There is a BIG difference between "criticism" and "bashing".

[johnaries]

I have seen a lot of posts here recently about "criticism" of Obama. I would like to clarify my own personal opinion, which I believe is shared by many others here.

EVERYBODY deserves criticism. Yes, even me. Even you. EVERYBODY, because NOBODY is perfect.

Obama, because he is our Leader and is naturally held to a higher standard, is subject to more criticism than most of us. It comes with the job. He is not perfect, and he has made mistakes. There are a lot of legitimate criticisms that could be leveled at him.

However, before you throw stones you should walk a mile in his moccasins. (Hey, I love mixed metaphors - down with Grammar Nazi's!)

The thing that has gotten to me is that I have seen so many "anti-Obama" threads that twist facts.

I don't mind "criticism", what I hate is when DUers use the same Rovian techniques that we all railed against when Republicans used them. I come to DU for facts and serious discussion - when I see some DUers twist the facts and post questionable links just to "bash" anyone - frankly, it pisses me off. I thought We were better than that. I used to send links from DU because it was a reliable source - but no more.

I am sick and tired of the Monday Morning Quarterbacks who never got their hands dirty.

If you want to know the Truth, Team Obama/Pelosi/Reid have accomplished astonishing progress, despite the fact that the lock-step Republicans have tried to block them every step of the way. What amazes me is that some DUer's seem to have adopted Republican techniques of mis-information to "bash" Obama and the Democratic Team.

Here's another thing I don't understand - when W used the "theory of Unitary Executive" to basically make the US a dictatorship, we all yelled and screamed because that is obviously anti-Constitutional. BUT, when Obama tries to do things the right way within Constitutional parameters - people scream because he's not being the dictator that W was. WTF?

I apologize to my GLBT friends, I know that you have been discriminated against enough already. But do you want a temporary solution that can be swept away by the next homophobe that may get elected, or do you want the rights you deserve imprinted in Law and inviolate? You deserve nothing less. Obama could issue an Executive Order, but it would be meaningless after he leaves office. You deserve better. You deserve to have this issue solved once and for all. But that takes time and some Political blood.

In closing - I have no problem with legitimate criticism of Obama and his policies. Nobody is perfect, and constructive criticism can be very useful. What I have a problem with is when people twist the facts and turn potential "criticism" into "bashing" for - I don't know - I simply have trouble understanding the negative attitudes some of these people have.

[JamesA1102]

1. Very true and very well said!

Now the DU demagogues are going to tear you a new one. Good luck my friend!

[johnaries]

8. Thanks! I will present facts and truth...

which seems to work like wolfbane and garlic to many.

More's the pity. We could get so much more accomplished with serious fact-based discussions. *sigh*

[solara]

2. I hear ya

K&R


:kick: Kickety Kick

:patriot:

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Why unilaterally appoint Simpson and Bowles to run a 'Deficit Commission'?

There was no possible outcome other than tax cuts for the rich and "shared sacrifice" for the rest of us.

Just another in a long line of similar stuff.

Sorry, Obama ain't working for working Americans.

[johnaries]

6. And here we go..... Automatic bashing.

The Fiscal Commission was an excellent idea. Obama went to great lengths to make sure it was a "bi-partisan" commission. But some people want to automatically "bash" it and "bash" Obama because he made an honest effort to address some legitimate concerns.

Yes, maybe it could have been done better. do you have any suggestions?

[yurbud]

11. ''bipartisan'' as a virtue depends on the false idea that their are no meaningful differences

Between the two major parties in goals and ideology. It is not like two rival football teams getting together to plan the prom. People can be made homeless, lose their jobs, and die without medical care if GOP ideals are applied consistently.

Hell, there is already bipartisanship just within the democratic party, with some representing working families and others carrying as much water for corporations as republicans.

I don't vote for Democrats so they will ask republicans what to do, or dust off the worst GOP ideas and adopt them as their own. I want representatives who will fight as vigorously for my interests as the GOP fights for money interests.

We don't get that from bipartisanship or offering to compromise before negotiations even start.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. The Fiscal Commission was a very, very, very bad idea

See, you think you are in a position to distinguish criticism from bashing but you have bizarre ideas that you expect others to treat as facts.

The deficit commission being empaneled in the teeth of a demand/unemployment crisis was one of the stupidest and most craven/opportunistic stunts I've ever seen.

[MadHound]

35. Wow, you are defending a commission whose purpose is to tear down what is left of the New Deal?

Talk about Rovian:eyes:

You want suggestions, how about ending the wars, cutting the defense budget, close the tax loopholes for the corporations, the rich and elite and raise tax rates for the rich back to *gasp* Clintonian levels.

But instead you are defending the Catfood Commission:wow: And you will probably cheer as Obama's appointed commission recommends even more draconian cuts as they continue their assault on the middle class.

[Dr Morbius]

4. Few people know the difference, and it's scarcely surprising.

Watch an hour of Fox "News" or listen to Rush Limbaugh for as long as you can take it. Our media presents insults and innuendo and outright calumny as criticism, and disguises reasonable criticism as comedy.

I hope to see Nancy Pelosi Speaker again, and see Obama reelected. For that to happen, something relatively dramatic has to happen in favor of the Democrats. There has been no shortage of drama these last two years, but every time the GOP has managed to prevent the drama from working against them, as it so clearly did in New Orleans after Katrina. Something really dramatic has to happen for Obama to regain control of the direction of the country.

[rhett o rick]

5. Good grief. I cant speak for the GLBT community but to suggest that we postpone a temporary solution

because some day a better solution may come along is ludicrous. Take the "temp" solution that should at least last as long as we have a Pres Obama and fight the next battle when and IF it ever comes along. But no, you want to make a federal case, shove it up to the SCOTUS where they can fuck it up forever.

The President has the power to suspend prosecution of DADT for the remainder of his presidency. Go for it. A comet is going to hit the earth in 2012 anyway, havent you heard?

[johnaries]

7. A comet is going to hit the earth in 2012? that's your argument?

I'm not GLBT, so I can't place myself in their place. But this is a "tricky" political situation even though it should be obvious that it is a Civil Rights issue. But Obama has "gotten his hands dirty" politically and he has started the process to make sure that the issue is resolved correctly and permanently.

Would you prefer that he take the Dictator path, and walk all over the Constitution? isn't that what we criticized W for? Would you be happy being a hypocrite? Personally, I think I'm better than that, and I think most of the rest of DUer's are better than such hypocrisy.

At least, I know a lot of DUer's criticised W and other Republicans for such hypocrisy. I beleive we have more integrity than that.

[rhett o rick]

12. Of course I would love to get the issue "resolved correctly and permanently". But we are playing

with fire. The current SCOTUS would love to get the issue "resolve correctly and permanently" also. But I dont think their "correctly and permanently" will be the same as ours. And if they ruled that the law was Constitutional, then the president's hands would definitely be tied. As it is he has legal, political tools he can use to help people TODAY. Every day he vacillates more and more GLBT people in the service have their lives ruined. What would it hurt for him to establish a moratorium on prosecutions? I say get what you can today (moratorium on prosecutions) for tomorrow the Republicans may be back in charge and they will undo your "correctly and permanently" (a comet will strike the earth).

[Bluenorthwest]

13. The OP also indulges in the fantasy that DADT is the whole

of rights. The main focus is equality under family law, DADT is just another aspect, not the whole of it. Demanding that we silently wait for DADT while simply ignoring the other basic human rights we are denie is a tactic I do not respect at all.
Equal is equal. Dogma is dogma. Unless the President can prove that his God tells him to discriminate against us, I can not, as a Pragmatist, accept his delusion as factual.

[vaberella]

30. Actually that comet has been proven to be false. Link to article.

http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/intro/nibiru-and-doomsday-2012-questions-and-answers

[rhett o rick]

36. I was using it as a metaphor for the Repukes winning the election. nm

[defendandprotect]

9. Think "Skinner's" NEW New Rules settled this today .....

STOP bashing Obama critics!!

[ClarkUSA]

19. Hmm, that's not what Skinner said. He did defend Obama supporters against insults, though.

Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-15-10 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #104
113. Of course. You were calling people "cheerleaders" as a sign of respect.

It's really not that difficult to be respectful. Just think before you post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9563958&mesg_id=9565266

[defendandprotect]

20. Evidently you did some selective reading ... here's also what it said ....

"So, our primary concern this time around is making the rules simpler and shorter, and instructing the moderators to focus on the spirit of the rules just as much as the letter. After all, the message board rules should have one simple, overarching purpose: to facilitate good discussion.

This re-write also represents something of a trade-off: You are going to see more active moderation of civility (personal attacks and deliberate disruption), paired with less active moderation of content (especially posts that criticize or defend Democrats)."

Civility

All the posts here that question the motives, character, or good faith of other DUers serve to poison the atmosphere and make respectful discussion impossible. These posts have become such a part of the fabric of DU that many of us do not even realize we are insulting people when we do it. I know that it is going to be difficult to deal with this stuff -- in fact, it might be impossible -- but I believe it is a worthwhile goal that could make all the difference for this community.


Certainly suggesting that criticism of Obama is "bashing" is an effort to "poison the atmosphere"

and to limit "respectful discussion" -- of the MESSAGE.



PS: And I think you summed up exactly what I am speaking against in your OP -- as you proceeded

to suggest yet again that criticism can be viewed as "bashing" --

In closing - I have no problem with legitimate criticism of Obama and his policies. Nobody is perfect, and constructive criticism can be very useful. What I have a problem with is when people twist the facts and turn potential "criticism" into "bashing" for - I don't know - I simply have trouble understanding the negative attitudes some of these people have.

[ClarkUSA]

22. Any criticism has to focus on actions ONLY w/no disrespectful insults against Obama himself.

Again, I am quoting Skinner verbatim:

Let's take your example. Say Congress and the President extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich. You want to criticize that action. Here is the rule:

Disrespectful nicknames, crude insults, or right-wing smears against Democrats.

Democratic Underground welcomes a wide range of people from the left half of the political spectrum, and our members are welcome to post messages either criticizing or defending Democrats. We permit any substantive criticism of President Obama and Democrats -- even harsh criticism that may not seem constructive -- provided it comes from a liberal perspective. However, we do not permit the following: Referring to Democrats using disrespectful nicknames (eg: Calling President Obama "Barry"); Crude insults against Democrats (eg: "Fuck Harry Reid"); Insults, attacks, or baseless partisan smears against Democrats that one is likely to find on right-wing blogs or talk radio (eg: Secret Muslim, No birth certificate).

So, let's do the checklist.

Does your criticism involve calling the President or Democrats disrespectful nicknames?
Does your criticism involve crude insults against the President or Democrats?
Does your criticism involve right-wing smears of the President or Democrats?

If the answer to all of these questions is "no" then your post is permitted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9563958&mesg_id=9568742

:D

[defendandprotect]

26. Suggesting that criticism is "bashing" is intended to "poison the atmosphere" ....

and that's largely what your OP is intended to do --

[ClarkUSA]

27. That's not what the OP is doing at all. Evidently, you're misreading its content.

In a nutshell:

criticism = referring to President Obama's actions ONLY

bashing = referring to President Obama himself in a disrespectful manner

Skinner agrees, as the quote I provided proves.

[defendandprotect]

32. Certainly looks like the OP is trying to highlight criticism of Obama as "bashing" .....

and "Skinner agrees" with YOU -- :eyes:

Certainly think that will bear some future testing!

But I'll leave that to others to decide for themselves --


bashing = referring to President Obama himself in a disrespectful manner

Don't see that in your explanation here ...

I don't mind "criticism", what I hate is when DUers use the same Rovian techniques that we all railed against when Republicans used them. I come to DU for facts and serious discussion - when I see some DUers twist the facts and post questionable links just to "bash" anyone - frankly, it pisses me off. I thought We were better than that. I used to send links from DU because it was a reliable source - but no more.

Do you want to restate any of that cause I don't see that you came anywhere near addressing
or unveiling anything like "referring to Obama in a disrespectful manner" -- ?

And ... here again, same thing ....

What amazes me is that some DUer's seem to have adopted Republican techniques of mis-information to "bash" Obama and the Democratic Team.

Once again you fail to cite any example of "disrespectful" reference to Obama --
but rather equate criticism of Obama and Dems to "bashing."


And I pointed out this one to you in my original post ....

In closing - I have no problem with legitimate criticism of Obama and his policies. Nobody is perfect, and constructive criticism can be very useful. What I have a problem with is when people twist the facts and turn potential "criticism" into "bashing" for - I don't know - I simply have trouble understanding the negative attitudes some of these people have.

Again, absolutely NO citing of "any reference to Obama in a disrespectful manner" --
rather you are again suggesting that criticism is "bashing."

[defendandprotect]

37. Unfortunately it is far too clear that it is plain old criticism you are labeling "bashing" ....

bashing = referring to President Obama himself in a disrespectful manner


Where is there any reference to Obama "in a disrespetful manner" ....???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=523511&mesg_id=524293

[vaberella]

31. You didn't read the post---s/he is equating misinformation used to criticize as bashing.

He said it very clearly in his post. There is criticism based on facts. But when posters are posting information that are built on rumor, conjecture, misinterpretation of the situation as 100% facts to criticize the Pres---there is intent there to raise anger and animosity in those sorts of posts and that is then bashing the President and it's far removed from criticizing. It's basically, as the OP said, using Rovian/RW tactics. Which it undoubtedly is.

[defendandprotect]

33. If there is "misinformation" then THAT has to be the basis of the objection ... not "bashing."

In fact, one of the posters I'm replying to has given this example of "bashing" --

bashing = referring to President Obama himself in a disrespectful manner

As for your comments in this post ....

There is criticism based on facts. But when posters are posting information that are built on rumor, conjecture, misinterpretation of the situation as 100% facts to criticize the Pres---there is intent there to raise anger and animosity in those sorts of posts and that is then bashing the President and it's far removed from criticizing. It's basically, as the OP said, using Rovian/RW tactics. Which it undoubtedly is.

If your argument is against a particular article, then address that --

If you have information that contradicts any such statement, then address that --

If you object to a link site, address that --

But often what one thinks of an article or "facts" that one simply does not like is arbitrary!

[laughingliberal]

10. I'm trying to figure out how you presume to know the criticism comes from ...

...Monday Morning Quarterbacks who never got their hands dirty.

A good amount of the anger I'm seeing is from people who have spent decades in the trenches for the party only to have the party move further from the principles we were working to advance.

Unrec for presumption

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Without much presumption

characterization becomes difficult, and when all you have is adjectives and editorial comments about other people, not about ideas, you need that presumption fuled characterization badly!

[great white snark]

14. Kick for truthiness and civility.

:kick:

[TheKentuckian]

16. Only a tiny handful of people have been President, we don't get to walk a mile in their shoes

and we have a definitive obligation as citizens to second guess those we elect and all public servants.

You also ignore that most of the criticism is not truly of the "Monday Morning" variety. You know on Friday that you are facing the last place run defense and the #1 passing defense so on Monday when you get heat for throwing the ball sixty fucking times it has nothing to do with hindsight but rather willfully employing a strategy all but doomed to failure.

Your "truth" is also perspective based. I'm astonished that we would implement such failed corporate friendly anti-broad prosperity legislation largely based on failed supply side/Friedman economics, unconstitutional civil liberty eroding policy, cowardly abdication of justice, imperialism, free trader, union busting, anti-public education, weaselly Republican horseshit.

Why do you think folks should praise policies they do not support or politicians they do not feel represent the broad public interests?

As far as DADT goes, you take what you can and then force the TeaPubliKlans to try to put the toothpaste back in the tube after years of good policy with the lion's share of public support.

The Republicans are going to have nothing to gain by throwing gays out of the military, there is no such mandate. You are just justifying lame strategy and making excuses for maintaining inequality.

[JNelson6563]

17. Last week I saw a fine example of the twisting of these terms.

There was a post regarding GLBT rights and a DUer asked what Clinton had done on such matters. Well that kicked off a firestorm. In another thread I saw that post referred to as as "gay bashing". Wha..????

Some people think of total baseless bashing as "constructive criticism" and think of an inquiry as "bashing". It's crazy here at DU anymore.

Julie

[Phx_Dem]

21. BRAVO!!!

:applause:
:patriot:

[political_Dem]

25. +1000000.

[DFab420]

23. Well said

and much nicer then I feel I could have been.

It's gotten to the point that no matter what success we have, we must somehow find a reason that it is actually a failure.

It's old.

It needs to stop.

[KeyserSoze87]

24. Although I criticize Obama a lot...

it doesn't mean I think he's a bad president. In fact, I think he's a great president. And apparently a lot of other people think so too. Despite the "liberal" media's endless doom and gloom about Obama's poll numbers, his approval rating is currently 48% on Gallup, which is amazing considering that unemployment is 9.6% right now.

[mzmolly]

28. Very well said. Also, when those who ONLY offer critique of the President, hide under the

"I'm a real lefty" umbrella, that doesn't make it any more constructive than listening to Faux news.

I hope DU will continue to be a refuge for Democrats vs a place that invites a "suppress the vote" strategy from the so called left.

[vaberella]

29. Excellent post. I think you clearly expressed much of what some of us have tried to say. n/t

[angee_is_mad]

34. Amen!

Kick and keep kicking!

[krawhitham]

38. if you ALWAYS criticize, you are bashing

[PurityOfEssence]

39. Criticism is what one says of someone else's hero; bashing is what someone does to yours.

Quite simple, really...