Oh, you went back and added some more:
I don't disagree w/ the troubling aspect of thousands seemingly
believing everything Obama says, but it's hardly surprising that such a
character would look appealing in the script that is politics when the
"villians" (all of them are villians, really), look so much worse to
said Obama supporters.
A politician drawing crowds of 75,000 is "hardly surprising"? Has this ever happened? It's one thing for individuals (not all of his supporters are leftists, either!) to prefer a radical leftist candidate over the competition; it's another for them to band together and show support in these numbers, especially when that candidate keeps slipping up and revealing his disdain for individual liberty.
I would think that most of them are there for the
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the
libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine
"left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited
government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We
non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions;
they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they
want.
However, they have the audacity
to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original
definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are
more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that
libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no
longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer
and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.