Let the shit stirrers sink!

[Nia Zuri]

Seriously, don't feed the monster. The only way to stop these provocateurs and general shit stirrers is to just let them sink. I'm starting to believe that there is a real disruptive element and intent happening here. I do believe that there are folks ready to pounce on any and every move Obama takes. I'm not sure whether it is by design, but I'm just not feeling it. As I said in another post, I'm fixin' to dust off my ignore list.

[JuniperLea]

1. I choose not to use ignore...

But I'm hiding a lot of threads:)

[alwysdrunk]

29. Yeah me too

I don't believe in ignore or hide thread though. You can't cocoon yourself in what's comfortable for you and expect to learn anything.

[Yes We Did]

83. I tried that...

But there are too many arguments breaking into other threads.

[firedupdem]

2. yep...I know what you mean....they see what they perceive to be

a crack in the ranks and they want to make a pot hole! I saw it clearly...I'm stepping away from the computer for a bit!

[Bluebear]

3. What big list of moves that Obama 'takes' is being criticized?

[Shiver]

7. A lot of people call it 'The Cabinet'

:shrug:

[NWHarkness]

4. Maybe we could demand everyone take loyalty oaths

Or we could have a new self criticism board, where people can confess any time they commit the error of disagreeing with the President.

[Cha]

17. Or maybe some posters could just reread

the rules.

<snips>

3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

4. Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.

<snip>

"Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.

Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

[NWHarkness]

21. You can't do that?

You're not allowed to call other posters "a cancer" or "disease"?

You can't call them "shit stirrers" or accuse them of being secret undercover freepers?

Who woulda thunk it!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

106. It's obviously news to some

[JohnnyLib2]

5. Thank you for your concern.

[KittyWampus]

6. I searched the pre-November 4th archives for Propositon 8 threads-

most of them had an average of about maybe seven replies and then sank like a stone.

Funny thing, pretty much NONE of the 'shit-stirrers' had posted in any of those threads.

You'd think if they were such ardent advocates for Civil Rights, they'd have been all over those threads.

[27inCali]

9. Bingo

I live in San Francisco and experienced the same question coming into my head:

How come all the massive demonstrations in the streets happened after Nov. 4th as opposed to before?

The sad truth is, the No on Prop. 8 movement was weak.

I was living in the Central Valley of CA i.e. more center-right area of CA during the Summer and there was virtually no attempt to pick up votes out there even though the area has been moving to the left for years and might have helped close that 4% gap.

I'm wondering if some of the shit-stirrers are long term Freeper-Sleeper cells set up to divide us just at the moment we should be uniting to help Obama push a Progressive agenda.

[NWHarkness]

23. Come on, think about that for a minute

Freepers might sneak in here and pretend to be Democrats, but they'd die of the heebie jeebies if they tried to pretend they were gay.:think:

[stillcool]

10. That's interesting..

I do remember the sounding of the alarm bells that Prop 8 had a good/likely chance of passing, but that was like a tree falling in the forest compared to the cacophony that has gone on since Mr. Warren entered my consciousness. I don't know why the Mormon Church doesn't take any heat, as I thought the Church was the major funding and power source for the proposition. Once again I was misinformed.

[littlebit]

64. Thank you

I tried to point that out last week. But I was a little crude with the way I went about it and offended more than a few.

[bvar22]

73. Bullshit.

We ALL (the Democratic Wing of the Party) agreed to hold our tongues until after the election.
None of us are under the delusion the Obama is a Liberal, and it is up to us to make our voices heard over the voices of Big Money Centrists.
The easy part was getting Obama elected.
The hard part began on Nov 5th.

If you think it is bad NOW, wait until Obama tries to escalate the War in Afghanistan or INCREASE the Defense Budget.

[Number23]

114. Interesting

We ALL (the Democratic Wing of the Party) agreed to hold our tongues until after the election.

I totally missed that. Almost every day I saw Democrats or "Democrats" openly questioning Obama. Anyone heard from Lady de Rothschild lately??

If you think it is bad NOW, wait until Obama tries to escalate the War in Afghanistan or INCREASE the Defense Budget.

I think you're right and he'll have a hard time with the budget. But I don't think that many will protest his decision to increase efforts in Afghanistan. Many think if we had done that 7 years ago and never gone into Iraq, that much of the "simmering" currently happening in the Middle East may never have happened.

[TheBigotBasher]

118. I totally missed that. Almost every day I saw Democrats or "Democrats" openly questioning Obama. Any

While she was happily funding various "Just say No Deal" Bigot groups, her magazine, was busy promoting Obama. On the week before election The Economist endorsed Obama.

[Number23]

113. How interesting.

Funny thing, pretty much NONE of the 'shit-stirrers' had posted in any of those threads.

That does not make a lick of sense. Not ONE bit. Perhaps the "shit-stirrers" as you call them (I call them the Batshit Banshees and all 7 of them have made their presences painfully known to us all by now) were not members of DU then??? :shrug:

[Divine Discontent]

172. PROP 8 supporters were on city street corners CONSTANTLY in my city

kinda hard to post when you're actively speaking out in person getting screamed at that God hates fags after you get off work and our beat tired. Literally hundreds of people a day standing and carrying signs and chanting. But don't let that allow you from accusing DUers from not being active instead of only posting hundreds of comments a night like some do (and the ones I'm seeing that from are shit stirrers yelling at people for being pissed off about the bigoted, sexist, homophobe Warren.)

[starroute]

8. I agree -- just said as much on another thread

The problem at the current moment, though, is that it's harder to tell the shit stirrers from the people who are legitimately concerned than it would be when the issues are less personal and more purely political.

But the provocateurs are definitely out in force -- there's that electric crackle in the air, like before an approaching thunderstorm.

[Balderdash]

11. Where are the names on the "shit stirrer" list?

Are they anyone who is upset over Obama choosing Warren for the invocation
or are they anyone who doesn't walk in lockstep. Who the fuck made you the
keeper of the "list"?

Democrats unlike Republicans and freepers can disagree and continue on. I
think I will start a list of assholes who make ridiculous lists.

[NWHarkness]

25. "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names...." n/t

[grantcart]

165. thank you Senator McCarthy

[bahrbearian]

12. Or you could just "ride rough shod over".

[Two Americas]

13. who would that be?

Do you mean those posting over and over again and repeating the same talking points - telling us to get over it, condescendingly saying we are going about things the wrong way, that we are consumed by anger, that we are disloyal, that we are hurting the grand cause, that we have secret agendas, that we are making too much of the Warren issue?

Are those the "shit stirrers" we should ignore and not take seriously?

[Nia Zuri]

18. Honestly, it's very hard to tell and I don't have such a list; but it has become

obvious that there is something going on. What is up with repeating negative post after post, attacking fellow DUers and spouting off this intensive anger when DUer supports gay rights by definition, preaching to the choir posts. Why do that here? e.g. "We're here we're queer, get used to it!!!" ? I mean WTF? that's like 8th grade shit.

[Bluebear]

20. I mean WTF? Why does "we're here we're queer" irritate you so much?

You've been obsessing about that one thread for two hours now.

[Nia Zuri]

24. It irritated me because it seemed to mock us. I mean what DUer or

reasonably progressive person would have an issue with anyone being gay? I think we are really the wrong audience for a post like that, at least I like to think so. It just seemed misplaced and fakey.

[Bluebear]

26. There are plenty & I mean plenty people who have issues with gay folk here.

Sad but true, scard.

[NWHarkness]

30. I can understand that some people don't see it

It would be nice if they'd give a little respect to those who do.

[Vanje]

58. That post wasnt about you at all. Not one bit.

"We are here.
We are queer...."


Its not always about you.

[Two Americas]

71. wrong audience

Wrong audience, wrong method, wrong message, wrong rhetoric, wrong time, wrong style, wrong wrong wrong.

[Two Americas]

66. hmmm

So some people, you are not sure who, are doing something that is really bothering you, but you are not sure what.

When I saw "We're here we're queer, get used to it!!!" I responded "right there with you and not budging."

Where is the controversy? What is the problem?

[noamnety]

169. ya think?

"it has become obvious that there is something going on."

:)

[awoke_in_2003]

181. A regular Nostradamus...

that one is :)

[Starry Messenger]

14. There are Cylons among us!!11

Personally, I like the Wikipedia idea of "assume good faith". Mind reading the Internet rarely goes well.

[NWHarkness]

28. Ooooooo, can I be a Number 6? n/t

[Starry Messenger]

32. I would pick being Sharon, but I can see how Number 6 would be fun, too.

:)

[The Doctor.]

50. UberDorks!

(actually, I regret that I never gave myself the opportunity to get into the new series)

[NWHarkness]

53. You really ought to

I read an article recently that chose it as the best cultural artifact to illustrate the feeling of life in the Bush era.

[Starry Messenger]

55. UberDorks=UD

Opposite of DU...hmm, sounds suspicious.

:hi: I actually just started watching it on DVD last month. I'm really enjoying it!

[The Doctor.]

60. Then UDs would love

the new "Dr. Who" episodes.

There are a number of series that one day, I will buy as whole sets and watch from start to finish. BG is near the top of the list.

[Starry Messenger]

69. I echo what NWHarkness says above.

The stories really evoke what it has felt like to live under the Bush administration. It's been very cathartic. I think you will enjoy it.

I REALLY need to get into Dr. Who one of these days! The fact I've never seen it is a big hole in my UD cred.

[Nia Zuri]

15. There's a thread going now, "we're here we're queer, get used to it...circa

80's almost sounds like a parody of a gay rights advocate. It just seemed outright silly in a place like DU. The same person posted something like "we will over come.." a take off of the circa 60s ciliv rights anthem, which I commented on. It is starting to appear to mr that these p posts don't have the ring of authenticity; almost like someone's ida of what an angry GBLT poster would say. ..someone intent on fostering disunity. I really hate what's happening.

[Vanje]

61. You got one thing right.

I'm th OP of those posts,and I am angry

[LostinVA]

103. Yes, Sheeptramp is known as a disruptive element here on DU

Longtime poster, lowkey, posts alot in animal threads. A real shit-stirrer.

[awoke_in_2003]

183. Oh yeah, i remember that thread...

where you said the OP was being disrespectful to the Civil Rights movement by (accidentally) using the word "will" instead of "shall". Damn, can't those gays get anything right :sarcasm:

on edit: I could only read half your post the first time, but just re-read and saw the second half. Are you insinuating that the people you are addressing are not really GBL or T? From that post: "almost like someone's ida(sic) of what an angry GBLT poster would say". So, are you saying they are pretending to be angry gay people?

[tkmorris]

16. One person's genius is another's shit stirrer

It's all in perspective. For example, in another thread today you jumped on the OP for saying "We will overcome someday" instead of "we shall overcome someday". See, I thought that was kinda nasty and uncalled for.

I agree with your idea, but I think we need to remember that it requires that WE need to be kinder to those we disagree with, whoever they might be. Not everyone you disagree with is a troll ya know.

[Nia Zuri]

19. That is true, and maybe I was a little nasty, but something about that post

rubbed me the wrong way, it didn't seem real. While I agreed with the sentiment, something about it seemed a bit sanctimonious and artificial which is why I jumped on it.

[Vanje]

63. The posts were civil rights slogans

Sorry that you didnt like them

[LostinVA]

104. What's wrong with civil rights slogans from the 60s's?

Posted by a NON DISRUPTIVE DYer who is old enough to remember those slogans?

[tomp]

122. so, you're allowed to "jump" on a thread when YOU think it's...

..."a bit sanctimonious and artificial", but others are to be taken to task when they act similarly?

project much?

[awoke_in_2003]

184. What doesn't seem real...

is how certain posters keep popping into threads they claim they cannot stand, to post comments to people who are expressing their opinion on an important civil rights issue.

[ZombieHorde]

22. Are you the shit that is being stirred? I don't get the reference.

[Nia Zuri]

27. Divide and conquer, weaken the president elect from the start

that sort of thing. You know de divisive. We've seen this before....

[NWHarkness]

31. Did gays make a decision that offended Obama?

Or did Obama make a decision that offended gays?

[Nia Zuri]

33. Of course not, but there is something called proportional response..

Obama made a mistake, which is now being exploited, by some at least.

[NWHarkness]

35. Can't you see what's happening?

Comments like that make the GLBT posters and their supporters feel like their concerns are at best, being dismissed, and at worst, indicative of treasonous intent. And we respond fiercely, setting off another round of STFU posts.

What does it cost anyone to assume our sincerity? If we are sincere, you will have demonstrated the attitude of a true friend and ally. If it turns out we are agents of some insidious plot, I am sure that President Obama's political skills will allow him to survive the onslaught of a few dozen phony queers on an internet message board.

[Nia Zuri]

40. Of course you have a point; it is just hard for me to see the venom and anger

that is being directed to members of this forum. Though I'm totally pro gay rights, I didn't initially see anything wrong with Obama's choice of Warren, (the reaching out to Evangelicals argument, etc). I have come to change my position on this and now believe it was a major mistake on Obama's part; I have witnessed the hurt feelings of the gay community here and I get that this is a major slap in the face. But what has gone on here does seems over the top and I can't get beyond that. This is a three minute speech we're talking about, not policy. The man is not even in office yet. Perhaps my position on that will evolve as well. For now, I think the response is disproportionate and it makes me suspicious. The fact that there are those intent on keeping this going makes me suspicious.

[NWHarkness]

But who is keeping it going?

In my opinion, the continuation of the discussion, and the intensity of it, is being driven not y angry GLBT posters, but by the apparently endless flow of new threads that are, from the GLBT perspective, dismissive and condescending.

Every time someone says, in whatever manner, "get over it", the other side becomes that much more determined to make a loud, proud stand.

If you take a look at the number of Warren related threads over the last few days, I suspect you will see that those complaining about the attitude of the GLBT posters significantly outnumber those actually complaining about Obama's choice of Warren.

[Vanje]

67. I didnt start this thread. nt

[Two Americas]

90. not just Obama's decision or Warren

I think that the source of most of the ill will is the relentless barrage of "get over it" and "stop making a big deal about it" posts. That has escalated and escalated, with GLBTQ people and their allies now being accused of disloyalty, sabotaging the party, being consumed with hatred or anger, being outraged for the sake of being outraged, hurting the administration, while being subjected to personal attacks and insults and smears.

I have no doubt that hidden in the "get over it for the greater good" crowd are a handful of posters who are intentionally stirring this up. But the people in the big squishy wishy-washy "middle" are allowing themselves to be manipulated and deceived, and are being tricked into supporting a despicable and malicious campaign of lies and smears being waged against GLBTQ folks here. For some of us in the straight community, this has been a wake up call and now we are not going to go away, either, we are not going to go away or be silent.

I have not seen GLBTQ people and their allies stirring up trouble. I think that is a lie that has been aggressively and intentionally inserted into the discussions here, for the purpose of driving people into joining in on what can only be called gay bashing and homophobia. Why anyone here is having trouble seeing this, and is failing to take a stand against it, is a mystery to me. But as I say that now, I have to admit that I was slow to see it myself.

"Yelling" is what got through to me, what penetrated my thick skull, so I cannot agree with this idea that people should tone it down in order to win more converts to "their cause."

There are times when one does need to take a stand. There are times when the "middle" is not morally sound. There are times when we do need to choose sides, when the issue is "black and white." There should be hundreds of straights standing with the GLBTQ community and speaking out, rather than a mere handful.

There is no going back now. I will not move on, get over it, nor let it go, and I hope and believe that there will now be many, many more people who will; take a stand. I have seen first hand what I had only heard about before - the sleazy and dishonest way that the homophobia is slipped into the conversation, the way that GLBTQ people are isolated and marginalized and thrown to the wolves, the attempts to silence them and deny them their humanity. I can never "un-see" that, and having seen it I can never stay silent again.

Whatever the price is, the price that people fear they would have to pay for taking a stand here, it is a small sacrifice to make when compared to the persecution, ostracization, persecution, abuse and denial of equal rights that our GLBTQ brothers and sisters are enduring.

[AntiFascist]

158. Very well said and understanding !

It is because of posts like this that I keep from personally going nuclear.

[bvar22]

161. Bullseye!

:toast:

[racaulk]

126. *Who* started this thread again?

By starting a thread to complain about stirring shit, you are doing the same thing that you complain about.

[Bluebear]

166. .

[awoke_in_2003]

186. there ya go...

using common sense :)

[awoke_in_2003]

185. "Though I'm totally pro gay rights"

just as long as they STFU, right? :sarcasm:

[Vanje]

65. Your sense of proportion and mine clearly differ

We come from different places.
Two voices. Two opinions.
Why is one "shit-stirring"?

[ZombieHorde]

34. I do not believe posters are trying to divide the community.

I believe that some posters have had their feelings hurt, but don't feel comfortable enough to post that truth.

So, there is some lashing out.

In my opinion, some of the angry posters desire healing. At least that is how I interpret many of the 'divisive' posts.

[bluedawg12]

48. "The" President Elect is not weak, unlike some of his fragile supporters.

[donco6]

81. That's what you think this is about? Attacking Obama?

I gave the guy $2,000. I voted for him twice. I still hope he snaps out of it somehow. But the Warren decision stinks, continues to stink, will always stink, and I will *NEVER* shut up about it.

[IsItJustMe]

36. Good reminder. Thanks for the advise.

[IndianaJones]

37. the gays really bother some people, huh? nt.

[texastoast]

42. Just like us environmentalists

I'm MAD about the polar bears because Obama hasn't done ENOUGH!

[IndianaJones]

43. I don't think you give a crap about gays or polar bears. nt.

[texastoast]

45. You don't know crap n/t

[IndianaJones]

49. I know insensitive idiots that mock a groups quest for civil rights with bs about polar bears. nt.

[texastoast]

74. How wude! n/t

[donco6]

77. This is your equation?

More mockery? Great.

I'm a long-time member of the League of Conservation Voters, BTW. I honestly do care about polar bears. And I'm gay. And I care about that too. I'm a multi-tasking kinda guy.

[texastoast]

108. My point is

that nothing is perfect, especially at first. How do you think I feel about the promise of offshore drilling? I'M PISSED! And just resigned that Jesus H Christ I'll never get to rest. And you won't either. Not until you die. Jesus H Christ! The whole fucking human race is a primitive work in progress. Dammit I'm going to bed.:rant:

[awoke_in_2003]

187. Well, you have proven

that you aren't a repub, 'cause if you were you would have said "Jesus Hussein Christ" :)

[ruggerson]

38. Why don't you just arrest them?

[Nia Zuri]

41. See what I mean?

[bluedawg12]

47. "queer & obnoxious! " - scard. We see what you mean.

"queer & obnoxious! You really need to take that somewhere else." -scard

[Nia Zuri]

56. Ooooh you got me! Good sleuthing there!

you are taking me totally out of context and you know it; I was responding to the "We're queer, get used to it" post which I found pretty obnoxious and insulting and also a bit suspect.

[Lyric]

120. This entire thread is ten times as obnoxious as the other one.

At least "We're here, we're queer" is actually addressing a REAL issue with human rights value. What is the purpose of YOUR thread, other than to sulk, pout, and whine about the shit-stirring gays?

:eyes:

[Nia Zuri]

57. In fact this post was a follow up to that post. Nice try though.

[texastoast]

44. No, I won't

BUT I'M PISSED ABOUT THE POLAR BEARS! I truly expected EVERYTHING to go my way!

[JoFerret]

39. You might want

to add your own name. Just a thought.

[bluedawg12]

46. This IS shit stirring. Textbook.

[The Doctor.]

54. Meta-shit-stirring?

Would that be like "Stirring-shit-stirring", or "Shit-stirring-shit"?

Seems like this thread is "Stirring-shit-stirring-shit".

I think I'm dizzy.

[bluedawg12]

59. Epi-shit- stirring?

Or pan-shit-stirring? :evilgrin: Hmmm...cosmic?

[onefreespiritedchick]

51. It's at the point, I hardly come on here as of late

And, to think this was one of my fave sites...even if I did not post I would log in and read the threads religiously. Oh well.

[relayerbob]

91. Agreed

[Vanje]

52. Your ignore list

Better put me on it.

I'm very very disappointed and hurt by the choice of Rick Warren for inaugural invocation.
If hearing about it makes you uncomfortable, you'd best put me on your list. I'm not ready to sit quiet about it, hat in hand.

[bluedawg12]

62. We're here, we're queer - I guess she'll just have to deal.

[Critters2]

68. So now glbts and allies are "shit-stirrers" and "provocateurs".

Nice.

[bluedawg12]

70. Righto, like this post wasn't calling out "them"? Stirrrr.

:crazy:

[Nia Zuri]

75. Of course not, but there are those who are fanning the flames and having

fun doing it. I'm pretty convinced at this point. And I think there are some in this thread...We will see much more of this. This is going to be a real opening for the opposition. Just as the GOP had worked hard to win over Hispanics about 10 years ago. I think they are going to start going after wealthy gays, expanding the ranks of log cabin republicans, witness Bush's signing of the pension bill today. They have got to regain their footing somehow. Fracturing the progressive coalition is just the ticket. Does that sound totally crazy?

[Critters2]

88. Yeah. It does sound crazy.

But either way, remember. The ones "fracturing the progressive coalition" at this point are not Republicans. It's centrist Dems who invited Warren, who are throwing glbts and progressives under the bus. And it's only right that glbts and progressives speak out against it.

[NWHarkness]

93. Well, that's easily countered

If the GOP starts going after gay votes, the Dems can just go further to advance the cause of equality.

Problem solved.

[donco6]

79. Yep. That's what we've come to.

Thus it begins. Shut up or be kicked off the board.

[The Doctor.]

72. There's one interesting artifact of this issue...

It's opened the door, as the OP suggests, to those who love nothing more than to sow discord.

Right now, a person could join DU, claim that DUers are like Warren's or Palin's followers, and wind up with instant allies from a huge segment of DU while attacking the community as a whole... whether the charge has merit or not.

I'm not making this up;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=106934#106957

Do I or anyone else know for sure whether this person is genuine or just using the large opening they've found in the outrage? There really is no way to know right now.

"The Dark side clouds everything"

And that's where we are right now. Anyone can join DU right now, attack the community at large through this issue, and get away with it. It's like Christmas for some.

[bluedawg12]

76. Some come to pipe up with out even knowing anything about gay rights.

Guess they're earning their stripes like good foot soldiers.

[The Doctor.]

84. Could be.

I have faith that many of them can be sniffed out for just that reason. I also have little doubt that a few could get away with baiting the GLBT community by employing some clever version of the 'oh, just shut up and deal with it' meme. That's how I can understand the wariness of some... I know that the open door swings both ways.

... so to speak.

[bluedawg12]

86. I would think there would be three camps:

1.) Those for full gay civil rights and justice.

2.) Those who either fully or partially oppose gay civil rights and justice.

3.) Those who don't care one way or another and have no interest in discussing it.

I imagine group 1 & 2 to be debating, but, I am perplexed by the third group, who claims not to care and then posts about how annoying all of the discussion is because they don't care.

Geesh, if you don't care, then why care enough to post about how you don't care?

Maybe there is a fourth group:

4.) Grouchie people???

[The Doctor.]

100. Bhwhaahahahaaaa!!!!

"I am perplexed by the third group, who claims not to care and then posts about how annoying all of the discussion is because they don't care."

Yeah, that's something you'll see a lot of when people feel they want to be involved on one side of an issue while trying to appear 'objective'.

Honestly, I haven't seen much of group 2 about. They'd have to be pretty stealthy hereabouts. Those are the ones that I love to get ahold of in RL. So far not a one of those whom I've dealt with has walked away still believing that any harm can come from equal rights.

The fourth group? Well, if they aren't 99% of DU, then what the hell has been going on these past eight years?

[bluedawg12]

105. LMAO. Grouchy? DU? naw. Dems are just scrapy.

:rofl:

[martymar64]

177. I've been in the fifth group

I'm for full gay rights, but I haven't been interested in discussing it.

I see the Prop 8 / Rick Warren issue as a battle lost for gay rights. But I must add that the war is not lost and will indeed be won eventually.
I fully encourage my GLBT friends here to keep agitating for their rights, your fight is important and it will be won. Maybe not today or tomorrow, be your victory is assured.
Until now, I've been largely silent on this issue. Now that Obama has won, I've decided to concentrate and write on some of the issues that are most important to me, such as ending the war on marijuana users. To be honest, I don't know that much about the details of the fight for Gay Rights, but I'm assured that many here do, and I'll defer to them for their expertise and give them my support.
I've also refrained from speaking about it because I prefer not to alienate those on both sides of this argument that I agree with on other issues. I am also against the Warren invocation, I see it as much broader than his bigotry against gays, his other positions equally stink. It is people like him that give greater credence to my feelings as an atheist. I honestly don't know what Obama was thinking about on this one. Additionally, I'm not crazy about the bulk of his cabinet choices and his shutting out Howard Dean. But, that being said, I'm not going to turn off to him and his other positions forever. My support is not binary.
I do see him as much more labor friendly than any president we've had since FDR and one who is willing to take bold steps to attempt to set us to right as a nation. The stimulus package and his support of the worker sit-in in Chicago gives me much encouragement that real change is on the way. But I know that most change will not happen immediately, it will take several years for the effects to be felt. A ship the size of the USA needs a little time to turn around. But it is turning around and that is the one thing that all of us must remember and take heart in.

[awoke_in_2003]

188. Maybe one more group:

Those who never gave it much thought, but now that the issue has become so visible, agree that marriage is a civil right

[NWHarkness]

94. That could happen with any issue.

Should we respond to the possibility by respecting dissent or stifling it?

[The Doctor.]

96. It's about intelligence.

Invariably, the interlopers are clumsy. Eventually, the keen eye pierces the facade.

Rarely does an issue arise that opens the door to wholesale antagonism of DU. This one has.

[NWHarkness]

101. Unity will be harder now

In some ways victory is much harder to deal with than defeat. Obama is going to piss off everyone here, sooner or later, one way or another. There will be another issue after this one, whether it's the war or the economy, or whatever. Holding together a victorious coalition is much trickier than maintaining one when you can all focus on defeating a common enemy.

The costs of suspicion are greater then that of the damage that interlopers might do. For my part, I take people at face value unless I have overwhelming cause to do otherwise.

[The Doctor.]

111. It's one of the reasons I've come to respect liberals more than the modern 'conservatives'...

Individuality.

The 'face value' approach is one that I've embraced far more often than not. I will tend to give the BOTD as well. Knowing, however, that a given issue can be taken advantage of to sow discord does not by itself amount to damage. As I said, the trolls are clumsy for the most part... they will out themselves.

[shellgame26]

78. Yup, I kinda figured that out

when I started seeing posts that looked like a flashback from the primaries...some will never get over it!

[bvar22]

80. When you said "shit stirrers", I naturally assumed you meant....

...those people demanding Purity and Blind Faith Obedience to Democratic Party Royalty.
My bad.

I don't think you understand....
It is NOT about the personalities of the Party Establishment..
It IS about The Policy.

The Left (actually the American center) strongly BELIEVES in certain things.

1) We believe that it was WRONG to invade and occupy a country that did NOT threaten, and could NOT threaten us. We also believe that those representatives that had integrity OPPOSED the invasion.
Those that claim that "Bush fooled them" are either lying, or too stupid to be in government.
Some points are given to those who state that they made a bad decision.

Naturally, The Left is upset by a cabinet that contains NO ONE who was right about Iraq, but only those who were WRONG.


2)The Left is strongly PRO-LABOR, and feel that the Democratic Party abandoned Working Americans during the Reagan administration. The policies of "Free Trade", deregulation, and privatization of the CommonWealth have destroyed good American jobs and turned our workforce into a slave wagers.
We strongly feel that the policies of Reagan and Clinton tilted the Economic field strongly in favor of the Ownership Society while dismantling the safety nets of the bottom 50%.
Naturally, we are upset to see Obama surrounding himself with the very people who helped create this problem.

3) The Left strongly supports Civil Rights and Equal Protection for ALL Americans....no exceptions.
YOU may not think this is a big issue, but many of us do, and we are not going to bite our tongues just to make you fell all warm and fuzzy.

Most of us were aware that Obama is not a Liberal/Progressive, though he uses vague Progressive rhetoric and Progressive imagery in his speeches. His voting record since he obtained his seat in The Senate has been safe/center Right. This year, he voted FOR Telecom Immunity after promising not to do so. He also supported the $800 Billion no strings attached Bailout after promising to ensure that there were protections for Taxpayers.....There weren't.
I'm NOT OK with this, and will SPEAK OUT.

Obama did promise he would have an inclusive administration.
He has included the DLC and The Republicans in top positions, but those who speak for The Left are conspicuously absent.
I'm not OK with this, and will SPEAK OUT.

We (The Left) agreed to hold our tongues during the campaign, and work our butts off to get "a Democrat" elected, but after November 4th, all bets were off. If you think it is bad NOW, wait until the Centrist Democrats try to escalate the War in Afghanistan or INCREASE the Defense Budget.

I am a tireless advocate for PEACE.
I am a tireless advocate for Civil Rights and Equal Protections for ALL....no exceptions.
I am a tireless advocate for Working Americans.
I am a tireless opponent of the MIC.
I am a tireless opponent to the concentration of Wealth & Power into fewer hands.
I am a tireless opponent to Corporate/Republican Influence INSIDE the Democratic Party.

I've been here for a long time.
I am not going anywhere.
I am not going to be quiet.
I don't care if the Republicans/Bigots get their feeling hurt.


"Centrism !!"....for those who are proud to be "Half-Republican".


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[TheBigotBasher]

123. I could not have said it better

Democratic Underground should be where grass roots supporters push the administration in the right way and that does not mean any more towards the right.

[AntiFascist]

159. Very well said...

Obama may begin to drift further toward the Center and beyond unless we take a strong stand on progressive principles and make our voices heard. This is about much more than just Warren or LGBT issues.

[leftofthedial]

82. yeah! Anyone who disagrees with you is obviously a "shit stirrer" or a provacateur,

and should be ignored!

This country used to be a democracy. In a real democracy (you know, the kind that our party took is name from), EVERYONE is encouraged--maybe even has a responsibility--to pounce on every move a President makes.

When did you "centrist" loyalists become so Stalinist?

[Nia Zuri]

85. Oh my god, listen to you. DU has been a refuge for me for the past six

years. It really has allowed me to keep my sanity in the face of stolen elections and Bush et al, now I'm being called a Stalinist, centrist for suggesting that there are those out there who are making hay out of Obama's mistake. This is just sick. Is the intention to just drive the old line DUers away? This is just making me sick and very sad.

[leftofthedial]

87. I'm as "old-line" as any DUer.

I find fault with Obama's appointment after appointment after appointment of right-of-center "free market" ideologues and hawks. So when I speak up and question his commitment to change, that makes me a "provacateur" who is trying to drive old line DUers away?

I think there are certainly trolls here, who try to undermine morale among online Democrats, but not all criticism of Obama is undeserved. Not all of it comes from outside the fold.

[NWHarkness]

97. I've been here since Inauguration Day 2001

I am also a Democratic County chairman, and a member of my state committee.

I have attended more than a dozen state party conventions, I have volunteered for Democrats in every election since 1974 and have been on paid staff for John Kerry and Sander Levin.

I am getting pretty fucking tired of people insinuating that I am disloyal to the Democratic Party.

I will stack my bona fides against anyone here.

[Binka]

98. Oh Dear! Poor You! You Poor Thing!

Old line DUers are feeling your pain baby. REALLY. Poor thing. You must be so hurt.

[Vanje]

99. I am an old line DU-er nt

[donco6]

109. Old Line? You? GTFOH. n/t

[noamnety]

157. What would it take for DU/the democratic party

to be a refuge for the glbt community? Have you given that any thought?

[relayerbob]

89. The sad part is...

that the hatred / violence approach to change has never worked, but is still occurring. Ask the blacks who had to wait two generations for MLKs dream to really even get started (and has a very long way to go), or the Palestinians who are still waiting for theirs to start at all. Angry and belligerent responses evoke fear among the "masses", and not sympathy for the cause. In so doing, the people who are acting out now are actually delaying the very change that we need.

The really sad part is that the "monster" that you note is being fed by peple who, however well-intentioned, have still not learned the lessons of the past and continue to perpetuate the cycle of hatred and anger. "Those who have not learned from history are doomed to repeat it", indeed.

[noamnety]

95. Not a big student of history, are you?

Montgomery bus boycotts - began in Dec 1955. In 1956, the Supreme Court ruled that the racial segregation laws were unconstitutional.

Didn't solve all racism or racist laws. But it had a specific goal, and loud noisy protests were effective.

Furthermore, studies have shown that the more disruptive (I prefer that word to "violent") a protest is, the more likely it is that new laws will be enacted that favor the disruptive side's point of view. And the opposite is true - polite little nondisruptive attempts at reason by protestors have been shown in the long run to result in lawmakers enacting legislation that favors the other side.

[zeemike]

115. You are not much of a student ether.

The nonviolent protest led by MLK and the Student non violent coordinating comity were not loud noisy protest as you describe them
And they were very effective.
The example is the march across the Edmond Petite bridge in which the protesters did not act violent or disruptive but were met with police dogs and violence and not one responded in kind.
This was shown on TV and change the minds of more people than Stokely Carmichael ever did.
The sit ins and the freedom riders never once got loud or violent.
Perhaps you have only read some parts of history but those of us that live in that time know it.

[noamnety]

127. There's a reason I specifically used "disruptive" instead of violent.

I'm not sure why you are insisting on the word "Violent" and then telling us we are "doing it wrong" because we are being violent.

Is this your idea of violence - typing on a message board? (Or is it your idea of a strawman?)

[zeemike]

148. So you think verbal abuse is not violence?

Well I disagree.
And I think any woman that has a verbally abusive husband would agree with me.

And as to the none violent protest by MLK and SN CC there was no disruption on their part...they simply sat there at the lunch counter and waited for the abuse given by the racist and police.
And they were not disruptive in trying to cross the bridge on foot, they were just doing what they had a right to do.
And it really pisses me off to compare the civil rights movement of the 60s to the radicals that took over in the late 60s and got a Republican president elected...Nixon...by causing a backlash from the violence that came when anger took over, and disputed the work of nonviolent protest.

[noamnety]

153. So let me get this straight. (npi)

Calling someone who supports discrimination a bigot is "violence." And deliberate campaigns to keep the birmingham jails filled is not "disruptive."


When they walked across that bridge, yes, they had a right to do it, but you are grossly mischaracterizing it by claiming that "walking across a bridge" or sitting at a lunch counter wasn't done with the intent of being disruptive - being disruptive WAS the intent - to disrupt the status quo.

“This action may take on disruptive dimensions.” - MLK JR

" will have to come to terms with us, because the nation will not move....There will be no rest, there will be no tranquility in this country until the nation comes to terms with our problem." - MLK JR

Being disruptive is the ONLY way people have won rights in this country.

[zeemike]

162. You know that is what the bigots said about the protest.

That they were disruptive to society and that is how they justified police action against them.
And they used to say of the white people that came to the south to register voters and support the movement that they were "white agitators" trying to disrupt society that they claimed was pageful until they came.
There was nothing that they did that was disruptive or loud, it was just a charge against them to justify there own response to peacful protest. The disruption that came from those protests were not caused by the protesters...unless you consider non compliance with evil disruptive.
That is a distinction that I think you fail to see.

But here are a few other quotes that clarify it somewhat.

Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.

Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.

Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Bobbie Jo]

160. Protests/Disruption, Yes! Snarky/Mean-spirited Attacks, No. nt

[bluedawg12]

102. This is a discussion forum and people are discussing I see no "violence."

edit typo.

[NWHarkness]

107. MLK was not alone

There were plenty of others, like H Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael who took a more militant stand.

Truth be told, the Kings and the Ghandis are most successful when the establishment sees them as a more acceptable alternative than more radical possibilities.

[noamnety]

155. That's a valid point.

"the Kings and the Ghandis are most successful when the establishment sees them as a more acceptable alternative than more radical possibilities."

and it's pretty sad that people typing on a message board that bigots shouldn't give the invocation are considered "radical violent extremists" nowadays. How the hell do you compromise down from that? Align yourselves with the people who make a slightly distasteful face?

[U4ikLefty]

174. Oh crap, I just realized that I'm a "radical violent extremist" as well

How did this happen?

[gate of the sun]

92. unless you are a democratic sheeple

obama deserves every scrutiny any candadite has..........it's not democtrat for me rah rah it's an even look at all the issues and choices involved he's not my god he's my hopeful. It's up to us to hold all this with the best integrity we can hope for. This isin't party line this is truth and hope on the line here and any silly party looking away is a travesty to truth. I hope for the best but i won't be looking away.

[cliffordu]

110. yep. K&R

[NYC_SKP]

112. K & R. Nothing to add.

:toast:

[AntiFascist]

116. Great example of a shit stirring post n/t

[Maven]

117. The shit-stirrer is you

OMG WHY CAN'T PEOPLE WHOSE ISSUES I DON'T CARE ABOUT BE QUIET OMG OMG

[polichick]

129. No kidding - wah, wah, wah!

[meegbear]

119. Put me on Ignore then

[cboy4]

121. Let it sink! ... I wonder where I've heard that before.

The primaries maybe?

Obama apologists can be entertaining.

[CakeGrrl]

124. Where are you seeing Obama "apologism"?

I didn't see the OP making excuses for Obama. They were calling out people who are trying to capitalize on the Warren anger by helping focus it on Obama.

Someone accused Obama of going to Hawaii, where he just laid his grandmother's ashes to rest, of HIDING in shame from the Warren decision.

Someone else opened up a thread inviting people to wonder whether Hillary should have been nominated instead now that the Warren invitation has happened.

There are posters out there who have literally posted "We tried to warn you" about Obama, basically hovering over him waiting for him to mess something up to start bashing him.

Maybe I'm making these points in vain; if you're so quick to label Obama "apologists", maybe you're on board with all the ideas I just mentioned. But it's one thing not to like the Warren invitation; it's another to use it as an excuse to let loose with some leftover anger over the primaries. People ARE trying to capitalize on it.

[Zuiderelle]

131. People are "capitalizing" on the Warren anger?

Damn, I think I missed out on an opportunity somewhere. Is someone taking bets on how many posts are made about Warren here and collecting a bundle? Damn. That would be nice.

[CakeGrrl]

167. .

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalize

Apologies if I took the air out of a witticism. ;-)

[cboy4]

146. Obama apologists began jumping out of the wood work

well before the Warren mistake.

And I'll stand behind my contention about the many disturbing number of Obama apoligists who cannot allow themselves to admit Obama makes errors.

[Tarheel_Dem]

168. Wow. Way to make the o.p.'s point. We know where you stand from

the primaries. Not over it yet? Despite your best efforts, we elected him anyway. That must really be chafing to you, right?

I noticed one of your compadres from the primaries, boasting the other day that he only had a donor star because someone gifted it to him. He seemed really proud that he could use as much bandwidth as he pleased, on someone else's dime. He, like many others, stormed off during the primaries because DU was deemed insufficiently "pro-Hillary". Now they're back to tell us all how we made a huge mistake by nominating Obama. Any port in a storm, huh?

[cboy4]

170. Tactic number 3 of an Obama apologist

Insinuate folks not being "over it," (the primaries), while also insinuating there's no possible way in hell anyone who didn't support Obama in the primaries could possibly have voted for him in November ... even though most of us, including myself did.

CHECK!

[cboy4]

171. Second of all, many of the Hillary supporters did not storm off.

They were bullied and ganged up on by an overwhelming margin of Obama fans who shit their drawers over the fact everyone at DU was not supporting Obama in the primaries.

I don't blame the people who fled from such abuse, and the coordinated effort to have Hillary supporters TS'd by flaming their threads and posts.

We all know that happened.

The truth is myself, and just about everyone else, I'm confident, in Hillary's court, voted for Obama, as we said we would.

But that's not important to the Obama apologists who just want to keep stirring the pot, and refuse to admit that Obama is capable of making a single mistake.

Oh no, Warren can't be a mistake....it has to be leftover primary hard feelings. :eyes:

You're little story about my, ummm, "compadre" and a star is a ridiculous waste of time, and completely off topic..

P.S. Lemme know if you want me to list tactic numbers 1,2, 4 and 5 of Obama apologists.


ON EDIT.... TYPOS

[Tarheel_Dem]

189. My only point is that they should have stayed gone if they were treated

so unfairly. I don't feel I made a mistake, and I wouldn't take back my support of Obama for anything in the world. I just find it insulting that former Hillary supporters have returned enmasse to say 'I told you so', while bragging about their lack of financial support for this forum.

Let's just say that Skinner is a lot more patient than I am. And for the record, I don't consider myself an Obama apologist, but I can spot a bitter Hillary loyalist from a mile away.

[shellgame26]

175. BINGO

[RichGirl]

125. I'm with you.

I listened, I tried to understand...but got nothing in return.

I'm done listening, will not click on repetitive posts that amount to nothing more than endless negativity and complaining.

[Heidi]

128. Oh, the irony. (nt)

[NJmaverick]

130. This debate has played out, nothing is being accomplished

by responding.

[Zuiderelle]

132. LOL!!!!

Then why respond?

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

133. Still showing everyone how you want your feelings respected?

or are we only supposed to respect YOUR feelings, while make your best, if ineffective, attempts to try and hurt others?

[Zuiderelle]

135. Who am I hurting by laughing at the irony of you responding to a post by saying "don't respond?"

I don't give a crap if you respect my feelings. You've made it pretty clear that you don't respect many people at all.

[NJmaverick]

136. Only hurting yourself, as you put your blatant hypocrisy on display

you offer up lame attempts to hurt others, while throwing hissy fits about how people are not respecting you. I guess people are growing weary of your act though, as the idea of letting you sink, seems to be quite popular.

[Zuiderelle]

138. LOL

You need one of these apparently... :hug:

[NJmaverick]

139. Well what I really need is for all DUers to practice what they preach

if you want people to respect your feelings, you need to start treating others with respect. Until that happens, all you are going to accomplish is stirring of the excrement.

Still I appreciate the gesture, it's definately a step in the right direction.

:hug:

[Zuiderelle]

140. We should all learn respect and to not condescend. That would be a good step too.

[NJmaverick]

144. I agree, and don't you find comments with this underlying message the worse offenders?

"You can't speak on this issue or you opinion isn't valid, because you don't belong to the (fill in the black) subgrouping". That subgrouping can be a gender, race, sexual orientation, age group and so on.

[Zuiderelle]

147. Yes, and thankfully I haven't seen any GLBT people doing that.

What I have seen are GLBT people trying to explain to straight people how important gay rights are, and the response lately has been sometimes dismissive, condescending, and often hateful.

It's shameful really.

[marimour]

150. well consider yourself lucky

I have seen this said explicitly. And i have also seen certain straight people ridiculed for posting in the GBLT forum.

[Zuiderelle]

152. I don't feel so lucky...

given the straight people I've seen posting in the GLBT forum being completely patronizing and dismissive of our concerns... THERE... of all places. Unbelievable really.

[NJmaverick]

154. I think we would all be better off if there wasn't labels like "straight" or "gay"

applied to DUers. In the end it's about who we are as humans.

[NJmaverick]

156. You seem to think in those sub-grouping terms

the "GLBT" people? Nothing good comes from identity politics. It's time to lose the labels.

[noamnety]

163. lol

An entire segment of the population has lost a significant portion of their rights BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY. Please don't lecture them they you are behind them 100% in their fight to regain those rights - but oh, btw, they have to do it without ever using the word gay or lesbian because you find their self-labeling offensive.

If an oppressed group is fighting for their equal rights which are being denied BECAUSE OF THEIR IDENTITY - guess what? They are likely going to identify themselves as members of that oppressed group.

[Zuiderelle]

164. I suppose having equal rights would be a good start to losing the "labels"

:eyes:

[shellgame26]

176. oh you are so angry

[Zuiderelle]

182. I know! Right? LOL

:rofl:

[complain jane]

134. The gays upset that Obama is endorsing one of the biggest supporters of Prop 8 are 'shit stirrers'?

So very sorry for all the inconvenience of having to tolerate our outrage at being thrown under the bus yet again.

Somehow maybe you'll find it in your hearts to forgive us.

:sarcasm:

:eyes:

[NJmaverick]

137. Being upset is understandable. However blindly lashing out at the wrong people

is neither understandable or acceptable.

[complain jane]

141. Who are the wrong people being lashed out at?

Obama's made the offensive choice of endorsing this pastor who equates being gay with pedophilia and incest and who endorsed Prop. 8 and swayed others to vote for it based, in part, on lies and fear-mongering.

Warren's responsible for his actions.

Posters here who want the members of DU who are confused, horrified and angry about this to shut up and get over it are responsible for their demeaning and offensive behavior as well.

I'm thoroughly disgusted with all of the above.

[NJmaverick]

143. Obama and fellow DUers are the wrong people

Frankly I am not sure lashing is the best response, as anger is rarely a good mentor. Still if you feel the need, the people who were behind prop 8 and ilk, would be a good direction. Also those minsters that make issues like gays and abortion their biggest priority would be another. Over all though, anger and hate begets more anger and hate. Trying to engage people in dialog, educating the public in a reasoned manner, they have proven to be far more effective tactics.

[Renew Deal]

142. Most of the people complaining about Warren are known, serious DUers

A few are either not known or not serious, but the main complainers are. So you should be careful who you call a disruptor.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PeaceNikki]

149. I agree.

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[99th_Monkey]

173. So is it "sink" or "stink"? Tell me true.

I get so confused sometimes here at DU.

[mkultra]

178. Its the PUMA revenge as promised

they told us that we would be sorry if we didnt elect her. Now they are extracting their punishment.


How well does the problem starter list match up to the pre-primary PUMA list.

[Mass]

179. Thanks reminding me to update my ignore list. Done right now.

[treestar]

180. Good idea

Imagine we just got a Dem President and a Dem congress and DU of all places is full of threads against them!