"When you're losing an argument, change the subject."
Everyone knows that, of course. But, sometimes, you can change the subject all you want, and the other person in the debate is sharp enough to recognize mere logical evasion, and insists (how rude!) on having the discussion return the to the original subject. Some people are weird like that: they insist on consistency and silly stuff like that.
When that happens, simply changing the subject is not enough to throw off the most tenacious opponent. Now you'll need to bring out the rhetorical big guns. Now you have to redefine the basic premises of the argument. This is a time-tested tactic of propagandists and the apologists for the worst criminals and dictators in the history of mankind.
So, if you oppose a certain President's policies on everything from the War on Terror, to the Economy, or the fake crisis of health care, you are not an independent thinker exercising your faculties, weighing pros and cons to arrive at a rational position. Nor are you a patriotic American taking advantage of your right to dissent and conscience -- like you were in the days when it was cool to protest Vietnam and the Iraq War (Apparently, those were 'bad wars' as opposed to the 'good ones'. Good Wars are defined by who happens to be in favor of them and how little fighting actually occurs). If you oppose corporate welfare for companies who's management obviously failed to read their textbooks in Economics 101, or worse, giving welfare to politically-powerful unions in the form of nationalization of formerly-profitable companies, you must not be very smart or compassionate.
Why, you're incapable of being a rational, thoughtful, politically-savvy person if you oppose those things.
No, opposition to those things now makes you a racist.
Now the terms of the argument have been fundamentally altered. Now, the argument is no longer about inconvenient things like verifiable facts, matters of record, direct quotations, and nonsense like that. It's all about your prejudices -- whether you have any or not (According to all leftists, anyone who disagrees with them automatically has prejudices and questionable thought processes). No muss, no fuss, and it keeps democratic party flapping rectums gainfully employed on (P)MSNBC.
The word racist has now been completely redefined. It had already been thrown about so carelessly for so long that it no longer had much of a meaning, anyway. But the present circumstances we live in have given it a new lease on life, as it were. Now, racism is not the reflexive and irrational hatred of 'the other' based on differences in race; now it's simply principled opposition to a particular individual. Imagine the consequences of that concept!
Since racism has now been redefined to apply only to The Savior, the great and Omniscient Obamatard, the next time I hear a reverend or a rapper throw that word out I shall take great pride in informing them that racism no longer exists; at least as far they understand and define the term. Barack Obama brought some of that Hopenchangey fairy dust of his and changed the meaning of the word 'racism', and by extension, 'racist'. I now reserve the right to call black folk nasty names, attribute to them or expect of them, stereotypical behavior, and offer them all the fried chicken and watermelon I can get my hands on, free from any burden of guilt or shame, and legally and morally protected from their righteous indignation -- if not from an outright ass-kicking.
Thanks to Barack Obama and the democratic party, I can use the N-word freely again!
Because now it's only racism if it means opposition to Obama.
Now, go pick me some cotton and then gimme some soft-shoe, Boy!
Update: Before the hate mail rolls in; I would never behave this way in real life. I'm simply trying to prove a point here, which is that words and ideas have consequences. Perhaps it's about time we stopped throwing the racism tag about so freely and stupidly; it's an issue much bigger than any President and his quest for beatification and elevation to sainthood.