Can we get back to being normal please?

[ScreamingMeemie]

Please. Can we criticize our leaders? Can we find faults with policy here without being told to shut up and sit down?
Can we have our own opinions? Must we just accept it because we're supposed to blindly trust and follow? I'm sorry. In that case, I'm out. I don't want to act like a Republican. I don't want to raise Democratic leaders up as some sort of exhalted idol, and my friends that is what is going on here. I'm still all for holding feet to the fire and demanding honest answers and real action. No more. No more. No more.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Maybe if Bush hadn't had two terms, maybe if there had only been four years of Bush...

people could trust our current president more and not feel:

A. that whatever he does that isn't perfect is evil (because that WAS the case for so long).

and B. that when asked to calm down and give it time, detractors wouldn't take it so personally.

That first Bush term was bad enough, the second one was really awful for our ability to maintain perspective.

:patriot:

[nichomachus]

43. Maybe if people weren't so used to reading about freepers

who thought that criticizing the president was the same as saying he was "perfect evil."

This is just what the OP was talking about. For so many people on DU, it's binary -- you either drool over Obama, faint when you see pictures of Michelle, sit down and shut up - OR - you think he's total evil.

There is a middle ground. It is possible to generally support someone and still find fault with some decisions he makes.

I criticize things that my husband does all the time. It doesn't mean I don't love him or that I think he's evil -- or that I want a divorce.

[question everything]

2. Who says you cannot criticize our leaders?

But when people say that electing Obama was a mistake - I think I saw it someplace - I have to wonder whether they would have preferred McCain or - shudder - Palin there right now.

I supported Hillary to the very end, but voted for Obama in November and have yet to regret my vote, I doubt that I ever will.

[ScreamingMeemie]

6. I'm sorry...I did not deliriously support any of our nominees this

year. Forgive me. I did not support Hillary either, and did the old "hold the nose thing..." But you cannot ask me to, and I will not ever blindly follow an elected leader. From the left or the right.

[dionysus]

49. lemme guess, kooch supporter eh?

[LostinVA]

61. No, she wasn't, and broadbrush comments like that are against DU rules

And, even if she was, so fucking what?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[ScreamingMeemie]

4. Oh please...

Yes, I am a freeper... Weren't you asking to be called one in your post too? Cracks. Me. Up.

Move along. You've missed by point. This is a Democracy.

[LostinVA]

62. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU'RE A FREEPER!?

After all these years, and you've never told me?!

:cry:

[vaberella]

5. Everday, every second, every minute, every milisecond....~sigh~ n/t

[rug]

11. Really? You're comparing DU to free republic. Really?

[redqueen]

69. That's sarcasm, right?

It's been popular to do that for months now.

Since the primaries at least.

[Starry Messenger]

17. .

[Richard Steele]

18. Pfft.

nm

[Texasgal]

7. First off

Who has asked you to "shut up and sit down?"

Who is "blindly trusting and following?"

Who said you cannot "share your opinions?"

[ScreamingMeemie]

9. Look along the front page.

Or you can choose to be obtuse.


Hey Texasgal, it's good to see you, regardless of the fact that it looks like we'll be disagreeing for some time.

[Texasgal]

10. or you can provide us with some links..

I'd rather not have to search for some reading material to back up YOUR claim.

And yes! Good to see you here as well! :)

[ScreamingMeemie]

12. I don't have to. Look at what is probably the thread above this one...

courtesy of Mr "Freerepublicspoutsthisstuff" above, who then when on to post a "you can call me a freeper" thread (I mean, seriously?), or below. Your choice. Or obtuse works. I got my opinion out there. I am disgusted.

[Texasgal]

14. i'm sorry of you think I am being obtuse

I was serious about providing a link...or links for leverage in this conversation.

If that makes me obtuse so be it...I guess. :shrug:

[ZombieHorde]

8. Most of the posts I have seen were arguing or simply stating opinions.

I have seen only a few "pony" posts and -go to FR with that shit- posts, though I do see one of those in this thread.

[dionysus]

51. take it over to FR buddy

:)

[Occam Bandage]

13. Jesus fucking Christ. Three out of four of the threads on this are either

attacking Obama for his position or are attacking DUers for not attacking Obama for his position. There is no shortage of healthy debate here. Yes, some people don't agree that Obama is comparable to Bush in this situation. That doesn't mean anyone is demanding anyone "blindly trust and follow." A minority of disagreement is not censorship.

[ScreamingMeemie]

15. Okay. Whatever you wish to "believe" and "trust" in.

I'm not calling him Bush. I'm just saying I disagree with his decision and I am also commenting on the state of our country. I'm not much into hero worship, and yes it's alive and well both on television, in my neighborhood and here. Sorry our opinions differ, but at least we're in the right country and on the right board, no?

[Occam Bandage]

20. Why are those words in quotation marks?

I haven't used either, and I haven't suggested anyone should trust anyone. I think I see the source of your perception of hero-worship. It may be that you believe any disagreement with your "comments on the state of our country" is founded in unthinking admiration for Obama, or that any injunction to avoid leaping to unfounded conclusions is an injunction to trust Obama.

[Jennicut]

52. I disagree with Obama on this but agree with him on most everything else

Its not blind support, just what people personally feel. We all have a right to our opinions, to disagree or agree with the Prez. That is a good thing. Bush wanted to stifle that. If you did not agree with Bush his followers said you were unAmerican. Ridiculous. No one should be attacked for personal opinions of disagreement with the President.

[CakeGrrl]

19. It's the same pattern as always.

I've been on here very regularly since the primaries, and you can count on the same sequence of events on any hot topic:

1. A half gazillion OPs arguing in favor of the issue and the other half gazillion against.

2. A handful of sarcastic OPs attacking the opposite viewpoint.

3. A couple of flamebait OPs from people who just can't hold in their anger any longer.

4. The "hypothetical" OPs just to give the same issue a slightly different look by framing it in an analogy...as if no one realizes they're being tricked into supporting or opposing a similar issue.

5. A dozen polls asking for everyone's opinions (again) on the topic du jour, except with nice little bar graphs.

:rofl:

[dalaigh lllama]

25. I was thinking the same thing -- we're as normal as we ever were

You pretty much nailed it, CakeGrrl :D

[ZombieHorde]

37. I personally like the bar graphs. nt

[Scurrilous]

46. Yep

:thumbsup:

[emilyg]

16. k/r

[SeattleGirl]

21. What is this sit down and shut up thing that people keep being accused of?

There are a lot of people on here that I don't agree with, but I'm not going to tell them to shut up.

As to the criticism, I know that what bugs the hell out of me is when someone doesn't just critisize, but decides to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and says that Obama is just like Bush, etc. I'm not happy about everything he's done (or hasn't done), but I don't equate him with Bus across the line. And I will call someone out for doing that if they have nothing to back up their dumping on him. I thought we were the people who liked to back up assertions with informed opinion and fact. Occasionally I see something that is the equivalent of the freepers who pull stuff out of their asses.

Anyway, my 2 cents.

[NYC_SKP]

22. I haven't seen it, I keep reading about it but I haven't seen it.

I read a lot of posts bitching about posts that I never see.

I only see people asking DUers to think it over, who suggest that there's method to the president's madness, or that they should have paid attention to what was and was not promised.

Maybe that sounds like STFU to some people. :shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

23. It's ironic, really.

Those who claim loudest to prize dissent and hate censorship are those who are most likely to fly into a fury upon encountering anything differing from their own views.

[SeattleGirl]

29. I have noticed.

I believe the thinking on their part is, "I can show dissent, but you may not. If you do, I will accuse you of racism, sexism, homophobia, being a freeper, and anything else I can pull out of my bag o' tricks to throw at you."

[Occam Bandage]

30. It's pretty much everywhere.

Conservative pundits will wax poetic about how they love the Constitution and our sacred Bill of Rights, and how tyranny must be kept in check by the people, but yet as soon as a liberal attempts to speak, they immediately cry "treason!"

Too often people say they believe in the right to free speech, when they actually mean they believe in a right to have everyone agree with them.

[SeattleGirl]

31. Bingo!

:thumbsup:

[Dinger]

40. It's Like It's A Sport Or Something (nt)

[MADem]

35. Jesus, you got THAT right!!! nt

[SeattleGirl]

28. I think you may be right, NYC

It's as if for them, if people don't agree with their POV 100%, then by virtue of that not-quite-agreement, or even disagreement, they are being told to STFU.

Mayhaps they are a bit insecure or something. :shrug:

[CakeGrrl]

24. So who's stopping you?

This question seems to come up every single time a hot issue is contested around here.

And no one who makes this complaint can point out an example of their criticism being suppressed.

If it hasn't been deleted, it hasn't been suppressed.

Disagreement is not equivalent to suppression. Some people are not going to agree with you. Whether or not you can handle that is up to you.

I may voice an opinion and someone may come right back and say "You're full of crap." I won't agree, but I'm not going to lose it over people being meanies on the internet. That's to be expected.

[LostinVA]

63. Lots of people on this very site trying their hardest to stop people

[Occam Bandage]

65. Do you actually believe they are so stupid as to think they could?

And do you actually believe that Obama's critics are so stupid as to fear they could be shut up by disagreement?

[Raine]

71. Trying to and actually stopping people

are two different things. Just as some critize Obama, others can refute it but NO ONE has stopped ANYONE.

[leftofthedial]

26. you're just an obama hater

who wanted McCain to win and can't forget that Hillary lost and who is a naderite.



pathetic really.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Beacool]

27. Hear, hear!!!

Although, good luck with that around here...........

:eyes:

[dionysus]

48. don't you have a teleprompter in chief thread to post or something?

:P

[Beacool]

77. Totus?

Even Obama made fun of his overuse of it.

:7

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[MADem]

34. Get back to normal? Here? Impossible. This place is a permanent pissing contest, it seems.

And it's always the "usual suspects" stirring the pot.

It's either "Everything's coming up roses" or "The sky is falling."

The "Roses" club won't hear ANY criticism. They'll break a broomstick off in your ass if you try to say anything less than laudatory.

And the other team is just as bad, if not worse. You can't "criticize" leaders--you have to call them mendacious shitbirds with evil in their hearts, and ascribe the worst possible motives to their conduct. You have to place them in league with Hitler and Mussolini, and insist that they're the worst of humanity. You must use harsh invective, and be completely shitty and childishly sarcastic to anyone with an opposing view.

No one minds a little thoughtful criticism. But criticism isn't synonymous with "Hey, he fuckin' SUCKS!!!!! He's Bush LITE! We've been BETRAAAAAAYED!" Would have been a good trick to listen to the guy when he was a candidate--might have made some folks here a bit less surprised. And some of the same "brook no dissent" cheerleaders during the primaries are the biggest scolds, now. Go figure!

That shit that "echoes the tone and substance of our opponents" -- I see way too much of that here, too, despite the recent admin thread that cautioned us to cut that shit out. That crap can also be found at a site whose name sorta rhymes with Creepy-Pubic...and it's just as obnoxious, if not more so, than the Happy-Happy-Glad-Glad saccharine posts.

[Number23]

36. You're cool

And believe me, five months ago you were just about the last person here I would have said that about. :)

But lately, I've found myself agreeing more and more with your posts and liking the way that you state things. Weird how the worm turns around here...

[omega minimo]

74. Yes that's how extreme

the purge and the ruse have become. See previous post.

[omega minimo]

73. You've described it so well.

There's a reason for what you're describing.

Those with "thoughtful criticism" are driven out. The gaps are filled with those who cobble together extreme "left" bits -- perhaps from where you're suggesting -- and pass themselves off with the Pure As The Driven Snow brigade, who are so mad they don't see the ruse............






















:hi:

[CBR]

38. There seem to be a lot of OPs critical of the President and

some in support. :shrug: There is an OP praising the ASU speech and the first response is one critical of the President's policies. I am not sure I see the "exhalted idol" you speak of.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[high density]

41. Seems there is almost nothing but criticism here outside of a few photo threads

Give us a break.

[Clio the Leo]

42. Sure, as long as we can stop calling the other side blind idol-worshippers....

..... the very REASON I voted for the man, the reason why I worked SO HARD to make sure he got elected, the reason why I gave money every pay check to a politician for the first time in my life is that I honestly believe he is just not another politician. I believe he is far more intelligent than any President I've seen in my lifetime, more empathetic, and he makes his decisions more carefully and with much more introspection after hearing all sides of an argument.

Sure, it's fine to criticize him, but it goes both ways. You'll forgive me if I am of the opinion that HE knows MORE about a matter of national security, about photos that HE has SEEN, about a subject he is briefed on EVERY MORNING while we're sitting around reading DU..

It's fine, go ahead and criticize him. You worked hard and did all the things I did (I honestly believe that, I'm not being snarky) and had certain expectations and if he doesn't seem to be meeting those expections, I can understand your frustration. But understand that those of us NOT upset at him base that on a theory just as rational as yours. Casting the rest of us as blind and unthinking, which is ALSO a tactic of the GOP, isn't helping the matter either. ;)

[Fire1]

76. Clio, you said a mouth full and didn't get choked!!! Amen!

[Adelante]

44. Is this a joke thread? nt

[mkultra]

45. if the kneejerk over reactions of the bashing class here are the cause.

criticism is required. opposition is shunned.

[dionysus]

47. yea, all criticism on here is censored....

:eyes:

[Jennicut]

50. Last time I looked at the DU rules its okay to criticize Dems in charge, its not okay to attack

their supporters or non supporters in personal flamebaiting way.

[beachmom]

53. I have seen lots of criticism of Obama both here and elsewhere from liberal blogs.

I think, though, that if you criticize you need to back it up with facts and good arguments.

[politicasista]

57. Good point n/t

[pecwae]

54. There's nothing abnormal going on.

[ShortnFiery]

55. We have torturers still "in charge" of our Defense Department and a President who is enabling

their continued CORRUPT PRACTICES, i.e., now going covert. :grr:

LIFE itself, and following a MORAL PATH is never "easy" nor "NORMAL" but it is what Jesus would do ... it's also secularly HUMANE.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8407833

[LittleBlue]

56. Someone said it. K&R

The arguments people are making against criticism border on the absurd and irrational.

Everyone knows Obama is much better than Bushler, but that doesn't mean we can't criticize our elected leader.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. Normal people suck

The normal people did the torture program. Fuck normal.

[omega minimo]

75. .

[LostinVA]

59. A quote for you from Teddy Roosevelt

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Theodore Roosevelt, editorial to the Kansas City Star, May 7, 1918.

[book_worm]

60. Good Grief!? what are you talking about? DU has been criticizing Obama daily since the day after the

election. Nobody has put a muzzle on you. It's the same old thing day and night day after day, week after week here. So stop the act that you are not able to critize around here because the idea that you can't is laughable.

[LostinVA]

64. The OP doesn't ahev "an act," and is a well respected, long time member

Including having served us as a mod for a few terms. And, she is right.

[dionysus]

78. bitter hillary supporter, check. okay, thanks for clearign that up.

this "i am being silenced because i get called out for being a whiner, wahhhhh" shit is absolute, utter horse shit.

at least half the threads on here are people blubbering and complaining. these faux cries of censorship are fucking pathetic.

[redqueen]

68. Since well before the election, really.

I supported Kucinich then Edwards... but criticism was never in short supply - for any candidate. Ever, in any election that I've been around DU to enjoy.

[BzaDem]

66. You are of course free to criticize anyone. You just don't like having to put up with disagreement.

There is nothing stopping you from criticizing Obama or anyone else. You (by this OP) are trying to shut people up who agree with Obama.

[redqueen]

67. Man... this shit is a TRIP!

:crazy:

[Raine]

70. Just about all I've been seeing lately is threads dumping on Obama

so much so that I can hardly stomach coming here anymore.:yoiks: I see no one stopping you or anyone else from posting them. :shrug:

[dionysus]

79. these "i am being censored because i got called out for whining" shit is stale.

[omega minimo]

72. You must be in the wrong forum.

[redqueen]

80. For reference.

:kick: