Should we goose-step?

[Pryderi]

There seems to be a disturbing trend among some DUers to be dismissive of anyone who criticize Obama. Comments such as, "thank you for your concern" is really very disrespectful.

By trying to squelch any dissension, aren't we as guilty as republicans of being blind, goose-stepping followers?

[Donnachaidh]

1. BINGO! n/t

[ShortnFiery]

2. Nah, I thing the *duck walk* is best when using HYPERBOLE.

Quack! Quack! :evilgrin:

No do tell, what are you CONCERNED about today? ;)

[BlooInBloo]

3. Concern noted.

[Skittles]

4. LOL - you're just NOW noticing that?

:rofl:

[Pryderi]

7. I didn't support Hillary during the primaries and have only now become a victim of this practice.

[Skittles]

13. it didn't matter who you supported or didn't support

the worshipers have always been relentless

[rwheeler31]

5. No

[lostnotforgotten]

6. I Think Obama Himself, In An Honest Moment, Would Dismiss The Sycophants

Obama needs Ideas, not blind allegiance.

[Xipe Totec]

8. The fifth column already is n/t

[leftstreet]

9. Yep!

[Joe the Revelator]

10. Thanks

for your concern

[NYC_SKP]

11. Naw. We should silly-walk.

Thick skins are required to be here, I'm not offended by the few, and you know it's only a few, who ever present such intolerance as you describe.

Hell with expecting anything different, lower your expectations to meet reality.

:patriot:

[anonymous171]

12. Lockstep is good for the party politically speaking.

However, Lockstep is not good for the party when it comes to the creation of policy.

[Lint Head]

14. I will criticize him right now.

Dear President Barack Hussein Obama,

Arrest and detain George Bush and Dick Cheney and try them for war crimes and torture!
If you do not, there's no reason to arrest one other person in this country who breaks the law.
There IS no law when NO ONE is enforcing it.
:dem:

[Webster Green]

34. True

If there is no rule of law, then I can do anything I want, just like the little chimp-ass mutherfucker and all his buddies. :smoke:

[jtrockville]

15. Goose-step DESTROYED the republican party.

Let's not let that happen to the Democratic party.

[anonymous171]

24. After 20 years of political dominance.

They were destroyed by their stupid policies, not their political strategy.

[jtrockville]

26. But no Republican could say the policies were stupid.

[MessiahRp]

30. Hell they still don't think their policies were stupid (nor do fake Dems like the Blue Dogs)

Hence why they are trying to fuck the country over further with this stimulus bill.

Rp

[Pryderi]

36. Maybe the goose-stepping led to stupid policies?

[Vanje]

48. Just so

That is how it works.

[stillcool]

32. When was the last time the Democrats..

had a thirty year run?

[Pryderi]

37. Democrats held Congress from the 1950s-1994.

[stillcool]

44. Not really...

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm


97th Congress (1981-1983)

Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

98th Congress (1983-1985)

Majority Party: Republican (54 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

99th Congress (1985-1987)

Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (47 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100th Congress (1987-1989)

Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

101st Congress (1989-1991)

Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

102nd Congress (1991-1993)

Majority Party: Democrat (56 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (44 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

103rd Congress (1993-1995)

Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (43 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: Party division changed to 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans after the June 5, 1993 election of Kay B. Hutchison (R-TX).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

104th Congress (1995-1997)

Majority Party: Republican (52 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: Party ratio changed to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats after Richard Shelby of Alabama switched from the Democratic to Republican party on November 9, 1994. It changed again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched from the Democratic to Republican party on March 3, 1995. When Robert Packwood (R-OR) resigned on October 1, 1995, the Senate divided between 53 Republicans and 46 Democrats with one vacancy. Ron Wyden (D) returned the ratio to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats when he was elected to fill the vacant Oregon seat.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

105th Congress (1997-1999)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

106th Congress (1999-2001)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

[Pryderi]

45. I should have said House of Representatives. Dems controlled it from 1954-1994 = 40 years.

[dweller]

16. i'm still trying to master the crab-walk

....................................

not up to goose-step yet, who knew square dancing would be so difficult?

dp

[Solomon]

42. LOL Crab-walking is more like it.

Have we gotten there yet? Wait, I think we're in a barrel. Damn.

[Ian David]

17. There is a difference between ridiculing the ridiculous and squelching genuine dissent.

Do we really want to give trolls free reign to post flame-bait all over DU?

Anyway, thank you for your concern.

[Pryderi]

38. So now I'm a troll?

[Ian David]

40. I don't know if YOU are.

But what you're suggesting would turn DU into a free playground for trolls.

[Two Americas]

53. no there isn't

Calling people's ideas "ridiculous" when you disagree with them, and then taunting and ridiculing the speaker is a very effective and common method for squelching of dissent. This idea of "genuine" dissent, which should be allowed, and some other sort that should not reminds me of the thinking behind "free speech zones." Who decides what is "genuine" and what is not?

If a person's ideas truly are "ridiculous" they don't need to be called ridiculous, they can merely be refuted and then the readers can make up their own minds.

There are procedures here for handling "trolls having free reign to post flame-bait all over DU."

Oh....

...and thank you for your concern.

[babylonsister]

18. Do you need the exercise? What a dumb idea; you disappoint. If

you think someone is trying to squelch your point, confront them. But 'goose-step?' Please. :eyes:

[Pryderi]

39. "thank you for your concern" is not someone who wants to engage in debate.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[babylonsister]

23. What a powerful thread of great thinkers you produced. Not. Please.

What's creepy? One person's opinion?

[NYC_SKP]

25. Not even creepy. Someone looking for creepy can find it anywhere their pointy head wants to.

The OP in the linked thread, I think, meant by dictatorship "what if Obama could pass anything he wanted".

Not what if we lived under a dictatorship, but those who want to seem oh-so-progressive-and-enlightened are usually neither and never liked Obama to begin with.

I'm with you, you know that.

[Marrah_G]

20. Get used to it.

It sucks I know. After being on the receiving end of these bullies for a year now....all I can say is you are going to have to either grow a very thick skin or learn to use the ignore button.

Some have already shown their face on your thread.

[Runcible Spoon]

21. ponies, concern, purist, Freeper, killjoy...I'm losing track of how many memes are out there

to marginalize anyone who dares criticize. The cult of personality is strong at DU; this is to be expected. Just know that you're not alone here.

Every loud and prolific (and possibly PAID?) poster who tries to squelch dissent seems like 20.

[Vanje]

49. You forgot.....

PUMA ,and poutrage

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[TahitiNut]

27. I think the "Soupy Shuffle" would be more appropriate.

:dunce:

[Number23]

55. lol Thank GOD for Google! Otherwise I would have had no idea what you were talking about

:)

[bvar22]

28. Yes.

It really is just a small handful, but it seems like they are always here....like disrupting DU is their job or something.



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

[Two Americas]

29. why it is such a problem

Nothing is a greater threat to the potential success of the new administration then the suppression of dissent, cloaked and disguised as demands for "loyalty" and "support" and "think positive."

The critics and dissidents speak out > that creates public pressure > the politicians respond > the new administration succeeds.

The "loyalists" suppress dissent > the public remains confused and passive > the politicians take the safe course > the new administration fails.

That is how things work in a representative democracy.

Those demanding lockstep and obedience, and falsely calling that "support," are actually undermining the administration.

[stillcool]

31. Hah!! Never! "Dissent, dissent, dissent"!!

about anything and everything, but by all means piss and moan when your Democratic representatives do the same.

[aikoaiko]

33. You're not really a dissident until some calls you a PUMA-tard.

[emilyg]

35. Kick

[DRoseDARs]

41. You can take your free-thinking attitude and shove it in darkest hole you have.

:sarcasm:

[ProgressiveFool]

43. "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." - FDR

FDR understood that some things he might want to do wouldn't be immediately popular with the general public without activists doing their work, even if it seemed they were disagreeing with him and criticising his (public) positions. It might seem a bit manipulative, but it is the craft of politics.

Obama doesn't need a legion of, for lack of a better word, dittoheads agreeing with everything he says. He needs us to keep him honest, and keep him aware of what needs to be done.

[NoPasaran]

46. Let's Twist Again

Like we did last summer!

[FreeState]

47. Anyone who tries to stifle criticism is not doing this country any favors

DU as a community was very critical of Bush and should hold Obama to the same standard if not a higher one. Obama is a Democrat so we should expect more of him and the only way to hold his administration accountable is to speak out when mistakes happen - and they have and will continue to happen no matter what.

[ProgressIn2008]

51. Heh, it's been like that for some time - some people have a creepy need for authoritarianism

A leader to love and admire, like a sky daddy.

Hell, I can't even get behind the "well, he's my president and I wish him well!" crap. He's a public servant, paid damn well for his work, with great health care, wealth, finery, private schools and all the rest. Any president can work his (I doubt it'll ever be hers in my lifetime) butt off and prove to me everyday that he shouldn't be tossed out of office. Especially since big money has so thoroughly tainted the political process, that's how it has to be. If I want touchy feely, I'll go to my friends or my lover. If I want heroes, I'll go read Mark Twain. I don't want that shit from a public servant. I want him to grow a pair and do his damn job.

But, the goose-steppers will be with us always, and Obama was marketed such that he has more than his fair share. Some people have an allergic reaction to thinking for themselves.

[Taverner]

52. Well, there is a distinction between criticism and bashing

The difference, I am afraid, is not a binary result

It's defined with shades of grey

Ahh but such is life

[DRoseDARs]

54. That pic in your sig space would be better if the caption said...

"Veto-proof Beer" or some other humorous variant thereof. :)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/10/mccain-i-will-veto-every-single-beer/

[donco6]

56. I'm convinced there are paid shills here.

And we all know who they are.

[Runcible Spoon]

58. ding ding ding

For a website of this size and amount of traffic, it's pretty much a fucking GIVEN that groups with agendas pay people to post and blog. Frankly, if some of the more hardcore zealots here do it for FREE it's actually even scarier :scared:

[treestar]

57. Just because it's criticism does not make it credible

It is very easy to do. There are always threads on what Obama should do, must do, needs to do made by just anybody.

And making a thread making a criticism, you can expect someone to disagree with it. You can't expect nothing but positive responses or none.

It's DU. Criticize Republics and you will get general agreement. Criticize a Dem and you can guarantee at least one post in dissent to your dissent. The just labeling that "goose step" is just as bad as anything else.

I mean how can anyone come onto DU when a Dem Prez was just elected and expect to criticize him without gettig any flack?

[Runcible Spoon]

59. posting criticism and getting flack is NOT the problem here.

It's when certain posters spend vast amounts of time and energy stalking other posters around, attempting to discredit them by combing through their posting histories and cherry picking quotes, start broad brush smear threads about how "X people bashing Obama is dangerous, pathetic, etc.", compare dissent to loving repukes, and other dishonest smears that things get ugly. It's when posters like THAT who log hundreds, or even THOUSANDS of posts a week with a certain agenda, who go out of their way to track down and bash others, they go about their merry way while other people are banned for less, that things are problematic.

[mitchtv]

60. Fan clubs are not meant for dissent

:spank:

[NeedleCast]

61. Yes and No

I hear what you're saying, but take a look at it from the other fella's boots. Those of us who think Obama has done a pretty good job so far get a little tired of the constant hand-wringing over the minute-to-minute, blow-by-blow account of everything he's done "wrong" (where wrong is subjective to the person doing the posting).

While I have no problem with criticism of Obama, it's the over-the-top hyperbole of some of the attacks that start to get under my skin. I'm talking about the posts that are, essentially, OMG! OBAMA (INSERT SOME MINOR COMMENT MADE, OR ACTION TAKEN)!! BETRAYAL!! LIAR!! There seem to be plenty of DUers who are OMG SHOCKED AND BETRAYED that Obama didn't come to DU and make a poll for who should receive every single cabinet position and appointment he made.

It's politically naive to judge a president on 20 (or 21?) days of service and the fact that this shit is going to continue for the next 1440 days is not something I'm looking forward too.

Maybe Obama will be a great president, maybe he'll be just okay, maybe he'll fuck up, but the people throwing their hands in the air and crying about betrayal right now are the same kind of assholes who leave a baseball game when their team gives up one run in the first inning.

*edit: used a bracket instead of a parentheses (and fixed a lot of spelling errors)