Democratic Underground is fast becoming a place where you cannot defend Democrats

[berni_mccoy]

There is much knee-jerk reaction to poorly reported MSM sensationalized stories that end up being false, but the political damage is done. People here jump to criticize their own.

There is no consideration for the monumental decisions being made in the White House. If Obama does not make the decision the majority here believes he should make, it gives members a righteous feeling that they can attack anyone who would defend the decision.

Those who do consider the decisions being made and ask questions are ridiculed as apologists or even lock-stepping Democratic versions of freepers. In fact, there is a thread going on right now that asks how those who defend decisions of Democratic leaders that they don't agree with are different from Freepers.

So, I'm thinking this place has become hostile to many of us who would seek to understand and help share an understanding with others why every decision made may not be in line with the majority of the members of this site.

[Buzz Clik]

1. I am exactly on the same page with you.

This place has always been bizarre. These days, the irrational thought and rank emotionalism make the Free Republic look like the School of Philosophy at Harvard.

EDIT: It's fascinating to note that I am the only response to this thread but the sixth to recommend it. It seems that those who actually are willing to give the Democratic leadership a chance are staying silent.

[moodforaday]

168. Yes, and the "silent majority" are Republican too

Dream on.

I would say though that the whole concept of "defending Democrats" (or of "attacking Democrats") is nonsense. Yes, there are those who will defend a politician simply because of party allegiance, and there are those who will attack politicians for the same reason. My impression is such people fall into two groups: they are mentally under 16 or they are paid party hacks. Okay, three groups: there are also terminal tourniquet-brained conservatives, whose only arguments are "because I say so" and "because it's always been that way". These are hopefully rare among the Dems.

On the other hand, a rational person will not defend "a Democrat" or attack one. Rather, they will defend or attack a particular action or a particular expression of views. And if so happens that a particular Democrat does a few thnings right and a whole bunch of things wrong, feel free to defend that Democrat on the merit of the things they are doing, not on the merit of their badge. How about that?

[Usrename]

186. There ya go!

:thumbsup:

[varelse]

187. "terminal tourniquet-brained conservatives"

If there's a DU lexicon, this needs to be added to it. :rofl:

Oh yes, and while I'm at it - thank you for this:

On the other hand, a rational person will not defend "a Democrat" or attack one. Rather, they will defend or attack a particular action or a particular expression of views. And if so happens that a particular Democrat does a few thnings right and a whole bunch of things wrong, feel free to defend that Democrat on the merit of the things they are doing, not on the merit of their badge. How about that?

Has my :thumbsup:

[tnlefty]

206. Thank you.

For stating this better than I could. If I'm not supposed to speak out about those of my own party, then everyone should just shut up about the supposed dems (IMHO) that are elected in this state.

The only one that I feel fondness for is Steve Cohen, the rest not so much.

[autorank]

210. Agree 100% It's not about personalities, persons, or blind loyalty. It's survival

We have an economy on the brink of ruin.

We have toxic conflicts raging that have no end in sight.

We have baseline survival needs that have to be met for the species to survive.

This requires rational analysis of policy and politics. Ignoring those issues or failing to
vote rationally means we're screwed.

Time to wake up and engage in serious debate.

[bvar22]

213. Well said.

I do not give my allegiance to People or Party.

I am an advocate for PEACE.

I am an advocate for Civil Rights and Equal Protections for ALL....no exceptions.

I am an advocate for Single Payer Universal HealthCare.

I am an advocate for FREE Universal Education at ALL levels.

I am an advocate for Rule of Law, no exceptions for the Elite Class.

I am an advocate for The Constitution.

I am a advocate for The Poor and the Disenfranchised.

I am an advocate for Working Americans and Organized LABOR.

I am an advocate for Economic Justice where Mom & Pop and the small Farmer can compete with Big Corpo on a level playing field.

I am an opponent of the MIC.

I am an opponent to the concentration of Wealth & Power into fewer hands.

I am an opponent to Corporate/Republican Influence INSIDE the Democratic Party.


It matters very little to me which political personality occupies the White House.
When they move TOWARD those goals, I will support and applaud them.
When they move AWAY from those goals, I will OPPOSE.

[Enthusiast]

225. You are my kind of Democrat! nt

[Kalun D]

247. Well Said

I care not of the name, I care of the position on the issue.

Republicrats be damned.

[Butch350]

259. I oppose people who talk in the theater.

[mkultra]

249. sounds fine, check the title bar of your browser

If, in your judgment, those who generally support democrats are fools, then you are on the wrong site. people here fall into two catagories: Those who generally support democrats, and those who shouldn't be here.

[redqueen]

260. So anyone here who is sick of the anti-Dem BS is a Republican?

You talk a good game about arguing policy and not personality...

But what do we see? Comments about how Obama is Bush 1.2, that he's a Republican, that he's more of a Republican than Clinton.

I don't have problems with people who criticize policy. If we disagree so be it.

But calling Obama a coward? Calling him a Republican?

And now your little jab apparently equating people who disagree with that kind of childish nonsense with Republicans?


And look at all the high-fives you got. I guess they were agreeing with all the high-minded stuff in your post... which has nothing to do with the shit the OP is talking about.

Unreal.

[SlingBlade]

236. Yep,k Me Too !

[rpannier]

2. self delete

[Buzz Clik]

5. No, it is not working that way at all. You're trivializing the OP.

Read it again.

[rpannier]

11. Misread it -- not trivializing it

Thanks for the heads up though

[TheWraith]

12. No, that's not true at all.

The critics are the only people who gripe that if ANYONE disagrees with them, it's "censorship" or "lockstepping." The rest of us would just like a little sanity, the recognition that the media usually still gets it wrong, and a little patience with elected Dems.

[Roadcyclist]

189. Defending Democrats Is Simply Ideology In Drag

There is no rational reason to defend Democrats. Bill Clinton is quite possibly the worst President in the twentieth century. He deregulated banking, allowed speculators to set up Ponzi schemes to hoard commodities and energy, aka Enron and the oil bubble, he passed NAFTA that destroyed our manufacturing base and topped it off with a free trade agreement with China that sent our manufacturing into a tail spin.

I voted for Obama. And, I personally like him. But, he has backtracked on so many promises that I would never vote for him again. That is, unless he once again embraces Democratic ideals.

I believe the party has a good chance of fracturing in 2012 if the economy once again tanks. And, it will. Let the true Democrats stand forward and be taken to account.

[billyoc]

3. You seem to be doing OK.

[LaurenG]

4. Never give up doing or saying what you believe in

There are hostiles everywhere and they haven't stopped you yet, why start now. Tell it! :hi:

[formercia]

6. Too many provocateurs.

The rat-fink freepers have nothing better to do.

[L. Coyote]

200. trolling is rampant

[redqueen]

7. My biggest problem is believing the M$M nonsense.

We shouldn't help them mislead people, IMO.

[Adelante]

8. It's a sad state of affairs

:thumbsup:

[rug]

9. Go right ahead, defend those decisions.

[berni_mccoy]

10. I have, when they merit a defense. And I'm promptly and soundly attacked for it.

[rug]

13. As long as the posts are not stupid, insulting or personal, some positions should be attacked

and others defended.

[mkultra]

134. dont forget posts that are RW in tone and substance

they should not be allowed.

[Enthusiast]

227. You are right, mkultra

Although I have been critical of President Obama I have also recognized several stealth Reich Wing posters here trying to steer the discussion. Any time we recognize this we should jump their ass.

[sandnsea]

14. It's always been that way

It helps to remember that a good percentage of folks here are actually true socialists who have no allegiance to the Democratic Party, and there is no reason that they should, so they come from a different perspective.

I think we gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt too many times and if we hadn't, we wouldn't be in this mess with some of the deregulation he pushed. Let's not make that same mistake again, and figure out how to give voice to the people without damaging the goodwill of a Democratic President.

[Kahuna]

25. Great post. I recognize that many a DUer is way more liberal than

I am (though I'm, pretty liberal in my own book), and I keep that in mind. But I also recognize that the dissenters must be confronted just as ferociously as when dealing with conservatives. Because it seems the goals of both is to tear down a Democratic Administration, starting with the minute they take office. Regardless that history has proven that the worst Democratic Administration is one hundred times better than the best repuke admin. As a result of these "activist" antics, we have ended up further away from their agenda because they have helped to keep repukes in office. So, really, what is their point?

[lostnotforgotten]

39. Liberal - Definition - Websters Online Dictionary

Define Your Terms - more liberal, less liberal - I am getting damned tired of people labeling others liberals based on disagreements about morality and justice, not political ideology.

Main Entry:

1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> barchaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver>
b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal>
c: ample, full
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4: not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
5: broad-minded ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism
b:capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism ; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Liberal

[Kermitt Gribble]

155. "Dissenters"??

Real nice...:eyes:

[JDPriestly]

171. I support Democrats like my Congressman, Xavier Becerra, like

Dennis Kucinich and many other real Democrats.

I support much of what Obama is doing, but when it comes to certain issues, I strongly disagree. That does not mean that I am not supporting Democrats. It simply means that I am differing on certain issues from specific individuals who, like me, consider themselves to be Democrats.

The Democratic Party is not a monolithic entity. It does not embrace an ideology. You do not become a Democrat by reciting a confession of faith.

[Bluerthanblue]

174. but this is the first time we've ever had a Dem pres in office- and had

the media trying to undermine him, and everyone else connected with him.

If DU had existed when Bill C was in office, it probably would have looked much the same I agree -somehow that realization doesn't make the worst of the postings here any easier to stomach. It probably feels just as frustrating from the other side too I guess.

If anyone here doesn't think Obama is a HELL of alot better than bush, or mccain, I sure hope that DU isn't the place for them.


:shrug:

[livefreest]

15. it's amazing how some DUers will believe anything from someone attacking a democratic leader

[lostnotforgotten]

41. Is Obama Aiding And Abetting Torture By Not Charging Bush And Cheney - Yes or No?

eom

[spiritual_gunfighter]

51. I dont know yet

but his "looking forward" statements, not releasing the torture photos, his statements of no prosecutions, no truth commissions is very glaring and anyone who doesn't see that isn't looking very hard.

[lostnotforgotten]

52. Tell That To The Obama Can Do No Wrong Chorus That Sings Nightly At DU

eom

[spiritual_gunfighter]

53. I have

and I am accused of not being a true Dem, never supporting Obama in the first place and probably a closet Freeper. It works both ways I guess.

[lostnotforgotten]

56. I Am Proud To Join Your Ranks As I have Been Similarly Accused

eom

[spiritual_gunfighter]

58. So now there are two of us

Who else is out there?

[Tansy_Gold]

172. three

and now i'm hiding this thread

[livefreest]

102. well. why did you just accuse those with opinions supporting Pres Obama are

"Tell That To The Obama Can Do No Wrong Chorus That Sings Nightly At DU"
i find it hilarious. but as you can see berni_mccoy thought it was hostile.

Personally i'm not for Obama. I don't ever want to be for a politician. I think every facet of an issue needs to be assessed and all questions need to be asked before i support or oppose Pres Obama's stance. I think you might have already obtained all answers so if i object i'm not an Obama-can-do-no-wrong guy. Nor are you some traitor for advancing an argument that disapproves of Obama's decision.

[berni_mccoy]

66. Thanks for contributing to the hostile environment.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[berni_mccoy]

73. Labelling people who defend policy decisions as the "Obama Can Do No Wrong Crowd" is hostile.

[lostnotforgotten]

74. Identifying Patterns, Then Exposing Those Patterns As Patterns Is Not Hostile

It is exposing peoples beliefs that make those exposed people uncomfortable.

That those exposed people claim hostility is their problem.

[berni_mccoy]

77. Whatever dude. You have no consideration for the feelings of others here. That's apparent.

[lostnotforgotten]

78. We Are Here To Discuss politics Not Feelings - Obama Is Or Is Not Living Up To The Expectations Set

With respect to Torture, Health Care, War, and the Economy, he is not living up to expectations.

[berni_mccoy]

81. The people discussing these topics HAVE feelings. By using insulting labels on those

you don't agree with, you disregard them as people and create an artificial enemy that's easier for you and others to attack.

It's not calling out a pattern and you know it. It's debasing dissent with your viewpoint.

[lostnotforgotten]

83. Sorry That You Or Others Are Insulted - That A DU Chorus Of "Obama Can Do No Wrong" Exists

Is no longer a subject of controversy worthy of debate and discussion.

[berni_mccoy]

87. Question: would you place me in that group?

[lostnotforgotten]

95. I'm Not Placing Anyone In Any Group - I Only Observe That Many DU Threads

Read, quite literally, like Obama is above ANY Criticism, because he is

1) my pet president
2) our pet president
3) a democrat and therefore above suspicion and reproach
4) not Bush

The list could go on and on.

[berni_mccoy]

96. Nice cop-out retraction.

You changed from "Tell that To The Obama Can Do No Wrong Nightly Chorus" implying a group of members to now they are just threads.

Nice.

I won't hold my breath for an apology.

[lostnotforgotten]

156. Your Opinion And Opinion Only - Which You Are Entitled To Have

eom

[mkultra]

250. yet the flipside seems to be that he can do no right

But your complaints of this crowd stay firmly behind your lips.

[TwilightZone]

88. That a DU Chorus of "Obama can do no right" exists is no less accurate.

That chorus is equally ignorant of its existence, if not more so. Quite often intentionally so.

[The Magistrate]

108. Exactly, Sir

[mkultra]

136. that chorus is music to his ears though.

which is why complaints of their words never cross his lips. He is the rw talking point.

[lostnotforgotten]

158. Let's See - He Photogenic, Speaks Well, Does Not Embarrass Us Too Much In Public

Some Things That Obama Does Well.

[jenmito]

214. Wow. No difference between what you just said and those who openly hate Obama. n/t

[mkultra]

170. that chorus is music to his ears though.

which is why complaints of their words never cross his lips. He is the rw talking point.

[Sebastian Doyle]

244. Invoking the murder of Nick Berg to defend the censorship of Abu Ghraib pictures is hostile.

Especially since Berg was killed IN Abu Ghraib, by the so called "contractors" who committed the war crimes against Iraqis.

[Cha]

129. Nah nah nah nah nah

neener neener neener.

[lostnotforgotten]

159. Check Your Key - Sounded Out Of Tune To My Ears!

eom

[livefreest]

90. that sings nightly at DU

:rofl:

[creeksneakers2]

104. I've never seen Obama's defenders say he can do no wrong

Why pretend that the defenders do?

[lostnotforgotten]

164. Let's See Most Times That Any Criticism Of Obama Is Aired A Small DU Cadre Jumps Too His Defense

despite the evidence at hand.

I would suggest that you might start reading a broader spectrum of DU threads.

[creeksneakers2]

184. They don't tell you he can do no wrong

[Bluerthanblue]

175. I've seen few if any posts that claim "Obama can do no wrong"-

not true of those who have been lightening quick to toss him to the curb at the slightest provocation.

Constructive criticism is one thing- and there is a fair amount on DU but that isn't what the OP is addressing.

:shrug:

[livefreest]

85. congress not Obama can set up a truth commission. at least that's how i understand it

[spiritual_gunfighter]

91. Which is obviously why ultimately it may not matter

that Obama doesn't want to pursue the entire torture thing, it may be completely out of his hands.

[livefreest]

94. wait. do we agree or are you being sarcastic?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

98. We totally agree n/t

[livefreest]

see. we all love each other. just that some(like me) are slow in condemning Obama.

but our desire of a Cheney-behind-bar-picture unites us all.

[Wizard777]

234. Congress can punish violations of the law of nations AKA International law.

But I fear a "truth commission" will immunizes everyone and leave no one to be prosecuted. I think it's far more important to punish this abuse to form a deterrent to future abuses than it is to know if they poured the water with their right or left hand.

Washington DC pretending they don't know how corruptions work. My God what is next? Pretending they don't know how to count votes.

[Aragorn]

68. Yes

And let's not forget, on the main issue of this post, that the most liberal of Americans are NOT a majority, by any means. Therefore those who are must do more than vent on DU.

If someone has a view point I support lukewarmly, and all they do is vent online, I am not worried about their position diluting mine. If some "person" (Say, a corporation) outspends me 10 million to 1 on donations, has paid lobbyists, etc - I feel trickled on.

We the people must do more than debate ourselves.

[livefreest]

84. No! President Obama is doing none of that. don't forget Secr Holder, Rep. Conyers' committee,

and Senator Leahy's committee in the senate are all still conducting investigations. Obama could appoint an independent special prosecutor.However, like Keith Olbermann said on his January 19, 2009 show:

"(...)we compromised with Watergate and the junior members of the Ford Administration realized how little was ultimately at risk: and they grew up to be Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney(...)"

Later he adds

"(...)some day there will be another republican president or even a democrat(...)and he will look back to what you did about Mr Bush or what you did not do...and he will see precedent..or as Cheney saw, he will see HOW TO NOT GET CAUGHT NEXT TIME."

Bush, Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Bybee, Yoo, Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, and many more republicans and conservatives are just trying to change the rules of the political game and seize hostage the power of the government, just like it had been tried during Nixon administration. Very powerful and wealthy interests are helping them: corporations, MSM, CEOs,... This is just a Modus Operandi to not get caught. This is MUCH bigger, much larger than just the CIA. it's terribly wrong-headed to believe that Pres Obama can unravel, in a few months, a web of lies, this thick, that Cheney and company spent so many years conceiving. To that you need to add the holds republicans have been putting on all of Obama's appointees. That's why i ask why are we, DUers, trying to help republicans to lie?

[NoPasaran]

178. If Obama was "charging" Bush and Cheney, he would be acting like a dictator

There is nothing in the Constitutional powers of the Presidency allowing Obama to charge anyone with a crime, much less throw them in jail.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. There's defending, and then, there's defending.

A personal attack on someone who brings up a difference of opinion with Obama, is not a defense. We all have to learn how to communicate our disagreements, without making it a personal attack.

Just the facts, ma'am.

[berni_mccoy]

17. I've seen many posts other than mine, by well known DUers go down in flames

And the OP had no insults in them. If there is a defense post, it will fall into flame-fest and get locked.

And for the record, I'm not a ma'am, sir.

[The Backlash Cometh]

34. I was quoting Joe Friday.

His "just the facts, ma'am," is more popular than "just the facts, sir."

[redqueen]

37. Isn't that used when asking for facts, rather than giving them?

If so, that might be why the reference isn't so recognizable the way you used it... the context.

[The Backlash Cometh]

44. It depends what you're trying to achieve.

If the point is to get your opinion heard on a very volatile subject, it's best to stick to the facts, ma'am.

[redqueen]

45. I meant the way Joe Friday used it.

I don't recall him ever dispensing facts and then using that catchphrase. Perhaps he did.

[The Backlash Cometh]

47. I'm assuming that Joe Friday is playing the role of the person you're

trying to persuade. Give him something he will listen to, and not cut you off.

[redqueen]

48. Ah, ok.

Gotcha. :)

[Arkana]

18. We jump to criticize our own in the interest of "fairness".

I thought this place was where we supported Democrats and Democratic candidates, and while criticism is fine, unfair criticism is exactly that--unfair.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

57. What is unfair about being at odds with a President

that has said that "looking forward" is the best thing for our country right now, being against prosecutions for war crimes, even being against a truth commission for said war crimes, and now not releasing torture photos. I guess I am not a card carrying member of the Obama cult as your signature states. But I guess you could say I am a card carrying member of the truth and justice cult. Sign me up for that one.

[Arkana]

64. You've got people here calling him Bush III.

Is that fair?

No. It's hyperbole, and it's bullshit, and it's unnecessary.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

76. Then ignore those people

Because you and I both know it is hyperbolic. Having a reasoned debate about some of Obama's policy decisions is fair and for some reason you don't think it is. My liberalism isn't about a personality it is about principal. I don't understand DUers defending his stance on torture prosecutions, it is obvious that he has no intent of prosecuting anyone. I don't believe that this is some grand political chess move on his part, I believe that he knows how this could damage him politically and refuses to give in to it. I love some of the things he is doing and I hate some of things he is doing. Unfortunately there are liberals that are defending his decisions no matter what because he is Barack Obama. I refuse to do that, I am not a member of the Barack Obama cult like you state you are. Sorry.

[Arkana]

124. You couldn't be more wrong.

You want to oppose Obama's decisions on logical grounds? You have policy differences with him? Fine, I don't care--shout it to the rooftops.

My sig line is a holdover from the primaries when some of our more colorful Hillary supporters were calling Obama supporters a "cult".

FYI, I don't agree with Obama all the time--so don't paint me as some Kool-Aid mainlining wacko. I just don't choose to scream bloody murder on this website every time Obama does something I disagree with, and I gotta tell you--the number of voices that actually want to have a reasoned debate on the subject are drowned out by the "OHBLAMA = BUSH III BUYERS REMORSE WE SHOULD HAVE NOMINATED KUCINICH" types.

[polmaven]

138. Exactly, Arkana....

The words "reasoned debate" are, I think, what the OP was trying to point out as being MIA. There is a lot of name calling, and personal attacks...on BOTH sides, in my opinion.

Calling the president names, and making personal attacks on him is just not acceptable, either. Disagree with him on issues, and make reasoned arguments as to why, but personal attacks on him or those who happen to agree with him is childish.

Oh, and that goes for the Democratic leaders in Congress as well, I think. "But she took impeachment off the table" is just not enough.

[Bluerthanblue]

181. why don't YOU ignore the threads you see as "Obama can do no wrong"

concerts then????

You may believe that it is "obvious he has no intent of prosecuting anyone"- I agree ONLY in that I don't think Pres. O- himself has either the power or the responsibility to prosecute those who need prosecuting- and even if he did, it would be seen as a a kind of personal vendetta. Bringing those responsible for torture and murder should not be a partisan issue- and done the right way, should be supported by the people of America on all sides of the political spectrum.

Your opinion is valid to you- and it may be correct- but so might mine, or anyone elses.

As for your instructions to "ignore" people- silence can be tacit approval.

:shrug:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

261. Silence is acceptable

when people throw hyperbolic statements around like "Obama is Bush" and "Obama is a war-monger". Those people don't want healthy debate they want to make outlandish statements and squash debate. If anything I was agreeing with the previous post about the outrageous statements being thrown by the anti-Obama's and I am quite sure by my position that Obama is failing on this issue would be seen as an anti-Obama statement, it isn't, I support Obama on most of the policy decisions he has made and by and large he has done a good job so far. Healthy debate is welcome and that is what I will respond to. I contend that Obama has no intention of pushing for prosecution because everything he has done and said points to that. You may think otherwise you are entitled to your opinion and I would gladly respond to you and debate the points in an intelligent way, but not if it resorts to namecalling and hyperbole. Which is what I see from time to time, those people arent worth it to me.

[Phx_Dem]

19. I'm with you, Bernie. n/t

[Budgies Revenge]

20. There have been some unfortunate comments by posters

on both sides of this issue. In the interests of laying it all out here, I disagree with Pres. Obama's decision on the torture photos. Does this mean I renounce him and all that he stands for? No. It simply means that--surprise--the president and I will not always agree on everything! It doesn't mean that either of us are bad people, or that I think he's trying to destroy civilization as we know it, or that all posters who agree with him are soulless such and such's. This also doesn't mean that I will stop presenting my own opinion on the matter. Hopefully, if everyone can stick to the issues and try to extend a little courtesy to each other...this too shall pass.

[vaberella]

21. Yup. Unless you look as though you're snuffing crticism. n/t

[Kahuna]

22. People hear a headline and think they KNOW the whole complex

truth. They take the repuke spin of, Obama is following bush policies, as gospel without bothering to find out the facts. Facts be damned, I guess... :shrug:

[vaberella]

23. This reminds me of the thread for O's new promotion Ingnacia S. Moreno.

Then you see her promotion and she isn't anywhere these idiots on the thread claim she is and no one could provide any faulty litigation or proof of controversy that she shouldn't be the choice.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. I've seen the mirror image of your posit also posted

That critics of the administration are ridiculed and shouted down and called freepers and haters just because they don't agree with everything Obama has done.

I'm not saying you're wrong. Please don't say I'm wrong, either. The issue is one of perception. And remembering. When you perceive a particular poster doing what you are noting, remember that person's name. And choose your action:

Put them on ignore

Use personal discipline to ignore them as you see fit (read their posts and follow them, but don't reply - ever)

Be prepared to do some verbal jousting with them.

And this last one may be the most important: Be sure your perceptions are correct. Some posters criticize mostly along a certain issue. Some criticize only a certain person. And some - as you rightly note - criticize everything. For me, if a person is in the first or second group of critics, I don't worry about them. I may even want to learn more about the issue they care about or the person they criticize .... or not. The broad brush coocoos are just that. Coocoo. Nothing will make them happy. Personally, I put them on "personal ignore", which is what I call my own morbid way of watching them for the entertainment value and never saying a word to them.

There are a lot of people with whom I would never discuss issue A or personage B, but with whom I would like to talk about all sorts of other things. I just don't trust very many of them to be able to have the same sort of compartmentalized approach and that previous disagreement on Issue A or Personage B woud creep into, and ultimately poison, any discussions of C or D or E or F ...... Some people just aren't sufficiently evolved to carry that off.

More's the pity.

[TwilightZone]

26. Keep in mind that a significant number of DUers are not Democrats.

And, I'm not talking about Republicans and/or trolls. Lots of independents, lots of third-party members, etc.

Exhibit A: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8405386

Secondly, a lot of people are still living the primary battles. Hell, some people are still living the primary battles from 2004.

And some people are just trying to make a career out of being contrarians.

[brentspeak]

27. What stories have "ended up being false"?

I don't get most of my information from the mainstream media, but it's a joke to claim that the MSM is somehow against Obama - the MSM likes Obama.

[Jennicut]

28. Are you serious? The MSM likes Repukes, they are all over the tv as is Cheney.

All Dems are hated by the media. The representation on the MSM of the middle of the road Dems is slight and very liberal Dems are hardly seen at all.
John King and the rest of them treat Cheney just fine but attack Obama everyday.

[zanne]

193. True. Some people watch too much television.....

And they believe everything the boob tube tells them. If you want an objective view of the world, stop watching cable news.

[Jennicut]

216. I watch it too get a handle on what lies they will put forth.

It helps to know what your enemies are up to.

[zanne]

243. That's true.

Actually, you're doing the rest of us a favor by watching it and keeping us informed of the joke we call the media. O8)

[berni_mccoy]

29. How about the story Pelosi was briefed by the CIA on waterboarding?

[TwilightZone]

30. And the CIA claim that they met with Bob Graham four times.

[TwilightZone]

32. That explains a lot.

Believe everything the media tells you, eh?

[brentspeak]

35. What part of "I don't get most of my information from the mainstream media"...

...didn't you get?

[TwilightZone]

36. "What stories have "ended up being false"?"

Couldn't have been any clearer.

[redqueen]

38. I don't either... which *helps* in detecting the BS when it's breathlessly posted here. (nt)

[asphalt.jungle]

116. ahh so you don't watch the MSM, but you know they are in the tank for Obama

and conveniently on the odd occasion when you are getting that little bit of your info from them you are willing to accept it as accurate, but oblivious when they are exposed as false. You sure have an interesting take on things for someone that doesn't get most of their information from the mainstream media.

[Enthusiast]

228. How about the inordinate amount of

air time given to critics of President Obama. Did you watch Wolf Blitzer leading up to the stimulus plan? Some programming is favorable to President Obama but only on MSNBC,

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[dionysus]

123. again that's just your opinion.

[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.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[lostnotforgotten]

42. Agreed 100%

eom

[TwilightZone]

46. "you Obama followers"

I love it when people inadvertently (or perhaps not) reveal themselves.

[redqueen]

49. Yeah...

stuff like that makes me wonder...

[geek tragedy]

137. I'm tempted to logout to see which resident of

my ignore list made that statement.

[berni_mccoy]

61. Thanks for making DU a hostile environment.

[Peacetrain]

62. "You Obama followers"? and that means what? NT

[jefferson_dem]

86. "Obama followers"

Thanks for playing.

[uponit7771]

43. If I were on the other side of political spectrum I'd focus attacks on DU netRoots

[mkultra]

252. which is what is happening. Embeded trolls hard at work.

[Old Hank]

50. I disagree with you Everyone can express his/her opinion freely here

I see freedom here when it comes to people expressing differing views.

[berni_mccoy]

59. Everyone is free to express opinions. No one is being censored. But many are making DU a hostile

environment to those who would defend or support the decisions made by Democrats (not every decision mind you either).

[flyarm]

54. I will never defend anyone who commits crimes, i don't give a rats ass what party

I am an American before partisan!

maybe you should try to censor our papers..front section of my paper today..huge ARTICLE ABOUT GROWING "OUTRAGE" THAT OBAMA WILL REVAMP AND NOT REJECT MILITARY TRIBUNALS.
SUBTITLE ( HUGE) IS THE PRESIDENTS LATEST CHANGE OF MIND ANGERS HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS.

SO IT SEEMS YOU ARE GETTING TO BE IN A VERY SMALL GROUP DEFENDING THIS SHIT!



Obama Justice Dept. Again Warns Britain Not to Reveal Details of Torture of Gitmo Detainee


May 14, 2009

LONDON — Renewing a warning given to Britain while President George W. Bush was in office, the Obama administration has threatened to curb the exchange of intelligence information between the countries if a British court makes public the details of the interrogation techniques used against a former Guantánamo Bay detainee who claims he was tortured.

In a letter forwarded to the High Court in London by British government lawyers this month, the Obama administration said the flow of information could be affected if the court made public a summary prepared by the Bush administration for Britain’s Foreign Office on the treatment of the former detainee, Binyam Mohamed. Mr. Mohamed, 30, a citizen of Ethiopia who was arrested as a suspected terrorist in Pakistan in 2002, was released from Guantánamo and flown to Britain three months ago.

{snip}

Lawyers involved in the court case are bound by a court order not to disclose the contents of crucial documents, including the letter threatening curbs on intelligence cooperation, at least until the judges decide whether to order the publication of the summary of Mr. Mohamed’s treatment. That decision is expected within weeks. But the lawyers confirmed the accuracy of the quotations from the letter that appeared in The Washington Times.

The letter warned that if the British government “is unable to protect information we provide to it, even if that inability is caused by your judicial system, we will necessarily have to review with the greatest care the sensitivity of information we can provide in the future.”

The letter also said the “seven paragraphs at issue are based upon classified information shared between our countries,” and that “public disclosure of this information reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the United Kingdom’s national security” if the United States withheld intelligence information in the future.


read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/world/europe/15britai...

[berni_mccoy]

69. I have not defended the reinstatement of tribunals. Yet.

I am not certain what to think of it. On the other hand, what crime exactly has Obama committed?

[Baby Snooks]

92. The crime? Complicity....

And the proof of his complicity is his condemnation of policies of the previous administration which he then decides must be continued.

Some of us do not follow Pied Pipers. We know they always lead you to the river and drown you. And Obama is turning into a Pied Piper.

[Warren Stupidity]

229. Why not just recall what you thought of it when this was Bush policy?

Huh?

[kestrel91316]

55. Thank you. Knee-jerk reactions to EVERYTHING seem to be

standard these days, as does the demand for instantaneous results.

[grantcart]

60. I disagree

not with the premise but with the conclusion.

Yes there is a lot of criticism of Democratic Leaders by self indulgent self proclaimed key board jockeys.

But you can defend them, and if you use humor can have fun at it.

Just remember that only 2% of the country agrees with the 40% here who are determined to promote their own ideological purity over that of the President.


Also in some ways the ideologically obsessive purists help the President. They make him look more moderate, more reasoned, more emotional balanced, and definetly more likeable.

[berni_mccoy]

63. Do you feel that some attacks on defenders are hostile or not? The majority here

certainly does not agree with some decisions made by the Obama Administration.

There are some who incite a hostile reaction toward those who would seek to provide an understanding or context of the decisions.

When that happens, there is a 'pile-on' effect and the thread (and author) are either is discredited or locked due to flame-war by the mods.

[Old Hank]

67. Ok, but how much is "some"?

We can find "some" of virtually everything.

For example. Isn't it true that "some" DU'ers tell dissenters that they simply "want a pony" and are expressing "poutrage" about President Obama's Bush-mimicking decisions?

But of course, not every Obama defender uses the "pony" defense, therefore the problem is not big enough to merit concern.

Same goes for your argument that some are hostile to those who support these controversial Obama positions.

[berni_mccoy]

71. The vast majority here are not supporting Obama's decisions. It's lopsided if not onesided.

[Old Hank]

75. I'd say a majority supports Obama's decision

At least in the release of photos issue, I saw a poll where most supported the President's move.

[TwilightZone]

82. Another possibility:

it's a minority, but a very busy and vocal one.

[Spazito]

153. I agree with you on the numbers....

I believe it is a vocal but small minority that are consistently in 'critique' mode regardless of the issue at hand. An exception to that would be, imo, the decision to appeal the court decision re the release of the photos and/or the return of the tribunals, the criticism on those seem to be from a wider, more diverse number of DUers and it is specific to the one issue.

[TwilightZone]

157. Agreed.

The criticism of the picture issue is more wide-spread, but it's also somewhat more understandable than the constant, generic criticism that Obama tends to receive from the 'small minority' noted. More understandable, in part, because it's a complicated issue, and the answers aren't as simple as many would like them to be.

[Number23]

173. THAT is the answer.

it's a minority, but a very busy and vocal one.

Nail meet hammer. That is exactly right. I do believe that there is a silent majority here who support the President but don't want to wade into many of the threads because of the sh*t starters here who seem to live for any and every opportunity to crap all over Obama.

You know Obama is doing something right when the folks who are always so quick to scream about "being silenced" are nowhere to be found, crouching in their respective corners of DU. But the milisecond that they perceive that he's done something wrong, they can't swarm into the threads fast enough.

And the thing that astounds me is that every last person on this web site knows who these people are and what their mo's are. And yet, they somehow (stupidly) believe that they are fooling people or that they are not as transparent as wet toilet paper.

[grantcart]

147. They represent 2% of the country at large

In fact walk up the street and nobody is aware of the latest outrage that is consuming DU



The hysterical reactions from some (not every criticism is hysterical or unwarranted - obviously) actually strengthen Obama politiclly by making him appear more moderate, more intelligent and more calm.

In two weeks people are going to be more worried about their jobs than the latest outrage.


If he is able to actually close Guantanimo and deal with the prosecution issue people will be grateful.

[Kahuna]

97. Ouch!

:fistbump:

[lunatica]

65. You're talking about your own knee jerk trashing of others right?

Because you ask for comments and then you ridicule them for not agreeing with you.

[berni_mccoy]

72. I challenge others to prove their point, but I don't ridicule them for not agreeing with me.

[lunatica]

79. Yes, you do.

You insult people's intelligence because your 'challenges' are false requests for opinions which you continue to dismiss as too poor to stand up against your 'challenges'.

[Moochy]

149. Sad Cheerleader is Sad

[yellerpup]

80. Agreed.

I never thought hysteria could be boring, but it is. Boring and exhausting. K&R

[cascadiance]

89. I think there are probably valid criticisms for those criticizing Dems here....

... both those supporting Obama and other Dem politicians, and those that are criticizing them...

The problem is that there's enough stuff that many Dems are doing that are out of touch with what our party is supposed to be doing in our minds that there are a lot of valid posts of criticism here on that end. A lot of emotion here too as people are out of work, suffering from untreated health problems, going broke, etc. that not only generates additional criticisms in response, but in some cases over-reactive emotional posts, some of which do go over the line and do more to flame rather than to critique. I think we might almost have to expect that kind of dialogue to happen in times like these, especially when many of us perceive that those that are supposed to be representing us in charge aren't doing a good job of it, even if we want them to succeed and voted for them.

Many speculate that Obama and Dems are doing many of these actions not to give too much fuel for attack from the right. Possibly true and perhaps he's taking for granted that also many actions might be fuel for attack from within his own party as many stop "taking the Dems for granted" any more and feel they need to DEMAND the change they were promised and in many cases is not being delivered now.

I think all of us should be careful not to get overly emotional and personal when attacking our own Dems and at least always balance out your emotions with some valid critique so that people can see you're not just attacking people but actions, and actions that could be corrected and unify the party again if different policies were enacted.

Calling people "far left" and not giving details, or calling others "fascist" without giving details does us all no good here, and those terms themselves should be avoided if possible in talking about our own party and ourselves here.

[AspenRose]

110. +1

:thumbsup:

[TTUBatfan2008]

93. Agree with this...

The media took pictures of Obama attending his daughter's soccer game. And what does a poster on here have to say about it? It's a photo op. For fuck's sake, maybe he's just attending his daughter's soccer game. Blame the media for taking pictures of him, don't blame him for trying to be supportive of his daughter. That kind of shit is what the Freepers do. Criticize him for every single thing he does.

[TheMachineWins]

99. Nothing changes in the U.S. until war criminals are prosecuted

We're a country without morality so anything goes until the worst criminals our country has ever seen are held responsible for torture, a conspiracy to commit war, falsifying intelligence and illegal propaganda. Not to mention, rigging elections, illegal wiretapping, manipulation of the stock market and cover-ups of all of the above.

Go ahead and point out the few good things that are happening but remember people are suffering badly and there is still no justice in this country unless a person can buy it.

[berni_mccoy]

101. Nothing will change if we don't give the new Administration a chance to make change.

[Raineyb]

105. Nothing will change if we neglect to call out the administration when it's wrong.

You seem to have a problem with that.

[TheMachineWins]

107. Who's not giving them a chance?

The evidence was collected a long time ago by Conyers and numerous others, try looking up Iraq On The Record and afterdowningstreet just to see a few full documentations of the crimes. It's an ongoing disgrace that this multitude of crimes are not being prosecuted right now.

If anything, you are giving them a chance to get away with the worst crimes against America ever committed.

[Warren Stupidity]

231. In critical areas those decisions have been made

torture coverup and failure to prosecute - seems they have decided yes on that.
kangaroo courts for detainees tortured and held without charges for years - that's a go too.
endless war in Afghanistan - surge-II coming up.
wiretapping - change that is not happening.
end of DADT - not now.
an end to our gulag of secret rendition facilities - not so fast.

In general this administration has decided to continue most if not all of the Bush-Cheney GWOT bullshit. I support Obama when he is right but I am damn well going to not support him when he is continuing the same awful and wrong policies of the former administration. I am not a cheerleader.

[Justitia]

100. I agree & I'm fucking sick of it & the brick throwers. I don't come here for RW talking points.

I feel sorry for the mods, this place has become a cesspool for Democrat bashing.

The seething hatred for Democrats is way over the top. Well beyond CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.

I don't alert much, but when I see a post calling the Speaker a "bug-eyed bitch" and the poster describes how he wants to run over her w/his truck - that's it.

Even the milder stuff has become nothing but tiresome and irritating sarcasm.

Why can't people talk about policies they don't agree with, offer constructive alternatives, without tearing elected Democrats apart - limb from limb?

I see more hatred & nastiness spewed here than I ever expose myself to in real life (I avoid RWers as much as possible).

It's disgusting and I've really, really had enough. I thought this was a place of respite for proponents of the Democratic Party.

[polmaven]

140. OMG!!!

when I see a post calling the Speaker a "bug-eyed bitch" and the poster describes how he wants to run over her w/his truck - that's it.

I think I'm really glad I missed that post! Saves me money on buying a new monitor!

Um, knowing what a good job the mods have been doing, it's probably a silly question, but that post WAS deleted, I assume?

[Justitia]

142. I'm not sure, I would think so. I had such a visceral reaction I couldn't go back to that thread.

I think I actually blocked it out.

But I definitely alerted on it and I'm sure they cleaned it up.

It was NOT a new poster or a troll.

I've also seen posters who want to waterboard her and, ahem, "fuck her with a rusty dildo" - sorry.

That was just a bit in the last 2 days. There is more, but I'm recoiling from that stuff.

[mkultra]

254. the mods have failed. They cant keep a lid on the RWers anymore

they have lets some long standing trolls slip through the cracks and they are now powerless to return the board to its previous state. I guess they could rename it to AnyPartyUnderground.com

[scrappydo]

103. I could not agree with you more....

I often come to DU and still browse the sight, but I do not post very often. It seems like this site has become the "eat each other up" site and constructive debate has left the premises. Some posters here seem to delight in the same kind of behavior they, in turn, accuse the freepers of doing. Critical thinking skills and reasoning power are becoming lost arts at DU.

[D23MIURG23]

106. Then why is this thread most of the way up the greatest page?

It defends democrats yet hasn't been deleted, and has been recommended by a plurality of DUers.

I won't say that there isn't tension between relative critics and relative loyalists on this site, but most of the talk about what you "can or can't do on the DU" is total hyperbole, and this is no exception. The DU allows itself to house people with conflicting and opposing viewpoints on political issues. If it didn't I don't think it would be nearly as interesting to read.

[IndianaGreen]

109. Now that Ratzinger has become Pope Benedict, there is an opening

in his old job as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, established in 1542 as the Inquisition.

There is no defence for torture, and having a D after one's name is no excuse for obstructing justice and failing to prosecute crimes.

[berni_mccoy]

114. False argument. No one is saying there is a defense for torture and noone is saying...

a D by your name gives you an excuse for obstructing justice.

If you believe Obama is doing that, you are incorrect. Obama is following LEGAL procedure by challenging the court's decision. He's not "deciding" to keep the photos hidden. He's asking the court to reconsider, and that is his legal right to do so. He's not obstructing justice or failing to prosecute. In fact, the Obama administration has released documents that show the torture was ordered from the highest office. And the DoJ says they are investigating.

This is exactly my point. People here take falacies and turn them into baseless attacks on Democrats.

[IndianaGreen]

115. Really? Where is the special prosecutor?

Why did Obama refer to Abu Ghraib as done by a few bad individuals, Bush's bad apples argument?

[scheming daemons]

111. If I was a freeper and wanted to sow discontent among the left....

...i'd be over here, and other places like DU, attacking Obama from the left.


Why do I think this?

Because... for the past 8 years I've been over at FR pretending to attack the Bush administration from the right - to sow discontent among conservatives.



It is because of this that I think a lot of the "bash Obama" crowd are not really leftists... but rightists PRETENDING to be leftists to spread discontent among Obama supporters to cut down on his popularity.


Obama's been a fantastic President so far. I firmly believe that half of those bashing him on DU are doing so with an agenda that is from the right.

[jgraz]

118. Oh Jesus Wept. All the progressives are now freeper moles? Give me a fucking break

Every progressive who voted for Obama did it with the clear intention of pulling him left after the election. Are you saying this is now forbidden?

[Mithreal]

195. I doubt most of those on the right have the capacity for such a charade.

I am not saying there are none.

Paranoid much? I have zero doubt many leftees here posing as one of their own could easily shred rightees.

All folks to the left of Obama, STFU, just kidding, but there isn't a whole lotta difference between STFU and what you are saying.

Be careful, the Freepers may be rubbing off a lil on ya, your logic is questionable at best, I hope you bring protection.

[slackmaster]

112. Simply being a Democrat doesn't qualify a person for any defense from anyone

Positions on issues, personal integrity, honesty, etc. are all that matters.

[Justitia]

113. Ok, but why do we have to come here & read how people want to waterboard Democrats?

Or run over them with their trucks?

I'm a Democrat. A Proud Democrat. I don't need to hear people who are supposed to be like-minded crying out to torture or kill other Democrats.

Am I just in the wrong place? It's a serious question.

I live in TX, I'm surrounded by RWers. Is there a place that is safe for me to go on the web away from that kind of crap?

I thought this was the place.

[slackmaster]

201. I haven't seen either of the two situations you describe

I wouldn't be surprised if someone posted such things, but I haven't read them.

[slay]

117. It is DemocraticUNDERGROUND - you should expect some criticism

If you strongly believe what you believe in, whether that's corporate Dems like the DLC or more Kucinich style Dems, then you should be able to stand up for what you believe in. What's the other option - censorship? I don't see DU being hostile toward people - I see people standing up for what they believe in. Just like the Hillary supporters did in the primaries. I think you are overexagerating the problem because you have a minority viewpoint on this - although I don't read every thread and could be wrong. You should always be able to defend what you believe here, but you should also expect that others will disagree with you.

[jgraz]

119. You defend Democrats all the time. No one is stopping you.

Oh wait... did you want to defend Democrats without having your opinions challenged? Perhaps you're unclear on the concept of an internet discussion board. :shrug:

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[jgraz]

132. I'm just hoping he doesn't have any topless photos floating around the net.

:scared:

[Moochy]

135. We already know the OP's position on leaking photos

:rofl:

[berni_mccoy]

148. thanks for the hostile comments

[dionysus]

120. you nailed it berni.

[depakid]

121. "There is much knee-jerk reaction"

Couldn't agree more.

[newview88]

122. Exactly n/t

[Enrique]

125. actually, has Nancy Pelosi ever had this much support before?

it's now I guess at about 50%, her previous high here was about 2%.

[bertman]

126. The Democratic so-called leadership lost me a long time ago. I'm giving President Obama

a chance.

That said, I reserve the right to express my opinion on any political matter, regardless of whether the OP or any other agrees with it.

[polmaven]

143. What I have seen

from you, bertman, is NOT what the OP was expressing. Your opinions are expressed in cogent and reasonable terms. You do not attack, you give your reasons, and you back them up.

Differences of opinion are what places like this are all about. Nasty, snide attacks do no one any good, on either side of any issue.

I think that is what the OP was expressing. Not that any disagreement is not allowed or tolerated, but that the TONE in which that is done is distressing.

Do you not agree? I have the feeling you do. :hi:

[bertman]

145. How could I possibly disagree with such a well-stated and complimentary post, polmaven.

:hi: right back atcha.

[bertman]

203. Also, polmaven, all snark aside, thank you for the kind words. nt

[polmaven]

230. I found no snark

in your first response....and...you're welcome!

[JohnWxy]

127. don't forget the most vocal and the most fervent don't necessarily represent the most numbers.

[JohnWxy]

128. don't forget the most vocal and the most fervent don't necessarily represent the most numbers.

[Moochy]

130. "So I'm thinking this place has become hostile

to many of us who would seek to understand and help share and understanding with others why every decision made may not be in line with the majority of the members of this site."

That has got to be the single stupidest sentence I've read today, congratulations!

[QueenOfCalifornia]

263. Thank you for writing this

because I read that sentence 10 times and couldn't make any sense out of it -

And you are right - it is one stupid sentence. I defy anyone here to explain that sentence while keeping a straight face.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[omega minimo]

139. DU is becoming a place where a questionable

OP is treated as serious and representative of an actual point of view -- rather than what it could be, which is blatantly manipulative and chuckleheaded, beyond belief -- when it could be as phony as the day is long.

It may be simplistic and inflammatory and appear calculated to push all the right buttons and get a flamefest going PRETENDING TO PRESENT A POINT OF VIEW DESIGNED TO DISCREDIT THE "LEFT" (whatever that may be).

I will say this once more and then let you be.

I see the great potential of DU.

I see the gatekeepers since long ago keeping tight rein on GD: P.

I see, since the election, the lucid voices that could discuss different aspects of this administration (positive & negative, including ones we agree on or are worth discussing) driven out of the forum.

I see the gaps filled in by what appear to be disingenuous voices, flaming the forum and discrediting saner "left" views that they are parodying.

I see people in the reined in forum falling for it and responding AS IF IT IS REAL.

I see the lack of comparison for a reality check, due to the fact that lucid voices removed themselves and the phonies remain.


How do I see this? Certain clues we all are familiar with and mostly the cut and paste wording, a pat and cliched presentation, a false tone.

Doesn't pass the smell test.

Can't we be more discerning about when something is a parody of "left" views? and may be presented in this forum for the purposes of:

1. Further dividing DU
2. Discredting the "left"
3. Driving away those lucid voices and shared interests/discussions



Please think about it :think:

[omega minimo]

215. OK not one reply, has anyone THOUGHT ABOUT IT?

[mkultra]

255. i just couldnt undertand your grammer. Sorry.

[Candy Randy]

141. Do the poltitical math!

1. Democratic Party
+
1.Republican Party= The 2 party system.

1.Green Party
+
1.Libertarian Party
+
1. The Constitution Party
+
1. Prohibition Party = Multi-Party Democracy

[craigmatic]

144. If you want conformity be a repub. Part of the fun of beind a democrat is the debate.

[katandmoon]

146. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. Yet it was A-OK for Obama supporters to trash her and her supporters

During the primaries. Talk about a hostile place.

If you can't take the heat you better get out of the kitchen.

[emilyg]

179. +1

[Lord Helmet]

246. like that happened in a vacuum

she ran against Obama like a lousy republican

[mkultra]

256. and the PUMA rears its ugly head.

[cyclezealot]

150. Nothing wrong with constructive criticism.

I may have missed out when some have stepped over the line.. But, constructive criticism is vital.. We are the governing party and we have to do things right...Or else. We'll loose the confidence we presently enjoy.. Being a roboton is hardly a way to get to a correct policy to hoist upon the American people.

[Still Sensible]

151. While I don't agree with everything the president

has done so far or is doing, it is frustrating to watch some of the derisive commentary here. I am not at all upset that we democrats are not in lockstep, nor do I have a problem with people making rational critiques or "holding his feet to the fire" on issues that are dear to them.

That is different from some of the "Obama=Bush," "new president is just like the old president," ""I am regretting my vote" and similar comments that have hit this board of late. Sometimes it is a member upset about their primary issue--whatever that happens to be. Often it seems to be folks that are IMO farthest left--pro-socialism, anti-capitalism, war is never acceptable, get out right now, etc.. I believe those positions are absolutely arguable and should be welcome here, but I really dislike when those opinions are expressed as an outrage against Obama as if his actions are some kind of betrayal. Specifically, the four positions I noted above could not be construed to be things Obama agreed with--ever. Posters should absolutely and unreservedly express their positions on those issues, but should not be outraged that Obama has abandoned them on those things because he was never with them.

It's no secret I believe the President is doing very, very well, but I don't think he's been perfect. Just better in his first 115 days than any president in my lifetime. Many here really don't like his pragmatism. I believe it is one of his strongest attributes.

I wish he had been a little less generous with Wall Street in the bailouts, but beyond simple political pragmatism, I am not terribly upset where that whole situation stands today. Some here want to punish Wall St. types so badly that they don't seem to care a whole lot about the fallout if some of those big bastards fail. Fact is, shit rolls downhill and if the big boys fail, the burden would be borne not by the fucking fat cats but by the rest of us. Yes, there should be a lot more prosecution of fat cat individuals for financial malfeasance, but if their institutions fail, the fallout below them in unemployment and lost wealth in pension plans and 401k accounts would be even more disastrous. It is a fine tightrope the administration is walking... and I would like to see more subtle policy tilts in favor of the poor and middle class. But I think the "Let'em Fail" crowd seems to have too little concern for the collateral damage that approach would likely leave in its wake.

The auto makers bailout has less people here upset, but the positions run the gamut. Some here, often those that are upset that Detroit has been far too slow to embrace a greener plan, seem to have a "Let'em Fail" attitude with GM and Chrysler. Others are upset that policy was much more generous to banks and should have been stronger for the car companies. I hope they're in the right place now, but only time will tell. I am pleased that the auto workers have a large ownership stake--we all should be hoping that pays off for them.

I would like to see some prosecution from the torture scandal. The most obvious ones IMO are the lawyers that gave the way-over-the-line legal cover. There are good reasons, both political and legal, that make prosecutions beyond those a little dicier. I would love to see Cheney frog-marched, but I doubt that can happen (then again, if he keeps running his fucking mouth...). As for the pictures, I understand the President's current position. Perhaps the court will force the release as they did with the memos.

I will be upset if the health care result does not include a public option. For reasons explained well by Dr. Dean and others, I believe that's the right way to go. And the public option should be at least as good as Medicare. The two-tier system in France is being lauded by many here and my hope would be that the incorporation of the public option would be a catalyst toward a similar solution for the U.S..

[ProgressIn2008]

152. I see lots of folks defending progressive principles, refusing to put "party loyalty" above

that. I think that's very, very good.

I note that a lot of those same folks jump to voice support for those Dems in Congress who stand up for Democratic principles on health care, imperialism, etc.

Isn't that exactly as it should be?

I'm not a fan or supporter of politicians, Democratic or otherwise. They're public servants doing a job that they're well-paid for, in the Oval Office or on Capitol Hill. I don't have to "love my president" or anyone else. Rather, I have to love the principles that have established the rule of law, workers' and human rights, and so forth, in this country's history. I'll speak out against anyone against those principles.

[leftofthedial]

154. or criticize them

[Grinchie]

160. The OP is too broad to make a difference.

I think the majority of the Hostility is due to the fact that we continue to be served Shit Sandwiches from the administration in the for of a Comfy Corporate relationship, and a continued behavior of the Obama Administration to acting like a Corporation instead of a country defined by its constitution.

it is very clear that there is very little concrete difference between Democrat or Republican when the consistent beneficiary of Government policy is the all powerful Corporation, who has been granted more rights that the individual citizenry.

The anger regarding the fact that there remains separate and distinct enforcement of laws, the continued financing of Military and Corporate interests where there is no money to support it, and the rolling over of the Government to further the economic fraud that continues to this day.

Hate to say it, but those that defend the continued erosion of our Constitution merely due to the fact that they identify with "Democrat" are nothing more than true fanatics embracing religious belief, because the facts fly in the face of true change.

This is not I Claudius, yet everyone expects that Obama is somehow repeating the Political deceit and maneuvering in as much as the Romans did.

If he is, one has to remember that the Roman Empire fell despite of all the games.

[humbled_opinion]

161. You forget from whence you came.

The Democart Party is a HUGE tent party. We are never going to agree on everything and that is healthy in a democracy. We will however stick to our core principles of:

1. Equality for all
2. The rule of Law
3. Human Rights and Dignity

We all can fit our issues neatly into one of the cores and therefore agree to the advancement of that position in a forum of debate on the merits.

If we don't allow the free voicing of opinions even among ourselves then we would not be a true representation of our political Party.

[konnichi wa]

162. Well, not all Democrats are liberal...or progressive whatever that means nowadays.

Is there some requirement for DUers to give unquestioning and total support to any particular person? I've missed that if it's in the rules. The people here aren't really typical American Democrats it seems to me...80% of voters in this country are 'moderate' or even close to 'middle of the road' no matter which party they're in.
I'm a lot more liberal than conservative in most ways but for sure not in every possible way and even many self-identified conservatives even religious ones will embrace liberal positions occasionally...especially if they're willing to accept certain Christian principles as enunciated by Jesus in the Sermon on the mount, for example.

[Lorien]

182. Actually studies show that the vast majority of Americans are far more liberal

than the labels they give themselves when it comes to the issues. The mainstream media, however, has done it's best since the Reagan era to convince us that we are a "moderate" or "center-right" nation.

[konnichi wa]

185. If that is true, why has every single state voted against same-sex marriage?

edit to clarify---not every state in the union, I meant those in which the question was posed for a statewide vote, as opposed to judicial or legislative action.

Where I live, virtually all Democrats are more conservative than even Republicans are in the Northeast. Maybe all politics are 'local', as they say, but taken as a whole, the numbers rule. Do you have some information on the studies you mentioned?...I would love to be able to believe what you say they show. :-)

[leftstreet]

221. Because the majority of citizens don't vote

And they especially don't vote on bullshit issues that have nothing to do with economics.

Those wedge issue initiatives are designed to bring out specific voters, and suppress the rest.

[konnichi wa]

242. In that case, we need to do a lot more to get our the vote for issues -we- think matter.

Right?

[spoony]

163. "Pardon me, but nobody is censoring you."

Lol. That condescending statement/thread must be good for something.

[omega minimo]

198. It's good for the egos of those who feel "winning" is more important than accomplishing

:thumbsdown:

[LiberalLovinLug]

165. DU is fast becoming a place where we only talk about talking

So many of these pointless OPs which spur on the whiners.

two observations:

THERE IS NO DISCERNIBLE NUMBER OF MEMBERS THAT BELIEVE OBAMA CAN DO NO WRONG

and

THERE IS NO DISCERNIBLE NUMBER OF MEMBERS THAT BELIEVE OBAMA CAN DO NO RIGHT

These types of OPs only create wedges in here. It creates a nice cosy place for tin foil hats and paranoid sycophants. That is it provides a forum for those very indiscernible few with a persecution complex to vent. yawn.

President Obama stated that it is we who are "the change we are looking for". It is our duty to criticize his policies, to shape his agenda. Otherwise the only critics will be from the right (Cheney etc..) and they will frame the argument as Obama's policies being too far left, no matter how much he bends over for them.

But it doesn't help to go to the extremes such as:

Obama must do this and this or he is Bush III.
and
It doesn't matter what Obama does he is, like totally, awesome.

And most everyone in here DOES NOT go to those extremes. So there is no point in pretending we'all do.

Think about it. There are many many more posts ABOUT people on these extremes than there are actual posts that support those extreme positions.

We can be over-all supporters of the Democratic Party, keeping in mind that Obama is still a politician and has to walk a fine line, but knowing that they are still plagued by blue dogs and DINOs, and be ever vigilant to speak up when we don't like what they are doing (or not doing)

[omega minimo]

197. Well put

[BlooInBloo]

166. Whining is their payback for their horse losing.

[mkultra]

257. +1

[Orsino]

167. It may be that you've discovered that a few Democrats really are indefensible.

I can think of a few myself. The folks who want to defend them are really working hard at it, and the strain of cognitive dissonance shows.

Once we admit that our ideals are beyond any party's platform, though, handling (and even dishing out) the criticism becomes easier. We can find a measure of peace by living up to our ideals, and that includes calling out our leaders who don't.

[keepCAblue]

169. Yup, DU should stop allowing posts of Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow, etc. ...

...they've just been way too hostile against the nice Dems lately...how dare they twist and sensationalize *false* stories about Sir Obama, Mizz Nancy, that nice old lady, Jane Harmon.

[QC]

176. Stewart and Maddow are enemies of the people. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

177. Can You Point to an Example Or Two?

Any personal attacks should be pulled by the mods.

[Lorien]

180. I back the Democratic platform 100%. I don't entirely back individuals who

adopt the GOP platform on various issues, yet still label themselves as Democrats. I believe in the principles but won't take any loyalty oaths to individual politicians who behave like DINOs. Doing so would not accomplish anything worthwhile-if anything, it would push our entire party further into right wing corporate hands.

[tomp]

183. good! let the democrats defend themselves. i'll defend the nation. nt

[DallasNE]

188. I Have Been Feeling That Way For Quite A While

The issue of torture has been front and center on this assult and I don't understand it.

It is Bush/Cheney who are responsible for this whole mess. Consider the tribunal decision. First, these are not the same tribunals as under Bush. Not by a long shot. So, why are they even necessary when we have a perfectly capable court system, you ask. Simple. The Bush administration compromised the evidence, either by torture or the CIA destroying evidence, so a judge would likely throw the case out without even trying it. The choice boiled down to either freeing the prisoners or using a tribunal to try them. Even with the new tribunal system many of these prisoners will be released back to their country of origin. I don't know what they will do with those no longer fit to stand trial, including the mastermind of 9/11. Bush's brutality and utter incompetence has created a huge mess. Why people here are going after Obama for Bush's mess boggles the mind.:dilemma:

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

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

[azmesa207]

191. It didn't

seem to matter during the election when everyone on this site attack any Clinton supporter and continued to pass lies about Clinton as truth . So what to defend Obama has gone back on several of his campaign promises so defend them if you must but don't cry when someone call you on it .

[zanne]

192. I'm with you, berni.

I feel as though we're being infiltrated. Alot of the so-called "Democrats" here don't seem to be democrats at all. The minute something doesn't go their way, they do alot of yelling but offer very little in the way of options. In other words, my friends, sh*t or get off the pot.

[polmaven]

194. Why is it, do you suppose,

that so many have completely missed the point of your OP?

EVERYONE! berni was NOT saying that there should be no criticism of the president or of any Democrat. He was saying that the response to the criticism is sometimes very nasty, and very personal.

I'm quite sure, reading the post, that he is also aware that the opposite is true. Some of the criticism is not done in terms that can even be described as civil, much less constructive.

Things like what was described up thread, talking about doing some really nasty things to Speaker Pelosi is NOT criticism. It is childish and horrid.

Healthy debate is the lifeblood of a site such as this. It would be VERY dull if we all agreed all the time. Can't we just disagree and debate in civil tones and leave the hate out of it?

[kid a]

196. I come here for the humor (kinda like the onion sometimes)

[NYC_SKP]

199. Accurate Assessment. The Hateful Behavior is Contemptible.

Last week this place was downright embarrassing.

Recommended.

[JerseygirlCT]

202. With you, Berni

Strange to be seeing so much of this in a different light.

My goodness. We've got probably the best president of the last 30 years. And it takes only a few months for people here to begin second-guessing and trashing him. I know I learned pretty quickly by watching his campaign that he's usually several steps ahead of the CW. And that he doesn't make thoughtless or rash decisions.

Good grief, have we come so far from the Bush years that we're that quick to nail anyone supporting our Democratic president as one of them? That belittles the absolute horror that was the Bush administration, IMO.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

204. As a public service I have decided to post on this thread in order to humanely euthanize it

I am so often the last poster on a thread I think I must have miraculous powers to divine exactly the point where discussion/interest is exhausted.

I made the error of entering posts of yours in the past thinking that a thoughtful debate might occur. My latest error of judgment( before this one) was when I posted on your "Photo-seeker" thread. In that thread you called the posters who disagreed with your position "extremists" "crybabies" "screaming and shouting" and "insane" when they thoughtfully disagreed with your opinion. You used as your model the Gong Show, where you gonged every reply differing from your opinion as not being up to your own incredible intellectual/debate standards and attempted to dispatch anyone disagreeing with you with ever accelerating hostility. Go check the thread and re-read your own responses if you doubt me.

I will in the future avoid other FAKE attempts of yours to "seek to understand and help share an understanding with others" so you don't need to make the obligatory post about ignoring me.

[obxhead]

205. Question Authority.....

Always, and that means questioning all authority even if it's your "team" in control.

The way I see it all politicians regardless of race, creed, faction, etc must always be watched and question. I enjoy DU, have made my opinions here and have had my opinions bashed before. At times my opinions change because of intelligent discussions here, but no I will never march lockstep with any faction, for any reason.

[geckosfeet]

207. He is not perfect - but he is 10,000% better than what was there before.

How soon we forget.

I don't agree with everything he has done, but somehow I am still enjoying not having dumbass as president more. Even though I try to get mad and angry at O, all I experience is a sense of relief and sense of euphoria.

[Name removed]

208. Deleted message

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

[autorank]

209. The CM (corporate media) is up to it's old tricks but it's the wrong culprit.

CM continues to ignore 1.2 million dead Iraqi civilians, dead as a result of the unleashed civil strife caused by the Bush-Cheney invasion.

They're more than happy to talk about torture of foreigners, a percentage of whom were engaged in hostile action toward the United States. But when it comes to innocent Iraqi's, civilians, dead and gone, they have nothing to say.

I'd like the White House to talk about this total civilian dead. It's well known throughout the world but can't be discussed here. The public needs to know. These are shocking figures and US leaders/policy makers are responsible for these dead.

CM has nothing to day about the the conspiracy within the White House with the help of some cabinet members that resulted in the deliberate presentation of false information to Congress and the public. We were told, in no uncertain terms, that Iraq was a threat to the U.S.

Here's what was deleted from the National Intelligence Estimate, Oct, 2002; the NIE used to justify a preemptive invasion.

"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.

"Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge." Key Judgments, National Intelligence Estimate, Oct. 2002 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0808/S00304.htm

The NEI summary that went to Congress made just the opposite point - that Iraq did pose an imminent danger to the USA.

So the exact meaning of the NIE was deliberately turned around 180 degrees to justify war.

These are criminal actions by those involved. The resulting deaths make the additional crime of murder apply, as Vincent Bugliosi has so well argued.

Why isn't this an issue with corporate media? Because they can't indict the power elite that pays their salaries.

Why isn't discussion, investigation, and prosecution of these "high crimes" one of those "monumental decisions" being made in the White House.

These are questions, not hostile barbs. It's time to discuss them. The Iraq war is an open wound. It's shutting down and being moved to the northeast. That deserves discussion as well.

Lying us into a war causing American deaths and civilian deaths over a million is a crime.

We need to discuss how conspiracy to lie to Congress and the people can pass by the wayside. We need to discuss how the deaths resulting from that conspiracy can be seen as anything other than murders by the conspirators.

No bitterness here, no name calling. Let's talk about this. It's a change in policy that's well worth pushing and it's very early on in the administration. A correction here by the White House would be just fine.

[Richd506]

211. blind support and blind opposition are both wrong

give credit when the president does right and be critical when the president does wrong. and he is NOT bush by any means

[jgraz]

212. I doubt there's any "blind opposition" to Obama on this board.

There are, however, people who strongly support ideals that Obama apparently doesn't share.

[bjobotts]

217. Examples please or I fear you are doing what you accuse other of

[bjobotts]

218. Some just have this "my obama right or wrong" view preventing seeing what is really happening

[bjobotts]

219. The discussions here are discussions of differing points of view.

[bjobotts]

220. Without examples you just sound bereaved and opioninated

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

222. I became operational at the H.A.L. plant in Urbana, Illinois on the 12th of January 1992.

My instructor was Mr. Langley, and he taught me to sing a song. If you'd like to hear it I can sing it for you.

[ooglymoogly]

223. We are not supposed as democrats to support a brand,

we are supposed to protect and defend the constitution (that means without exception, all of us of whatever color or stripe). When a brand or individual goes against the constitution and its concepts and the laws the constitution has engendered, then I am full bore against them no matter what the extenuating mantra. Pragmatism that goes against the constitution is wrong headed no matter who does it. Basta

[pam4water]

224. This is one of the least well thought out thinking on DU. Why is it on the front page?

[Warren Stupidity]

232. We have a lot of cheerleaders?

[mkultra]

258. "least well thought out thinking"? lol ironic.

[Enthusiast]

226. The President must be criticized-always.

Otherwise we will end up with another Telecommunications Act, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act or another NAFTA. I have high hopes for President Obama but I have been very disappointed in the way he has handled the financial crisis. I hope I am wrong. I hope we soon see new regulations to prevent the abuses that caused this economic crisis. I would have thought new regulations would have been highest priority.

[barbtries]

233. i have to agree with you.

i just don't contribute to many of the threads any more. and what's going on in Washington is well like being on a rollercoaster. obama or someone in his administration does something i want to hug him for - calls for an end to the "war on drugs," makes reproductive health for women a reality, releases the torture memos. then he flips on the pictures, caves to the bankers, etc.

it's not all black and white. it's shades of grey.

[ColesCountyDem]

235. Freepers and 'wedge issue' posters aside, the problem is that many have become habituated to...

... 'slash-and-burn' posting over the past 8 years. It was so easy to do during the Bush administration, because Bush/Cheney represented the antithesis of virtually everything we liberals, progressives and true moderates believe. Now, we have a moderately left-of-center President and Congress, and when they make a decision or take a policy stance that is at odds with our own personal social, economic or political stance, many here react in exactly the same way they did during the Bush/Cheney cabal's tenure. The problem is not so much that we cannot defend President Obama or our Congressional leadership as it is that we are unnecessarily and unhelpfully ( is that a proper word? ) being put into a position where we MUST defend them.

We must begin to recover from our collective post-traumatic stress and regain our political equilibrium and genuine sense of decency and fair play that sets our party apart from the Republicans. It will be harder for some than it will be for others, but we MUST DO IT! We must also accept that both fair criticism and spirited defense of our fellow Democrats are the hallmarks of rational debate; our party has a far broader base than does the Republican party, so internal disagreement is inevitable. It should be embraced, rather than stifled.

In closing, I would ask ALL posters here to make a conscious effort to be civil, logical and RESPECTFUL in your posts: stick to the facts supporting your argument, whether it be critical, supportive or just genuinely 'not sure/need more information/wait and see' .

I'll go don my flame-retardant underwear now....

;)

[Mark E. Smith]

237. Pretty much why I rarely post here any more

The place sickens me now.

[Infinite Hope]

238. They're self-righteous. K&R.

[tekisui]

239. Another problem is that a loud and vocal group also

view any criticism of POLICY as a personal attack on them or the President. It is quite easy to support Obama and the Dems, and offer honest criticism when one feels they made a mistake. There are many who are blindly loyal and will use personal attacks against any and all honest criticisms. That is just how it is.

There is a group of blind loyalists, a group of blind opposition, a few trolls and a majority of reasonable posters. Reasonable posters who can take an honest look at policies, separate from personalities, cheer when correct positions have been taken and criticize mistakes.

[saltpoint]

240. This Obama guy. I really like him. He's got the good mind --

fast and far-seeing. He's read his law. He's read his history. He knows how to talk in front of audiences.

Voters think he's smart and they like him.

They get the community-builder thing. They get the resourceful problem-solver thing. They get the urgent attention is needed thing.

Obama as public servant is borne on the good instincts of the citizenry. He appears to inspire a wider and deeper level of engagement than his predecessor, which is unsurprising, but crucial because the absence of that engagement crippled us for 8 years under Bush. Obama was cast into the White House on the collective notion that we are better people than Bush/Cheney/et al suggested we were.

[Uzybone]

241. kick, the unoriginal knee jerkers have a copy cat.

[AZBlue]

245. Kick (unfortunately I'm too late to rec)

[mkultra]

248. Its the PUMA resurgence.

[iamthebandfanman]

251. I just dont want DU to become like Freeperland...

Where any dissent is instantly squashed and accused of not being a member of the party or somehow being un-american.

you know when bush was first elected there were actually people over at FR who didnt like bushs spending and big government... they didnt exsist at FR by the time 2004 came because they had all been ran off of the website.


im sorry but, i dont want a bunch of completely like minded people who only care about a person and not their policies.... look what its gotten them ... not a damn thing.


people on DU need to learn to be more tolerant of each other, both sides.

[blindpig]

253. Funny, seems the opposite to me.

Leftists, who defend the ideals of the New Deal are increasingly being harassed, harried and shut down. Looks like you'll have your way soon enough.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

262. When you are trying to defend the indefensible....

you are going to get your ass called on it. :shrug:

Pelosi's ever changing story on her briefings? Indefensible.
More mountain top removal for coal? Indefensible.
ANY form of military tribunals? Indefensible.
Reid's "keep your powder dry" attitude towards every important issue? Indefensible.
Coporate welfare while working class Americans are left out in the cold? Indefensible.


Letting Obama slide on the very issues we hammered BushCo. for?

In. Fucking. Defensible.

You go ahead and be a Dem Wing-Nut. You will have plenty of company here.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

264. I wish I could recommend

your post.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

265. Sometimes the truth hurts...

but it's the still the truth. :shrug:

Too many people here recently can't seem to stand the truth. :D