Just for Honesty's Sake,

[Totally Committed]

Currently on Page one of this forum:

Kerry: Major Package of Legislation to Help those devastated by Katrina

Senator Kerry's office just called me! Someone is listening!!!

The Kerry White House

I Like Both Kerry and Edwards but

So, do you think John Kerry or John Edwards will Rise UP

Listing them here is in no way a criticism, or a complaint, just a way of keeping us all honest.

Next time there is an outcry over two or three Clark threads going at one time, I hope you will all be generous enough of spirit to remember the days, like today, when there were multiple threads for other candidates going at the same time.

We are all equally proud of our candidates of choice.

TC

[Totally Committed]

1. Just added to these:

had a scary discussion with a Dem who voted against Kerry for Bush ....

And, repeat for emphasis: We are all equally proud of our candidates of choice.

TC

[NVMojo]

2. I read you loud and clear and haven't had an issue with too many

Clark posts!

Peace!

[Crunchy Frog]

3. Has somebody been bitching, yet again, about the existance of

*horror of horrors* Clark threads?:eyes:

People need to back off the hypersensitivity. At a time like this, aren't there more important things out there to focus attention on?:shrug:

[Totally Committed]

4. Nah...

just saying.

The number of Kerry posts yesterday caught my eye, and I remembered the last couple of times there was more than one Clark thread going on Page one that there were a few who had a problem with that.

I don't enjoy being called a "Wes Clark butt-kissing...." whatever we were called while the TPM posts were ongoing. I don't see anyone from the Kerry camp being labelled with fanatical epithets for their enthusiasm for their candidate, so maybe we are turning a corner here at DU?

I'd like that.

TC

[Crunchy Frog]

5. Yeah, I would definitely like to see the level of tolerance increase

here. I've never had a word to say against other people posting threads about their favorite Democrat, even when the place has been inundated with threads about one person or another. If it upsets me that much, I can always use the ignore thread feature.

There are multiple threads about anyone when they are currently in the news alot, or have been speaking or doing things of interest. It's only with Wes Clark that the ordinary response is elevated into some sort of sinister conspiracy by a few people on this board who like to push that meme.

I guess there's no arguing with fanatical hatred.:shrug:

[JNelson6563]

6. "I guess there's no arguing with fanatical hatred"

Indulge in outrageous hyperbole much? :crazy:

[Totally Committed]

7. I can't read crunchy's mind, but...

I think that was meant to be "over the top"?

Just a guess, but knowing her as I do, I can vouch for her levelheadedness. :)

TC

[Crunchy Frog]

8. Sorry Julie, I guess you may not have seen it. I have.

It's not intended as hyperbole, just an observation, and it applies to anybody who hates another Democrat so much that they stalk threads about that Democrat and start flamewars wherever possible, come up with wild conspiracy theories to explain more than one thread about a given Democrat on the GDP page at any given time, and come up with far more sinister conspiracy theories than that. Many Democrats and their supporters on these boards are subjected to that kind of behavior. I see Kerry threads getting invaded by haters and turned into flame wars all the time. If you haven't seen it, I'm sure that it's because you're too busy in the "real word".

If you don't think there is fanatical hatred existing on this board, then maybe you read a different one than I do. I have long since decided that it is pointless to try to argue with it.

And frankly, your use of the term "outrageous hyperbole" is very much an example in its own right of outrageous hyperbole. However, I guess the use of that term is an effective way of discrediting any argument or opinion without having to actually engage in any substantive debate. I will have to remember that tactic next time I come accross something that I disagree with.

Interesting how you seem to be drawn to these particular kinds of threads, when they apply to Clark, but not when they apply to anybody else as nearly as I can tell. :shrug:

[Clark2008]

9. Well, I'd say, that the poster who started this discussion

is, in fact, one of those who has said "fanatical hatred."

I get the OPs point, too, Crunchy and completely agree with what you said above.

I, personally, bite my typing fingers to keep from bad-mouthing a certain former senator and VP candidate who gets posted about on this board fairly frequently for the sake of unity. I don't like him, don't think he has a chance in hell, but I don't go into every thread about him and start a flame war. I wish others who stalk the Clark threads to post "outrageous hyperbole" would do the same.

[Crunchy Frog]

12. Agreed.

I have plenty of Democratic politicians that I have to bite my fingers in order to keep my posting civil. No matter how I feel about someone, I recongnize the pointlessness of engaging in that sort of behavior as well as its downright rudeness.

Even if I despise someone, I can recognize and respect that many good people feel differently than I do. I try to follow the golden rule on that one.

It will be interesting to see which conspiracy theories make there way to this very thread.

Frankly, I don't care at this point. I'm far more worried about the current disaster to waste time worrying about people who enjoy message board pissing matches. I'm inclined to just leave them to their pissing with no further engagement from me.

[sendero]

10. How about folks who..

.... believe in accountability from and decry spin from, Dems?

Because if you're going to claim to be the party of honesty and integrity, don't have have to hold your own leaders accountable?

Are we just "fringe haters"? Or people who want better leaders?

[Clark2008]

11. I don't think she was addressing that.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with holding your leaders accountable. She was just talking about those posters who fly into every thread, specifically about Clark, just to disrupt the topic by posting outrageous falsities that have been debunked a zillion times.

[Totally Committed]

18. There is that , too...

that is disappointing and aggravating. But, basically, I just wanted to set the record straight.

Like Crunchy and Clark2008, I support Clark and would like to do so without nasty epithets and nasty implications. The truth about Clark is constantly being told. Those that choose not to hear it by now, probably never will.

That's a shame.

But, my OP was about the dignity factor of being able to post in support of a candidate on more than one thread without necessarily being called names for it.

TC

[Crunchy Frog]

13. I have no disagreements with anything in your post.

I believe in demanding accountability from all our leaders. I am extremely critical of many people in our party and I do not consider those who want honesty and integrity and accountability to be "fring haters" since I am one of them myself.

My objection is to those on this board who fixate on a particular Democratic, or even supporters of that Democrat, and then invade every single thread they can find in order to attack that person and his/her supporters until the thread degenerates into a flamewar. Also, people who deliberately post falshoods, and who accuse those who post positive threads about that political figure of engaging in some sort of conspiracy.

I've been accused of being part of a conspiracy, just because I posted that I liked Wes Clarks hair in a thread about politician's hair. That's not about honesty, integrity, or accountability. IMO, that really is about irrational hatred. I would say the same thing even if it was a Lieberman supporter being attacked in that fashion.

Hope that clarifies my position.

[Totally Committed]

19. Crunchy,

I remember the "conspiracy" thing.... It is a prime example of what I am writing about. :hug:

TC

[JNelson6563]

14. I've seen plenty, don't waste the time now

Old shit flows like a river through DU. There are certain Dems who seem to draw fire like shit draws flies. Kerry for instance. He was so disappointing to so many who worked their guts out for him that there's still a lot of anger. Some Kerry supporters see any criticism as "fanatical hatred" and the same holds true for some supporters of anyone.

I should think those calling for honesty in dialogue would be the last to subscribe to hyperbole of any kind. Otherwise the dialogue is as honest as Faux News is fair and balance.

I was simply struck by the irony of the thread topic and your choice of hyperbolic and counter-productive words. Sorry to see it has brought out "stalker" insinutations in this thread. Sad.

Julie

[blm]

15. Two of those are antiKerry threads. Personally, I love ALL positive Clark

threads, Gore threads, Dean threads, Edwards threads.....etcetera.

I think we have great Dems who are workhorses, not showhorses, and I appreciate their efforts to achieve a better governance for this nation, even when their methods are not apparent or apllauded publicly.

[Totally Committed]

17. What a great post!

Thank you, blm. That was very classy.

As I said, they could have been anti-Kerry threads, but no one was calling the Kerry supporters names for posting so assiduously about their guy. That was my point. Clarkies are often singled out and called names or ridiculed for their support of Wes when there are multiple threads going at once.

I agree that we have some great Dems.

Thanks again for the post.

TC

[Totally Committed]

16. My OP was a response to more than a half dozen threads on the first page

of GDP about one candidate. Period.

Last week, when General Clark was particularly active at TPM Table for One, there were several threads about things he'd written there going at once. Several posters showed up to piss and moan about the number of Clark threads and one referred to us as ass-kissing or ass-something somethings (don't remember the phrase, but remember the hurt and anger I felt.) The implication was not nice, and in light of yesterday's array of threads about one candidate, more than unfair. I just wanted to point out the inequity of the situation and express the desire and hope that this would be duly noted and things would change.

There is one thing about me: I am not subtle. I have no patience for it and have no talent for it. I say what I mean and mean what I say. No one should look at what I write for hidden meanings or underhanded motives. I believe in honesty and see no point in obfiscation when I am posting here or blogging elsewhere. It has not always endeared me to the people I post or blog with, but, like I said. I say what I mean and mean what I say.

Yes, there are those posters who show up on every single Clark thread, and no matter how many time the lies they post have been rebutted, they keep spamming the threads with the same untruths over and over. I will take them on when that happens, but that's not what I was talking about here.

I was talking about an equity, a spirit of fainress, and a hope that we can all agree to disagree, and still acknowledge that those who support one candidate over another should be allowed to do so without being called names, or being belittled, because there are obviously some candidate supporters who are allowed that pleasure here. I was simply pointing that out.

TC