Debate must be easy when all you have to do is attack the source, instead of dispute the substance.
Especially when you perceive everyone who isn't right of Rick Santorum to be a malicious loony lefty. I like Andrew Sullivan. And yes, I know he's gay. I also remember when he, like me, used to refer to himself as a Republican, and also like me, had been relegated to "right-leaning independent".
I agree with the premise of this article. My Facebook timeline is flooded with "Socialist this" and "Muslim pacifist that", and I even hear that type of rhetoric from people whose intelligence and opinions I respect on this board. I also see lefties like Bill Maher bitch about how he's not the radical, the "change", they voted for.
I see a president, not a golden God, but not a complete fuck-up or radical either. The one policy I disagree with the President on the most is healthcare reform, but as this article points out, it's not as radical and socialized as it is frequently labled. I think everyone agreed that healthcare needed some type of reform, and this is far from a European system where the government owns every hospital and employs every doctor, despite what my Facebook friends may say. Obama gave the entire system to the private drug companies and insurance companies, but provided some subsidies so that the poor can afford it. That policy is practically a carbon copy of Romney Care, which the Heritage Foundation was all on board with. A little to the left of my preference, but hardly Mao Zedong shit.
I've made some of these points on here before about him taking out pretty much every one of America's enemies, yet people say he's a pacifist, and even a "secret Muslim" working against our country's best interests. I have also previously mentioned that I felt exactly the same way in 2004, when the hippie radicals were out in full force trying to say Bush was "hands down, the worst President of all time", and that essentially he ate babies and puppies for breakfast. It was ignorant then, and it's ignorant now.