board" to actions of Obama as opposed of actions of Bush. That makes your motive suspect with regard to your own political point of view. Which is why i continue to consider you to probably be a right-winger, even if you won't acknowledge it.