2. go online and freak out about the president again, and then attack me for being glad that a POW is free.
I'm sorry, but how exactly is it hyperpartisan for people to criticize you for legit feelings of happiness for the gentleman's family...but it's not hyperpartisan for you to complain about people criticizing Obama for a legit concern?
I would have no issue with your claims if you were criticizing people simply for attacking those that express happiness for the family. That's absolutely legitimate. One can disagree with HOW it was done and WHO it was done for...and still be happy on a personal level for the family that got their son back.
But you're not just criticizing them for that...you're ALSO criticizing them because they have the audacity to air legitimate greivances over something simply because there's a potential "good" personal level effect from it.
It's
entirely legitimate to suggest that trading 5 individuals who have cost american lives and have actively engaged to some degree with terrorist action for one POW, abscent all the other crap being talked about for said POW, is a poor foreign policy and defense decision. It is in no way unreasonable to suggest that doing such establishes a value of worth on the lives of American Soldiers. It is in no way unreasonable to suggest that doing such may save the live of this POW, but has a legitimate potential to threaten the lives of multiple Americans if these guys return to their previous ways. It'd be one thing if you were just criticizing those who may go over the top, suggesting Obama is actively trying to "help the enemy" or something like this...but you're criticisms seem simply pointed at anyone who dares suggeset the President acted wrongly here.
Its
entirely legitimate to be upset and voice grievance over the President for a wanton violation of the law. Regardless of him doing a signing statement claiming he thinks the law is unconstitutional, the fact is he signed the bill into law...meaning it IS law. The President does not have fiat power to simply declare something constitutional or not. There is nothing wrong, what so ever, in expressing anger or antipathy towards the administration for a violation of the law.
Your anger at other peoples hyper partisanship seems to blind you of your own, and of others. Yes, people are wrongfully attacking folks for simply being happy for the POW's family that he's free, or for the POW himself for being free. And those people are likely doing it for partisan reasons. However, there are a multitude of people attacking individuals for criticizing legitimate policy and legal aspects of this simply because they think it's unfairly being aimed at Obama. They, too, are doing it primarily for partisan reasons...specifically aggression TOWARDS the partisan leans of those making the accusations. If it wasn't for that reason then equal condemnation would be tossed at those attacking folks for daring to air a legitimate grievance towards an act of foreign policy.
You sum it up by repeating your first post in this thread. I'll sum it up by highlighting your first sentence.
"This is a good thing"
That's a fine opinoin. Disagreeing with that opinion is not hyper partisan. You did not, in any way, cache that statement in specifics. You didn't say "it's a good thing" as it relates to the family. You didn't specifiy that it's a good thing specifically for the POW. You made a claim, in a BROAD sense, that this is a "good thing".
And that
absolutely can be legitimately challenged without it being "hyper partisan" in nature. I'm sorry that it seems to bother you that people can make judgements on political issues outside of their emotional gut reaction to the event on a personal level, but it absolutely can happen. One can absolutely feel happy for the family and still think this is a bad thing in terms of policy or legality.
"It's a good thing for the family" is a hard thing to legitimately make an argument against, and attacking someone for feeling that way would be ridiculous.
"It's a good thing", full stop, broadly stated is an easy thing to legitimately make an argument against, and it's absolutely not wrong in any way to attack someone for having that opinion on an issue.
