Candidate Bashing: Serious DUers, can we nip this in the bud?

[DagmarK]

Everytime they out themselves...just add them to IGNORE. People say...oh but we need to counter their lies. I suggest that we do not have to counter their lies. But that's only if we all work together to make their game null and void.

They are diverting attention from OUR CAUSE. It's Rovian. And it isnt going to help us.

Imagine a thread that contains ONLY a pack of lies and propoganda. It will stand out like a sore thumb and most anyone who doesn't have them on ignore (like a lurker or new visitor) will see it for it is.

But this constant engaging in these mind-numbing 'debates' actually gives some credence to their lies and disinformation. So no matter how many times you say "X is not DLC" it won't matter because the liars have diluted our message.

In addition, it will become patently obvious to everyone that NO ONE is paying these jokers any mind. That's called ostracizing them. And it works -- whether you are in high school or in the big bad adult world.

So, this is a call for all of us SERIOUS posters with honest intentions here to put these jokers on IGNORE.

Let's just eradicate this disruptive behavior that undeniably succeeds in its intention: to divide us from our ultimate purpose and that is to beat the pants of shrubco. The DU admin/mods won't (and indeed, how could they?) set some limits on the bashing, but we can as a group. Wouldn't that be a feather in all our hats if we could all find a way to stop the unnecessary bickering and come together for the cause? It would sure heighten my confidence on democrats actually taking our country back. Consider this a little pre-test for the REAL BATTLE. We need unity.

And by "we", I mean DUers who are here with honest intentions, regardless of their preferred candidate. I think we have adequately determined that 99.9% on here ARE going to vote the dem nominee. About the only folks I see say "NO WAY" are these posters whose purpose is clearly to undermine our cause. Why FEED THEM?

Thank you.

[JohnKleeb]

1. Well I am ABB too and I agree with you

In fact while I see some people frustrated at the Dean supporters well I am a firm Kucinich supporter I do say this it reallly is only a few bad apples who make people iffy on Dean most of his supporters are some of my best DUer friends. They tend to be realist thats why they wont support DK ): but I understand that but we're progressively left its really only some Dean supporters who piss me off I just dont accept Dean as a savior like some too hes a relief from Shrub but hes not my dream candiate and that explains why I am for Kucinich of course.

[maha]

2. Now is the time to soften Bush support

The various Dem candidates will sink or swim over the next few months. It's great to work on behalf of a candidate you believe in, but trying to knock down the other guy's candidate is playing into Karl Rove's hands.

Right now, Bush is more vulnerable than he has been since before September 11. The focus should be on softening support for Bush. Write letters to editors, put anti-Bush bumper stickers on your car, talk to people (nicely!) about why you don't like Bush. Keep punching! Now is the time! Soften up Bush now so that he's a weaker opponent for WHOEVER the Dem nominee is!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

3. Candidates deserve to be bashed

What is more American than complaining about politicians?

"They are diverting attention from OUR CAUSE. It's Rovian. And it isnt going to help us."

Whose cause? Lieberman's? Who is "us" - hard to tell with so many candidates pushing for Republican style economic issues. Hard to include myself in the "us" when so many Democrats want me out of work (and out of sight it seems as well).

I understand your concern, but since it's primary season, now is the time for candidate bashing. When someone wins the primary, anyone not supporting the Dem candidate will be banned from DU, so they bashing will stop then.

Besdies, the candidates bash each other all the time - isn't that politics?

[papau]

8. I believe it is more about HOW one bashes - than just bashing!

:-)

I learn from "I like - or do not like - so and so because he has this position and said this ......"

I find pointless comments that one hates so and so because he belongs to any organization or visits with any organization or once was seen with any organization unless the organization is well known as a race, or any other "reason" for hate, evil.

[XanaDUer]

12. It is politics

and it's a political discussion board, with some fun-type stuff on the side.

What are people supposed to post about? Arguing about politics and politicians has been a long tradition for humanity.

'Cause I don't want to get into the issue of what people should be allowed to post on-and I have seen posts saying things like (paraphrasing)"So-and-so just posted *again*! Doesn't s/he have anything better to do?"

What is up with that? Just skip the posts if they bug that person so much.

[XanaDUer]

13. I doubt DU has as much influence as DUers think, either.

There is a tiny percentage of Dems/greens/libs/whoevers, on this board.

It has not even hit 30,000 members out of 15 million registered Dems.

So even if someone says"Candidate X bites the heads off of kittens", I doubt it will even blip the screen of voting life.

[loudsue]

20. Those two posts just got another person put on "ignore"!!

You obviously don't think much of DU, or you don't take activism very much to heart....

You're just here to "have fun"!??

[RapidCreek]

56. Please put me on ignore as well Sue

I think alot of DU, it is a discussion board not a stage for magnanamous self validation, glad handing and back slapping. If you find debate distasteful and can't handle being challenged, I have to wonder why you come here...what's the point if all you seek is acceptance and blanket agreement. You might as well save some power and talk to the mirror.

RC

[DagmarK]

68. RC, it's the lack of DEBATE that is the problem......

But I don't gather you and the other mockers in this thread would know a debate if you actually won one!

So be it....your request and your little friends' requests are granted: IGNORE!

[XanaDUer]

62. Hey , put me on ignore

And thank you for your blanket assessment of me and my political life.

And with posters like you, there *are* times I think less of DU.

[jonnyblitz]

66. ignore me too! ignore everyone who says something u dont agree with

and then enjoy the silence as u sit alone.....

[chimpymustgo]

29. Good point, Liberty.

Some folks here honestly believe DU reflects a real world view.

[thehonesttruth]

19. hear hear

i guess no one is old enough to remember all the old time fights right down to the last days of the convention, when smoke filled back room deals brought out "compromise" candidates, today everything is pre-planned for the tv cameras and sound bite generations. on the other hand, wish i could see more factual debate, rather than shrill emotional rants. and some of the bashing is way stupid crazy funny, lurk and enjoy.

[DEMActivist]

4. DU is becoming useless because of this

The amount of bashing and garbage outweighs any intelligent discussion on this community anymore.

So, are we going to stand by and let the disruptors destroy DU like they have so many other communities?

It's time to STOP! STOP participating in threads that bash any Democratic candidate. STOP giving in to the disruptors. STOP replying to the trash.

START supporting your candidate. Refuse to argue points against another. START ignoring those who wish to tear this community asunder.

[unfrigginreal]

16. Absolutely Right!

With all the censorship that goes on around here, there's no excuse to allow blatant attacks on our candidates. I asked the mods about this and they say that since we're in a primary season they will allow the attacks. I say STOP ALL CENSORSHIP!

[MarianJack]

36. Hear,Hear!

This is exactly what I was going to say.:bounce:

[papau]

5. No problem - very few posts are just flame - so easy to ignore Flames

ostracizing is an interesting word

As we all know - like all good words it comes from the Greek

refers to the broken pieces of pottery that were use for votes in Athens.

The procedure - if you wanted to campaign to have someone banned from Athens for 1 or two years - was to mark the fellows name on the brokem pottery, and hand the "broken pottery with name" out to the free folks going to the town meeting as they walked in.

There was a collection jar - and if enough folks threw your piece of pottery into the collection, the fellow whose name was written on the pottery was banned.

Sort of a recall vote!

[dpbrown]

6. I'd rather focus on putting up opposition to Bush

While I have a preferred candidate, I think we all have to be prepared to get behind the nominee, and to imagine how to make sure we evict Captain Unelected from Al Gore's house.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[XanaDUer]

7. Maybe

First, I agree with you on this:if someone here really annoys someone, the ignore function is great.

I don't use it, because it seems pointless to have a discussion board wherein I blank out opinions I don't agree with.

The problem comes in defining what is bashing. And who is an honest DUer. Except for the most obvious trolls (with handles like clintonscrewdmonica or thehildebeast), I think the majority of Duers are honest people with honest intentions.

For instance, disagreeing with a candidate's stance, or past record, and posting proof of your concern or belief (when asked to do so by those who disagree with you, as is their right), is not bashing.

There are DUers who want to ask questions about candidates, and have legitimate questions and concerns. Then we get into the why-are-so-many-candidate-X-threads-popping-up posts. Well, it is a pretty open forum. If people want to post 50 candidate X threads a day, so what?

My only problem with any DUer is when they start violating the rules about respect and politeness. No matter who their candidate is, or their political beliefs.

That's the real problem.

[papau]

10. I agree n/t

:-)

n/t

[salin]

24. may I add to the list - my newest pet peeve...

those who call (or imply that) other duers - based on their support for one candidate or another - "paid operatives". That is just plain insulting. I am not even on a candidate bandwagon and reading it drives me nuts. Why? Because it completely dismisses a whole segment of DUers - and as a community - I like to think we are above that.

[blondeatlast]

33. Thank you, This annoys the hell out of me as well.

[DagmarK]

69. Heck, Salin, I am guilty of that.....

but it's because I truly believe it! All my radar tells me it is so. BUT, I can see how obnoxious it must be. So I will refrain from doing it.

[salin]

73. Thanks... btw,

I appreciate this thread - we really do need to think about how we interact - and not raise to bite the bait when some decide to go infracidely ballistic. Thanks.

[DagmarK]

80. Sure thing, Salin.

It wouldn't be Friday if I didn't throw a big controversial thread in the pot! LOL

I think as a group we need to unify. And as a party, we need to unify -- even during the primaries. We need that certain something that allows a person or a group to prevail against all odds. And dogging other just doesn't strike me as edifying.

[sybylla]

9. You're preaching to the choir, Dagmark

Serious DUers don't engage in candidate bashing, IMHO. Serious DUers want to know what's up with all the candidates, the good, the bad, or the ugly. And, serious DUers can do it without any pontification. To inform, to cut and paste from a link, to put info in thread is easy and can all be done bias-free.

Unfortunately, there are always those who erode every such thread about a candidate into a bashing contest. I fear it is getting to the point that serious discussion will become extinct here at DU and we will be as ignorant going into the primary as the sheeple are about where the candidates stand.

[goobergunch]

11. I agree wholeheartedly

except I don't believe in "Ignore". However, I don't get involved in those threads.

Look at P/C right now:

The DLC's National White Man Conversation
Dean would not push for law on gay marriage
Iowa View: Kucinich backers aren't kidding
DLC Shifts Behind The Scenes To Kerry Camp
Kerry Makes Chickenhawk Rush Limbaugh Sputter
THE NEW REPUBLICANS | The Stranger
Howard Dean is only 5'-9" tall. He can't win
I love telling the truth -- Dean is unelectable
Serious Dean Question
Kucinich supporters.....
Imprisoned Ex-Rep. May Run for President
Where would Dean Place without the Gay Vote?
I hate telling the truth - Kucinich is Unelectable
Should we consider Governor Larry Flynt to Rule California ?
My morning w/ Kucinich - REPEALING THE PATRIOT ACT
Open Letter to the John Kerry Campaign
How many people want Clark for VP or Pres?
Dean calls for a 100-year vision for the environment.
Davis is told: No trash talk
Question for Kucinich supporters
State Sen. West enters (Spokane) mayoral race | Spokesman-Review
OH-16/Ralph Regula Research Thread
9/1/2003 - Labor Day appearance in Richfield Ohio by George W. Bush
Any people from the North Country in NY, near Canada?
Governor Dean Eats Puppies (The Drinking Game)!
Kerry's (Awesome) Health Plan Abbreviated - Read & Comment
Fundraiser resurfaces from 1996 RogueTrooper
the 'REAL SO-CALLED F-ING DEMOCRATS LET US DOWN!
Surprising Mock Election Results
Howard Dean on Larry King Live on Monday (Aug 4)!
New nationwide Zogby Poll: Dean moves from fourth to tied for first
History says Bush can not be re-relected
What is wrong with your Candidate?
Kerry on Dean: We don't need a learning curve in the presidency on foreign
Tester (D) won't run for (Montana) governor in 2004 | Helena I-R
Kerry/Jobs/Economy
New Ipsos-Reid Poll on nationwide race for Dem nomination
Will the Real Howard Dean Please Stand Up?
DEAN says "I'm not your guy"
Anyone else get a survey from the DNC in the mail?

---

Some are good threads, but a lot are candidate flame-threads.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. FreeRepublic.com complains about "candidate bashing"

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/956435/posts?q=1&&page=251

Interestingly enough, over the same issue that (I assume) started this thread - complaining about Bush's pro-outsourcing plans and the Republican's lack of concern over the middle class losing their careers to corporate globalization.

[XanaDUer]

15. Really?

I believe it. Because humans are pretty consistent in behavior.

And I bet bashing's definition is like porn-what is the exact definition of it?

But people feel they know it if they see it.

Is someone's opinion, that they hate X, bashing, *if* they stay within the rules that DU has set up, or because it upsets someone else?

[w4rma]

18. Have you been banned, yet, WhoCountsTheVotes? No, and you'll

probably have to get **much** more ridiculous than you are in your escalation of attacks to be banned.

But, my question is, do you want to turn DU into forum of flame-threads? Or do you want to post reliable opinions backed up with quotes and sources from candidates, which I do not believe you have been doing, WCTV?

[loudsue]

17. DagmarK & DemActivist....I couldn't agree more!

There are a whole handfull of oldtimer DUers who made some great contributions, but who will no longer join in the discussions -- if they even read DU at all anymore. AND I, PERSONALLY, MISS THE HELL OUT OF 'EM! I really worry at times that the serious DUers that are still around will also leave....leaving the forums to those who have been won-over in style and substance by the television flame show culture.

In fact, when I see that culture raise its ugly head in these threads, I can't help but assume the posters are from that side of the aisle, since they've adopted the stripes.

I will start using the IGNORE function...these days it will be a lot. I still love so much of what the REAL committed DUers do; they're brilliant researchers, sincere activists and seekers of honest discourse. They're mature in their approach to what is going on...they realize it IS the issue of life or death of America, and they don't trivialize, even though they're also funny as hell sometimes!

This is supposed to be DemocraticUNDERGROUND, but what we're getting is a version of democraticaboveground ....democratic DLC/rovian strategies, same as you see on TV. It's become such a waste of time to try to sort through the posts for the facts, and try to ignore the garbage.

:kick:

[DagmarK]

38. LoudSue, yeah, I am sure I miss people I have never met here!

Who had been around for a long time before I got here...

The ignore feature is great! I have about 20 people on it. A few of the posts on this thread show up as IGNORE.....and, lucky for me, judging from a response or two to whatever that ignored person wrote, I AM GLAD I didn't ever have to read it! And with multiple people on ignore...you have no idea which person it is that responded. It just says IGNORED.

And you know what? I don't need to know the opinions of all 30,000 duers. And blanking out 10 or 15 people.....that isn't going to change my effectiveness with activism. If they have something soooooo valuable to say.....I am *sure* I am going to get the info someplace else from someone else. And I don't have fill my brain cavity with their crapola.

I used to be a newspaper addict. HAD to read the paper...every single day. And it bummed me out! It jaded me. So, the last 6 years or so......I stopped reading the papers. IF something is really, really important, SOMEONE is going to alert me to it. (I do tune into the local metro pages though, 'cause that's where the city council info is...and people don't usually talk that up).

Anyways......the ignore feature is great.

[Nicholas_J]

21. This post in itself

could be defined as a form of bashing...

I am personally most frequently attacked by the supporters of one candidate, as they have decided to define ANYTHING that does not reflect positively on their candidate positlvely as bashing. If I post a number of articles referring to that candidates past records, and ask the legitimate question "Why does this candidates past record, seem to be seriously disconnected from their present presidential platform statements?" none out of ten of the responses will be rude, abusive attacks.

Sorry, but who made either you or them the arbiters of whot are "REAL SERIOUS" DU'ers.

Yesterday, I found myself posting on a thread that had nothing to do with a political candidate or political candidacy, but a basically catholic bashing thread, but one of the DU posters came onto that thread, and indulged in a PERSONAL attack on my statemenets about the catholic church and the pedophile issue, in which I indicated that attacking those who financially support the church is support of pedophilia, is as ridiculous as saying that those who support gay rights and financially contribute to such causes are guilty of supporting pedophilia because dome gays are pedophiles.. Certainly some of the pedophile priests who victimized only young males might ber cosidered to have been gay. This DU'er then used this issue to state that ALL of my posts shoould be suspect becaseu I claimed that pediphiles should be treated as people with an illnesss, with some degree of comapsssion, rather than as criminals, as their victim, should also be treated as victims rather than be ashamed.

I have asked this one question a dozen times, and everyone has been TOO afraid to answer it. What is it about ONE candidate, that encourages his followers to lie, attack andyone who dares even philosophically to question that candidates sincerity or ability.

It seems that the largest number of attack threads seem to be started and perpetuated by the followers of ONE candidate, and now that the supporters of other candidates are beginning to use the techiniques of their candidate, attack techniques, as well as the techniques of the supporters themselves, they get angry, and again try to use s subltler form of attack thread.

One in which YOU decide what is bashing, and what is not.

AS a matter of fact, I think the moderators might modify their rules, and someone posts an article about the record of a particular candidate, that only posts that can provide counterpoint to that article, with other articles, should be considered valid posts, rather than mere opinion. That would certainly put an end to the BASHING type post that is real bashing.

For example, if a someone states that a certain act of congress was "A VOTE FOR WAR" tyhese perople be required toprovide legal back up for that statement, from legal sources, rather than cite a belief that cannot be justified by constitutional law.

If they cite another act to back it up, then cite legal opinion as to the constitutionality of the act they are referring to.

FOr the most part, Bashing comes in the form of opinion, not documentation.

FOr my part, that is how I define the difference between bashing and political argument. If you wish it to end, then resorting to factual informationm rather than opinion is probably the best approach.

[w4rma]

22. projection

8. Psychology.

a. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others: “Even trained anthropologists have been guilty of unconscious projection—of clothing the subjects of their research in theories brought with them into the field” (Alex Shoumatoff).

b. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

[salin]

26. Sadly

I am just an observer - as I am not in a camp (for one candidate or another). But sadly, I have seen this same behavior - from several camps (fan groups). In fact off the top of my head I have seen this behavior from three, maybe four different candidate camps.

Ah, but observations are never ojbective. :shrug:

[DagmarK]

39. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...........

You expect me to muddle through all of that blah blah blah......???

I cant' believe I didn't have you on ignore before! Simply an oversight......

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. 11th Commandment for Democrats?

Worked for Ronnie the Drool.

Can we only say nice things about Democrats? We all know that all of the candidates:

1. Would never, ever, tell a lie.
2. Love thier mothers.
3. Have never inhaled.
4. Go to church regularly.
5. Eat apple pie daily.
6. Admire the workingman.
7. Get all fuzzy when they see the flag.
8. Support our troops.
9. Love peace.
10. Do not engage in attacking other Democrats.
11. Never use epletives more offensive than "darn".
12. Always take responsibility for the mistakes.
13. - infinity Anything else you would like to hear.

God forbid that any of us ingrates should question any of them, their motives, their actions, their ethics, or who they get their support or money from.

After all, we are only the people. They can rob us, send our kids to kill and die, scorn us, bamboozle us, but we should all be nicely silent or speak only in adoring tones.

Welcome to the 4th Reich.

[w4rma]

25. Absolutely *not*! We need to remove as much coruption as possible

from the Democratic Party and to do that, we must keep an open debate. We also must keep the debate *respectful* and respectful debate is the point of this thread.

[loudsue]

28. I believe you missed the point of DagmarK's post.

He NEVER said we couldn't question the candidates or any of their motives, actions, ethics, contributor's, etc. Discussion and research on these issues is exactly what DagmarK was wishing for.

It's flaming, drama, disruption and twisting the words of others in order to engage them on the defensive -- that is not welcome by many on this board, but seems to be the sport of the day for many others. And they show up to do those little dramas in groups, predictably. But the mods & admins are allowing it.

I agree with DagmarK...I think it is undermining the best of DU. And I'm not sure it's not intentional.


:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. OK. Let's try it.

If I "respectufully" suggest that Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman and Kerry voted for the war in Iraq for purely political reasons and that they showed somewhat less than heroism than doing so, is that acceptable?

If I say that I consider them a pack of opportunistic cowards who sold their votes in the name of expediency, is that to be condemned?

I've certainly received my share of flames on this board and I've attempted to either ignore them, or talk about the issues. I've not always been successful in curbing my tongue (or my fingertip to be accurate).

May I, respectfully, remind you that this board (so far) is the voice of the people, not the elite. It is not a gathering of scholars dedicated to polite discourse. We are dealing here with politics, a dirty, nasty, messy, business, at best. Politicians are not saints, no matter what their persuasion. Liberals can be every bit as vicious and underhanded as the most right wing conservative. If you don't believe it, read up on LBJ, FDR, or even Bobbie Kennedy.

I'll not be voting against Bush because I believe that he fails to understand the subtleties of Keynesian Economics. I'll be voting against him because I think he's a brainless, bigoted, fratboy, tool of the corporations and rightwing fanatics. I'll also be voting against several of the Democratic candidates for different but simalarly loathsome qualities.

If they, and their supporters, can't take it from DU, good luck to them with Rove and BushCo.

[DEMActivist]

31. So tell me...

would your post have been more supportive of your candidate without the vitriol? Let's try it:

If I "respectufully" suggest that Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman and Kerry voted for the war in Iraq for purely political reasons and that they showed somewhat less than heroism than doing so, is that acceptable?

We are dealing here with politics, a dirty, nasty, messy, business, at best. Politicians are not saints, no matter what their persuasion. Liberals can be every bit as vicious and underhanded as the most right wing conservative.

I'll not be voting against Bush because I believe that he fails to understand the subtleties of Keynesian Economics. I'll be voting against him because I think he's a brainless, bigoted, fratboy, tool of the corporations and rightwing fanatics.

Wow! I think it says the same thing without ANY attacks on anyone! Who wudda thunk it????

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. And, you were able to figure it out, all by yourself!

Who wudda thunk it? It DOES say the same thing. So, what difference does it make how it's said?

The person who authored this cry for censorship simply wants us all to shut up and kiss the hem of whoever is the nominee. Read the last lines of his/her post.

I, for one, will be voting Green if the Dems foist a warmonger nominee on us. Ooops. Should I have said, "A nominee who acceded to the war in Iraq despite the obvious cost in human lives (oops, again, "collateral damage), that it would sustain."?

We must be ever so nice when referring to Democrats..no matter what they do.

[DEMActivist]

35. You need to understand something...

I don't disagree with anything you said. Hell, I've been the butt of many Green bashings myself; even been invited to join freeperville by DUers aplenty because I support the Greens. And, in the same vein, a war monger candidate means I vote Green in 2004.

But that's not my point, nor that of the original poster. The point is the vitriol is unnecessary. In fact, quite the opposite, your argument is MUCH stronger without it.

The original poster was trying in a verbose way to designate the difference between DEBATE and ARGUMENT.

What you don't seem to understand is that you are arguing with an ally (me), instead of debating the ISSUES.

The ISSUE in this thread is simple - are we capable of DEBATE vs. ARGUMENT? Can we partipate in CIVILIZED DEBATE about the ISSUES instead of arguing like children with "uh huh, your guy is an asshole"?????

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Sure we can.

And we have been, you and me, without threatening to toss each other over the side.

We can debate, you and I, (though apparantly there is nothing to debate about), without reducing the argument to name calling.

I'm all for it. Perhaps, I'm overreacting to the tone of the original poster. But, the part about those not willing to vote for any Democrat smacked of a loyalty oath to my ears. I have an aversion to such things. Having been "shown off" a couple of campuses back in VN war days, by large fellows wearing uniforms, for being "disruptive" makes me a tad wary of those demanding "respectful" speech which usually translates to "shut up!"

[DEMActivist]

45. I think you just took it wrong...

The original poster was speaking of respect toward each other.

By respecting each other, we can respect their stand but disagree with it.

For example....I can respect that some Georgians think Max Cleland's vote for the war for political expediency was an OK thing to do. But for me, with children and grandchildren in line to go to that godforsaken hell hole to protect Halliburton, I can't excuse that vote, nor can I accept it.

I've made this same point on DU and no one has yet successfully challenged my stand.

I think it depends on where we are in life and how those votes directly affect us that leads us to support or decry them. I just can't respect a man who lost 3 limbs in a war voting to send my children and grandchildren to the same fate; particularly not for his political career.

Back to my original point - I have not been disrepectful to my fellow DUers when making this point. It is because I respect their opinon that they respect mine in return. What's the old idiom - I can respect what you say as long as you respect my right to disagree with it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. Well, we agree again.

I'm perfectly happy to engage in discussions, debates, what have you, in a civil way, and I generally attempt to do so. Being told to shut up, however politely put, about the failings of any candidate may not be considered a "flame", but I find it far worse.

I further believe that sending anyone's kids, grandkids, or orphans, to go and kill other's kids, etc., is worthy of outrage. Even if spoken in impolite terms.

I was unaware of DU's demand that we all fall in line behind whatever candidate is nominated. I guess being Democratic outweighs being democratic. Too bad.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Please note #40, #41, and #42

For the author's thoughts on free speech. To borrow phrase, they sounded better in the original German.

Reasonable debate? I think his intent is clear.

[DagmarK]

49. Whoa......now I am a NAZI???????

Hmmmmm, so you don't think party loyalty is a good thing in the face of having FOUR MORE YEARS OF GEORGE BUSH???????????

Cut your nose off to spite your face. But name-calling as you noted in another post is uncool.

[DEMActivist]

53. Hang on a minute....

let's not become that which we are condeming, OK?

First, I think you have always had a healthy respect for my posts and opinions expressed at DU. The feeling is mutual.

I think you can respect my feelings on ABB. I don't, can't, won't agree with those canards and believe that is a prostitution of one's vote and the selling of democracy.

The point is simply that we can respect each other and still disagree. I understand the ground rules set down by DU ADMIN after the primaries are over, and fully intend to comply with those rules. If someone is put on the ballot whom I cannot support, I will leave DU. I respect that opinion, while disagreeing with it.

However, in the meantime, I am a part of this community. I expect respect from each member and give it in return. I think that was the original intent of your post and it would do us all well to make that commitment to each other.

[DagmarK]

67. Hang on to what, Dem-A.......???

the guy refers to me as a NAZI......


I *really* don't appreciate that.....

So...I don't know what you are calling me on .....

I expressed an opinion....about what is going to happen after the primaries: we should all get behind that nominee no matter what. If you don't share that opinion now or in the future....fine. That;s your business. But my opinion -- and it is just an opinion (a very popular one around here) - is my opinion. And I will always PREACH it here.....because I believe so strongly that we have to stand together or we are toast. That's just me.

I have a good friend.....he will only vote for ONE dem candidate. If that candidate doesn't win the nom, he is not going to vote dem. We are still friends even though I tell him to his face that if that is the case, then he is not a true democrat and in the next election will serve as more of an enemy to the people if he does not vote dem. He tells me, "oh, okay, D, whatever you say......" and no doubt rolls his eyes, and I roll mine, and then we talk about our favorite foods! Still friends, but vehemently and fiercely different OPINIONS on that.

Anyways.....I don't know what the heck you are calling me on when you say HANG ON A MINUTE...... I hope I addressed.........

[DEMActivist]

71. I would hope that you could see...

that your posts #40, 41 and 42 were exactly what you were complaining about.....

That's what I was calling you on. While I fully support your desire for more civility around here, I would expect you to live up to it first. Seeing as how it was YOU calling for it.

[DagmarK]

82. ?????????// I am baffled.......

I would really appreciate it if you would succinctly specify exactly what the problem with those posts were. 2 of them were reiterating what you said. And the other one was clarifying something someone else said.

So.....where did I got awry? Cause I don't see myself bashing anyone or hitting below belt or denigrating the debate. I really don't.

But if I have......I would like to know about it. I know it's a pain in the butt to have to explain 'me' to 'me' (mind-numbing, I am sure), but I don't see where I got out of line.

Is it simply my comments in regard to unifying behind the dem candidate once we have a nominee? Or my tone? Or what?

I mean, I am usually pretty cognizant when I am being an f'ing bitch......but in this case, you have me baffled. And I am obligated to TRY to see what you are pointing out.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Read your own posts.

"BUT I damn sure expect anyone calling himself a democrat to pull the lever for that dem nominee."

Last I checked this is still democracy and everyone gets to vote for who they choose. Even Democrats. And, I'll bet I've been a Democrat a lot longer than you and voted for more Democrats than you can name.

"And if you don't think you can make that commitment right here today......then you NEED TO BE ON EVERYONE's IGNORE LIST! And that is not open to debate. Sorry charlie."

Not open to debate, huh? Not even "polite, reasonable, debate"? Everyone should just go along with your dictates? Are you fond of loyalty oaths? Should we sign our names in blood? Swear eternal fealty to the Democratic Party no matter what they do?

"If a person can't do that...I guess they will be either very quiet or gone."

Speaks for itself.

"Hmmmmm, so you don't think party loyalty is a good thing in the face of having FOUR MORE YEARS OF GEORGE BUSH???????????"

The Bogey Man will get you if you don't behave!!!

I retract the inference that your tactics are reminiscent of Nazi methodology but are merely the rantings of someone struggling with a need to control others. Happy now?

[DagmarK]

42. Yes, DemA and I both figured out what you were saying.......

But you lost credibility across the board.........

Have you really contributed to the debate in such a case? No. And why would I ever listen to anything you have to say? There's wayyyyyy too much infor available out in this big internet world for me to waste my time sifting out your vitriol. If you really feel like you have a message that is sooo important, why don't you want to deliver it in a manner most likely to result in a successful reception?

I don't want to get into a flame fest, but I will comment on the following statement by you:

"The person who authored this cry for censorship simply wants us all to shut up and kiss the hem of whoever is the nominee. Read the last lines of his/her post."

This is not a cry for censorship. It is a message to a specific group (and you seem to have identified yourself as not wanting to be part of that specific group; so be it. Ya wanna bash.....go for it. You will be on ignore. What do you care who I listen to>). And that message to that specific group is about using good judgment and discrimination (not a 4 ltr world) as to where we will focus our attention, energy, and time. That is not censorship. That is just working smarter and more effectively.

When you have an office meeting or something and everyone is kicking around ideas to solve a problem, do you suggest that everyone should just yak away in all sorts of directions throwing out every idea under the sun? Is that a proper way to solve a problem? NO.......you FOCUS. And that is what I have suggested.

**oh, I don't suggest kissing the hem of the dem nominee. BUT I damn sure expect anyone calling himself a democrat to pull the lever for that dem nominee. And if you don't think you can make that commitment right here today......then you NEED TO BE ON EVERYONE's IGNORE LIST! And that is not open to debate. Sorry charlie.

And btw, look at the DU rules. Once the dems have a nominee.....that's it. There won't be any tearing into him. As I understand it, that will be grounds for tombstoning. That's how I read the DU rules -- that we are to get behind that nominee. If a person can't do that...I guess they will be either very quiet or gone.

[CWebster]

64. That didn't last long.

.

[DagmarK]

41. DemA-- I thought the SAME thing when I read that post......

The first paragraph.......I was right there with the guy nodding my head "YES, you absolutely CAN say that and not expect to get ignored." Then he lost me when the vitriol set in.

[DagmarK]

40. And it's the sublte disinformation (lies) that are really the problem.....

throwing in a quote wayyyyyy out of context and then talking it up like it's something else entirely......

Or just throwing in an innocuous statement of 'fact' that is soooooooo far from factual...but it gets lost in there and then we all start fighting about that ONE SENTENCE. Where the poster may have been making a reasonable point..but they just slide in a lie. Some things are not verified 100% fact.....but today's Dean bashing thread..... with the comment "Dean is DLC". WTF??????? May as well say, "Dean is a martian."

[RapidCreek]

59. The voice of reason

Thanks Bandera.

RC

[DEMActivist]

27. Take the challenge DUers!!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=114299&mesg_id=114299

[quinnox]

32. I like to make my own choices

on whom I place on ignore. It works rather well.

[DagmarK]

46. Quinnox, I am very glad you made that point.

I am not suggesting in ANY way that any 2 or more people on DU gather and decide to put X person on ignore. That is mean-spirited cliquish high school stuff. It's sick social dynamics.

I am not suggesting that at all. I am just sending a message to some serious DUers who may feel as I feel that there is a BIG battle to be won (beat bush's butt out of Washington).....and that the integrity of debate has diminished dramatically because of certain 'debate tactics.' And I am asking people to discriminate and not give power to that. The tool to use is the ignore function. Just block it out and maybe this board can become a lean fighting machine to accomplish the ultimate goal. But that's up to the individual duer to decide who he or she thinks is disruptive. If we all do that.....odds are.....we will have similar ignore lists. No doubt about that. But not because some group consciousness sat like God and ostracized those people. They will have ostracized themselves -- one duer at a time.

Frankly, the debate atmosphere around here (about candidates, religion, and a few other topics) has become like BUCKSHOT just flying all over the place. I can't focus in such an environment, and I am done trying.

[quinnox]

50. OK, I see what you are saying

Yea, I agree in part. It has been pretty nasty here lately.

[DagmarK]

70. It's just simply, IF a bulk of people think the nastiness has gotten

out of hand.......do what the mods suggest...use the ignore feature. I didn't create that feature, but there is some wisdom behind the reason we have it.

We should use it.

[burr]

51. Sounds like you are boycotting the political activists to me!

I do not know if you have worked for a political candidate in your lifetime, but when your candidate gets attacked...as a supporter you will rip the living hell out of the person who attacked him!

And it doesn't matter what party he's in.

I can respect you saying I will do this, and here is why. But to say that the rest of us are not "serious" DUers because we have a different standard is an insult, not a suggestion.

[RapidCreek]

61. I find you position rather interesting...

In that you sport a picture of Gloria Stienam in your sig. She certainly didn't and doesn't ascribe to your way of thinking Dagmark, she's a hell raiser who calls a spade a spade and encourages others to do the same. I don't have an ignore list....and I would imagine that successful political candidates don't either. Please feel free to put me on your ignore list, I'd take it as a compliment.

RC

[gottaB]

37. Serious is overrated, imo

I like irony. I see a lot of irony in the posts Goobergunch listed. I see a lot of irony in the bashing posts.

Sometimes I wish there were more intelligent discussion in the candidate threads. I get sick of the bashing and name-calling. When I'm sick of it I ignore those threads and move on.

I wouldn't put anybody on ignore just for expressing an inflamatory opinion. It takes me a long time to get to know somebody. Meeting a strong intellect or a strong heart is a pleasure to me, but that's not always revealed in "honest" posts. Sarcasm and fury are also revealing. Lies can be revealing, intentionally so.

A lot of debate (I'd say language itself but I don't want to get into an argument), debate works through call and response. I heard your call. I responded with a contrary view. I could have said "me too," but unless I intended to modify my me too, I'd be embarrassed at the aolishness, like I'm embarrassed when I post lol--but, hey, I'm a champion of laughter. It's disruptive. I like that. lol--NOT.

Anyway, there are more and less nice ways of being contrary. I'd like to say "me too" but I can't bring myself to capitulate to the forces of anti-contrarianism.

Once I posted a thread in gd entitled "Parrhesia is the cause of my unpopularity." Well, it wasn't really a thread. Nobody posted to it. It would have been about a Cornel West speech about political discourse and the need for intellectual and spiritual contributions. Oh well. Don't want to overanalyze that one. I'll just say that personally I prefer being offered an argument to being ignored. Even if I have to make it up in my head--(Nicholas, don't project anything into this, you've been preempted ;-)).

Therefore, for all these reasons, I contest your seriousness, DagmarK. I reject your call for unity as un(D)emocratic. It is hemlock to me, and I ain't going out like that. The mirrortext: .era ouy sa yltcaxe emoc esaelp ;murof setadidnac eht ot etubirtnoc esealP



:)

[DagmarK]

74. I just saw the movie, Bowling for Columbine.....

That was an eye opener. And I thought about this thread, and the folks who have called me a NAZI, undemocratic, overly serious, a bore, and probably a few other things that I will never know about since several folks in this thread are on my ignore list.

What I took from the movie was just how FEARFUL we are in the US. WE feed on it. We strive for more of it. And we kill an awful lot of people because of it.

I suggest adding raising the maturity level of the debate on this board -- as many others have -- to no avail. Dialogue implodes at the drop of a hat.

And we are tearing each other apart on a daily basis right here on this board. How on earth is that ever going to get us anywhere? And I am guilty too....I have a temper and am over sensitive and it shows on this board sometimes. I REACT with fear and anger...I guess you can say I am regular American. But at least I can recognize the difference when I am being productive vs. unproductive.

So...the mockers in this thread have resorted to name-calling, sarcasm, hatefulness, etc DIRECTLY toward me -- not the idea that I am proposing. THAT is exactly what I am suggesting to put on IGNORE and not feed. Do what you want, but don't attack me personally (not that you have) because I expressed a problem that has been expressed a million times on DU, and have expressed what I think is a good solution to it. It's an opinion. My opinion.

I ask the mockers (who I call that because of their below the belt hits because they have chosen NOT to engage in the discussion but in turn take a personal whack at me)... You accuse me of being undemocratic and fascist because I say TUNE OUT the people who disrupt. Is that sort of name-calling and nastiness not a form of trying to quash MY constitutional right to free speech? Who is the nazi? Seems to be the quality of DEBATE as defined by the right wing 'come out swinging' cable TV stuff. Maybe we should all turn those TVs off.....because we are becoming THEM. How can we not if that's what we inundate our psyches with day after day?

[gottaB]

85. Imploding dialogue

I don't believe I accused you personally of being undemocratic. I specifically rejected the argument you were making, while at the same time I welcomed the opportunity to debate this issue with you and others. Apparently, that wasn't clear to you. For that I am sorry, for it was not my intention to call you names or be nasty.

?txetrorrim eht daer uoy diD.

Maybe irony isn't all it's cracked up to be.

[burr]

43. Different strokes for different folks...

the only people I put on ignore are those that attack me or any other DUer personally, in a cruel and hateful manner. In the primaries, candidates will attack candidates and they will attack each others' agenda. Why should Democratic supporters in this forum be held to a different standard than the politicians?

[poskonig]

48. I'm a big boy.

I support a vigorous, hotly contested primary with lots of punches. Seeing the Kerry attacks on Dean, for instance, prepares us for what the GOP will send our way next year. I think bashing is completely healthy, and those who disagree don't have to participate in it.

[Blue-Jay]

52. Can I still bash

Sharpton & Holy Joe? Those are the only two that would make me stay home on election day and get drunk on Elijah Craig bourbon.

[DEMActivist]

54. Why do you find it necessary to do that?

Is it impossible for you to support your candidate if you can't bash Lieberman and/or Sharpton?

It is not enough just to withhold your support? Is it not enough for you to just avoid their supporter threads? Seriously, why is it difficult for you to stay out of the threads on candidates you cannot support?

What do you achieve by bashing Sharpton and Lieberman? Is it fun for you to rip this community apart? Do you enjoy making people feel bad? Is there some absolute that those people who support these candidates are your lessers?

Sorry, I just don't get it!

[Blue-Jay]

65. Necessary to do what? Get drunk?

I don't need a reason to do that.

Seriously, though. I haven't "bashed" either Sharpton or Lieberman. I dohowever, feel that neither one could garner the support that's needed to dethrone Dubya. Reverend Al, for all his good intentions, has become a characature of himself. Lieberman is (in my opinion), a Republican in Democrats' clothing. I believe that he'd support the continued oppression of the Palestinians. (not that they're blameless, mind you) And I still hold against him his dressing down of Clinton for what was essentially a non-issue. That being said, I like the guy. He's smart, funny & engaging. Would I support him in a run for the White House? No.

[DEMActivist]

72. I happen to agree with you on Lieberman....

but I don't find it necessary to bash him in every thread about his candidacy. That was my question....why do you feel it necessary to bash any Democratic candidate?

Now, understand that what you said in the post above wasn't "bashing." It was an expression of why you can't support them and there's nothing wrong with that.

Bashing is using flame bait, name calling and disinformation to belittle a candidate. Speaking about the record and their history isn't bashing. That is something they are going to have to stand on and face the voters with.

[MODemocrat]

55. I totally agree with you, and just hope we can all unite

You're right about the DUers; we'll all be moving together as the time draws nearer to the regime change, because I believe that we will go vote for the Democrat who's nominated. Right now, we're just
sorting things out, and we don't need the posters who try to break our spirit and undermine us. Thank you for this kindly reminder.

[burr]

60. Unity is not reached by putting activists on ignore.

This is driving the heart and soul of our party out of the debate! It is not the concerns of Democratic candidates that come first, but concerns of the voters and their needs. And it takes a debate to bring the voters a victory on healthcare reform and in setting our party's position on taxes. We cannot silence this debate now, or else it will occur after the convention...at the worse possible time. We do not need another split between Greens and Democrats.

[DagmarK]

75. Lack of unity is what is driving a stake through the soul of the party....

I beg to differ wholeheartedly with you on that.

And the repukes set up the game for us to tear ourselves apart.

It's just like the white man setting up the black man after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They said, "okay...so they are protected as equals under the constitution. Okay.....we will find a way to make them tear themselves up." And the onslaught of some very, very, very bad drugs took over our country -- specifically targeting the black community. Pretty much took care of any problems the white man might have had having to deal with empowered black people sharing in the weatlth. CRACK has been a BIG success. I forget the stats, but isn't it that blacks make up merely 13% of the entire population of the US, but black males comprise 90% of the prison population? That isn't a fluke. It isn't because black men are born criminals. It isn't because they are horrible, violent people at their core. It was planned.....and it worked.

And there's a reason Nancy Reagan had the Just Say No campaign. It covered for what they were really doing. And I am sure they hoped that the white kids wouldn't get into the drug box.

And the way we tear each other apart on DU is one example of how the repukes have set the top spinning. THEY tell us what our talking points are. THEY tell us how we are going to treat each other. THEY tell us how much support to give to whichever candidate. They are calling the shots. And we are falling for it.

Lack of UNITY, not lack of debate, is what is killing this party.

And I am suggesting that people who have the intellectual capacity to grasp that we are being conditioned, or rather, pummeled, by everything in our environments telling us to NOT be unified just say no to anyone who wants to propogate that right wing agenda.

We can either act like the WWF or we can emulate the mentality and approach of statesmen. If the WWF comes on my TV...zap, the tv is off. If Bill Moyers is on,.....the volume goes up. Simple discrimination as to what goes into my psyche. I am hoping that this approach will make me a better citizen.

[Adjoran]

81. I agree with burr

You cannot forge unity by putting the most fervent activists on "IGNORE" . . . there is no dialogue then. And those people will be needed in the general election, they are the hardest workers.

One thing I love about politics is how people can find a candidate and put their heart behind him or her and work their butts off. When there is a hot race, with charges and countercharges between the candidates themselves, it is not only premature to expect the supporters to agree to support whoever the nominee is, it's almost silly.

And if we cut off communication by insisting on loyalty pledges before the first caucaus has been held, who does that help in November 2004? In the south, we always asked primary candidates to sign loyalty pledges. Can't tell you how many signed them and ended up endorsing Repubs anyway.

Will Rogers once said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party; I'm a Democrat." It's not a bad thing.

[DagmarK]

83. I would never put a fervent activist on ignore......

How we define who is a fervent activist and who is not is most probably where we diverge. You know, people find their inspiration in different ways and from different sources. I say that a person who lies, manipulates, disrupts, purposely misinforms, and attacks others (while *never* actively supporting ANY of the candidates - strangely enough) is probably someone I wouldn't want working on my campaign, if I were running for office.

It sounds like the detractors in this thread don't perceive that there is a problem on this board to address. And that's cool. Perfectly cool. But A LOT of other people on this board (long-term posters) *do* perceive a very destructive trend. And that is what I am addressing. If you don't see the destruction in message and spirit here, then you are very lucky. Very. Because I think it is disheartening and futile.

[burr]

86. A debate will bring these issues back on the table.

If Kerry was to get the nomination, he would have to do it by picking up Dean supporters. How would he do this? By by adopting some of Dean's positions. But he will not do this until Dean and his supporters have the ability to prove their legitimacy in the process by winning votes, and holding their ground on essential issues. Only then would Kerry try to adopt these issues as his own.

The same happened with McCarthy in 1968. The argument was made that he and his supporters were dividing the party at a time when it needed to be united. However he proved that as the peace candidate, he could win votes. This drove Johnson out of the race, and later RFK entered the race and began to pick up this support.

But none of this would have happened if McCarthy had listened to those telling him and his supporters to cease their attacks on the Adminstration. The political process is not pretty, but if we hang in through the battles and namecalling...it lead to a nominee we can all support in the end.

But if we refuse to listen to the debate, or to hear out the passion and needs of all the primary voters...then we will have a nominee in name only. When you support a candidate, and see him being attacked by another candidate in a posting, as a DUer you ought to stand up for your candidate..not back away. And no DUer should blame you for doing the right thing.

[CWebster]

58. This is politics after all.

It amuses me to see the bleating here by some of the greatest abusers. If someone is going to start a campaign of lies of deception, mud-slinging and general thuggery and bullying, don't expect the smear to go unchallenged - because that is the exact problem the Democratic party has been suffering from recently--cowardice and an inability to stand up and fight back.

Civility should not trump and uncomfortable reality.

[DagmarK]

78. I disagree.....LACK of statesmanship is what we have been suffering.

I think you and I would agree that the democratic party has lacked backbone. And you seem to be saying that they need to come out and FIGHT back. Now, I never bought into the value of appeasing the schoolyard bully by meeting him blow for blow. That's just innane. Ooooooo, who can hit harder and lower and floor the guy....that's the winner?

We need backbone. Not in learning how to hit as hard as the bullies, but in the form of integrity, honor, honesty, inner strength, courage, intellectual excellence, compassion.....etc. Things that would define the greatest statesmen.

Human beings RESPOND to those things. They REACT to bloodshed and pitbull tactics. There is a reason so many americans think the world of the Dalai Lama.

And our society is not going to be any better than the weakest link that we have. And we have a lot of metal work to do to fix the links in our chain. A lot. And that means behaving today right here on this board -- not even the real world as was pointed out -- in precisely the manner that we wish our society to become. Getting into the mud pit ain't gonna get us anything except really dirty.

[ButterflyBlood]

76. depends on what type

what I don't like is the type of "candidate X eats children!" type of things you see at Politics and Campaigns, but I don't mind legitimate concerns brought up, as long as it isn't for the million time (ie, don't vote for Kerry because he's Skull and Bones!")

[Chesapeake]

77. ABB here but

the fighting going on right now is good prep. The candidates who canwin are strong enough to recover by election day if it doesn't get too ugly

[DagmarK]

79. I refer you to my post #78, above......

AS a response.......

I understand where you are coming from. I do. Or, rather, I understand WHY you think that way. The fundie repuke radical right has decided how the game is going to be played. We don't have to play their game. It's almost as if we have accept that THEY are more powerful than us and THEY will tell us how we can win and we have to engage in their tactics to keep up. Doesn't that make us followers?

Now, if you LIKE engaging the political world in this manner (which I consider ruthless - sorry!), then you do. And I say...go for it. But I hope very much that the democratic party will define for itself how we want to play the game.

Don't we want to live in a world where people can be kind to each other? I do. And to do that, we have to simply be kinder to each other.....in all aspects of our lives: on the bus, on the debate stage, at work, at home, in the grocery store.

[Generic Other]

84. Gore already tried being the good guy

And what happened? They made mincemeat of him. Stole his victory and made him thank them for doing so. I aint going to kiss no body's ass in 2004 not even a fellow donkey, my friend. Better put me on ignore too.

Because I intend to be the ugliest, dirtiest, nastiest liberal you ever met which means I'll have to really work to be half as mean as your average Repug. Any Democratic candidate who wants to ride Bush's coattails better be prepared to be kicked in the ass by yours truly.