Should a Democrat always disagree with everything a Republican says?

[MannyGoldstein]

I thought the Republicans were naughty for purposely disagreeing with everything Democrats want.

But now I'm told that because RonRand Paul and I happen to overlap on a few ideas, like the Fourth Amendment being actual law, I'm not being a good Democrat. Even if if I have zero use for RonRand in any capacity.

So... Should I make sure that I always disagree with RonRand Paul? What if RonRand Paul disagree with other Republicans? Should I just refuse to have an opinion in that case?

Help me out here!

32 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	We should always disagree with Republicans.
	2 (6%)
	We should do what's right, what Republicans think is of little importance.
	30 (94%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[bluestate10]

1. Do what's right. If republicans agree so be it. nt

[NoOneMan]

2. We should do what get us the most votes, what Republicans think is of little importance

We should do what gets us the most in donations, what Republicans think is of little importance

We should do what our corporate overlords tell us to, what Republicans think is of little importance

[LittleBlue]

3. No

Some issues transcend politics.

[Flashmann]

4. We should do what's right, what Republicans think is of little importance

It's only a happy coincidence,plus is a side benefit,that doing what is right happens to disagree with just about anything a retrogladyte wants/says...

[MineralMan]

5. You will do as you please, no matter how people

vote in this poll. But, I won't vote at all in it, since it's here just to gain praise for yourself. If you agree with the Pauls, that's your deal. You don't need support from DUers for that. It's your decision, really. Your poll is simply asking for support for you, personally. That's not what DU polls are for, IMO.

[whatchamacallit]

8. And there it is

Supporting the 4th Amendment becomes 'supporting the Pauls'.

[MineralMan]

9. There is much more to it than that.

Much more.

[YoungDemCA]

15. Like what?

Or should we just take your word for it?

[sabrina 1]

22. Paul disagreed with Bush all of his egregious policies both foreign and those 'laws' he managed

to pass that we voted to change, but so far nothing has happened along those lines.

So are you saying we should have supported Bush, did YOU support Bush, because Paul opposed him?

And how do you account for all the Republicans Obama agrees with enough to appoint to powerful cabinet positions AFTER we threw them out? Should Obama be ousted from the Party for agreeing with so many Republicans?

I agree with Paul on Bush policies, so did most Progressive Democrats, both in the rank and file and among our elected, Progressive Democrats? Maybe they should all be thrown out of the Dem Party and just keep those who agree with Bush because Paul doesn't?

How very confusing it all is. I'm glad Third Way Manny raised the issue so we all can figure out what we are supposed to do.

[Thinkingabout]

71. Ron Paul said he never voted for spending bills but made sure he attached his

Earmarks to bills he knew was going to pass and then grab his bacon home to his district. He also did not mind traveling in class and no cheap tickets on our expense. A hypocrite in his thoughts, he was never a Republican, just ran on their ticket. Glad he is out of the way.

[sabrina 1]

119. Any other Republicans who opposed Bush's Wars? We certainly have plenty of Democrats

unfortunately who mouthed 'concerns' about those egregious murderous invasions, but they always ended up voting to fund them.

I wouldn't mention the word 'hypocrite' when it comes to party politics if I were you.

Paul influenced a whole lot of people to oppose a war that was sold to the American based on lies.

Obama has appointed Republicans to his cabinet at an alarming rate giving the impression that Democrats are not suitable for positions of power in Defense or in National Security or Economics feeding the old right wing propaganda that this is the case.

Talked to any rabid right wingers lately? They are not impressed with Obama of course, so they attribute his Republican appointments to those positions to the fact that 'he had no choice, 'Democraps' don't know nothin' bout National Security or Defense.

Thanks a lot Mr. President. It was difficult enough before this to shut them up on this topic, now it is even more difficult

Most Democrats I know voted for Democrats, not Republicans, how about you? Did you think that when you voted for a Democrat you were going to get Republicans back in powerful positions?

[MineralMan]

98. Fuck Ron Paul!

Rand Paul, too.

[sabrina 1]

118. Fuck Republicans like Clapper in a Democratic President's Administration.

Fuck every last one of them appointed to a Democratic Administration by the Democrat we elected to get rid of them! Why are there Republicans in a Democratic Administration? Are there no Democrats available for Defense or Economics or National Security? Do you share the belief that Democrats are not capable of being successful in those positions?? Fuck that nonsense. I am a Democrat and did not support Democrats so we could get Republicans in these positions. Fuck the Third Way and the DLC infiltrators into our party who support war and wall st corruption and privatization of education and pensions and SS.


And any Republican who disagreed with Bush's War Crimes is a step above the average Republican supporter of War Criminals and Wall St. Criminals, which includes, and they are very, very few, Ron Paul and the Freedom Fries Congressman who eventually saw the light after seeing the bodies of his constituents arrive home in coffins.

Fuck anyone who supports illegal wars and anyone who supports liars who get us into wars.

See? Anyone can say 'fuck'. It is such a boring, overused epithet it has very little impact. More a sign of a lack of imagination in the use of language when one is frustrated.

I prefer more creative language if I feel the need to use epithets at all, which is rare.

[think]

128. Fucking A right! K&R

[whatchamacallit]

139. !

[great white snark]

56. Manny aggrandizing himself? Say it ain't so!

Good call.

[emulatorloo]

154. Attempting to divide Democrats again too.

One More Installment in the Many Faces of Manny show, consistent theme though.

[mick063]

74. Paul mania strikes again.

Last edited Sun Jul 21, 2013, 11:35 PM - Edit history (1)

I'll start by saying that Paul's overall vision is a very bad vision. Bad for the working man. Bad for the nation. I can't ever picture myself voting for him for any position. Perhaps when the day comes that our government is blatantly non representative I will entertain the idea of castrating it like Paul intends to do. I have not completely given up hope on the representation part yet. Politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders provide glimmers of hope. The Democratic Party must view the representative part as a threat. I will not hesitate to work against it if I perceive that the party has shifted away from representing all Americans and chooses to represent just a privileged few instead.

Having said that, Paul has more than a couple of proposals that fall into line with what I believe is the right thing to do. They are not, by the way, proposals that Paul magically came up with out of thin air. He didn't invent them, so to claim that supporting such proposals are akin to supporting Paul is false equivalency.

Robbing ideas is nothing new. "Obamacare" is a Heritage Foundation idea. It is "Romenycare" in Massachusetts on a national scope. It is also bad health care policy relative to much better alternatives regardless of who dreamed it up or who implemented it. It is a bad compromise.

Associating policy exclusively to specific individuals, or even specific political parties, is dumb. There is good policy and bad policy. Period.

How do I define good policy from bad policy? It is relatively simple. Policy that benefits the greatest number of Americans is good policy. Policy that benefits a relatively small number of Americans, at the expense of most Americans, is bad policy. For example, ALEC is the poster child for developing what meets my definition of bad policy.

[sabrina 1]

130. Paul was opposed to Bush's foreign policies. He was rightabout that.

And to use the 'popular' meme we are so boringly treated to 'fuck' anyone who gets upset when Democrats, not known to be oblivious to right and wrong or blinded by any form of loyalty when the country is at stake, or other countries for that matter, point that out, which they will. And fuck anyone who doesn't like the facts to be pointed out regardless of where they are coming from.

Al Franken recently praised Paul's son and was asked to be his mentor in the Senate when he was elected, which he accepted. I am sure he will lock horns with him on the issues on which he is so very wrong, and agree with him when he is right and we need the votes. THAT is called being honest. Fuck dishonesty in any form.

[whatchamacallit]

6. Bravo!

The fools that use the RonRand to auto-discredit people and ideas only discredit themselves.

[TheKentuckian]

10. Especially when in the process one ends up "standing with" many more TeaPubliKlans

and particularly a bunch who should be under a prison somewhere who take great glee in being war criminals.

When folks find themselves "standing with" Jon Yoo, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld, and George Bush in order to oppose an unimportant Paul then maybe the entire lame ass logic is off the tracks and the guilt by association game is besides the point but then the debate would have to be about the policies and that can be tricky, especially when one is stuck with lots of appeals to authority and talking about trust.

[whatchamacallit]

11. Ain't that the truth

[laundry_queen]

12. Bingo. nt

[99Forever]

92. That, in a nutshell...

... sums it up nicely.

Fools agreeing with the real murdering, lying, thieving scum because they too much of a hardon for a real no-fucking-body to admit that he can actually be on the right side a of a limited few issues. Blinded by hate and willful stupidity.

[sabrina 1]

23. Especially when they have not a word to say about a Democratic President who apparently

agrees with enough Republicans to appoint them to positions of power in his cabinet over and over again, AFTER we threw them out.

Should a Dem President return to positions of power, the party his supporters threw out of power? That might be a question we need to ask before the next election.

[whatchamacallit]

33. Whacky huh?

The hypocrisy is stunning.

[sabrina 1]

34. Yes, I've tried over an over to get a response to my questions about this, but as you can see

it's virtually impossible. I will keep asking though. I abhor hypocrisy of any kind.

I might get an answer in this thread finally, but so far no luck!

[whatchamacallit]

39. Answer? No

You're more likely to get an absurdly twisted fantasy on why Obama's respect for republicans, and adoption of many of their ideas, is somehow different and/or necessary...

[sabrina 1]

40. Lol, well since I'm not even getting that anymore, I guess it has become too much of a problem

to explain even for the most expert fantasy twisters. All I get now is complete silence! And, I view this as a good thing and will now feel free to agree openly, as the President does, with any Republican who sees things OUR way from now on.

I sure hope no one mentions 'the Pauls' to me in the future, unless they are willing to answer my questions on the Presidents obvious agreements with Republicans on issues like Security, Defense and Economics.

[99th_Monkey]

37. Well, Obama must believe that "continuity of government" matters

You know, like BETWEEN GOP Administrations.

Otherwise how else could we ever hope to have a "government of
the GOP, by the GOP, andfor the GOP"

[sabrina 1]

38. I just wish I could get an answer to my question, which I think is reasonable since

a few people claim here that agreeing with Republicans on anything, no matter what it may be, is a sin so grave it requires instant reaction of the worst kind.

Bus as you can see, I have asked politely for an explanation of why it is okay for the President to appoint so many Republicans to his Democratic Cabinet, and does this mean he agrees with them and if so, why is it okay for him to agree with Republicans to the point of overlooking Democrats for these positions and appointing Republicans?

But so far, no answer.

Clapper comes to mind, a real old Bush Republican?? Director of Intelligence??

I have yet to see a word of condemnation of these choices from the same people who express so much outrage over anyone daring to say 'you know what, this Conservative is right about opposiing Bush policies'. Something is not right about this, don't you agree?

[99th_Monkey]

41. Yes, I quite agree with your assessment Sabrina 1

A rather odd disparity you have put your finger on.

In related news ... I hear Glenn Greenwald actually had the audacity to TALK WITH
a Libertarian once, so he is now deemed to be "untrustworthy" by all "reasonable
Democrats". <-- no double standard here?

[great white snark]

47. Bwahaha keep thinking that.

Fuck the proven racist Pauls and the Libertarians who worship them.

[whatchamacallit]

58. Don't know any libertarians on DU, but I sure know a LIBELtarian when I see one

Repeated mindless accusations make it easy to know who's here to stir shit. Carry on great white.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. The important thing is to be on the team bus, not under it.

[ProSense]

13. Like

"We should do what's right, what Republicans think is of little importance."

...providing health care coverage for 32 million Americans?

I mean, people continue to dismiss the health care law as a Republican idea (despite the fact that Republicans hate the Medicaid expansion and have tried to repeal the law 39 times).

Krugman: Obamacare Is the Right’s Worst Nightmare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023284000

[sabrina 1]

24. Why has Obama appointed so many Republicans to his Cabinet in positions of power that we

expected to go to Democrats? Does that mean he agrees with Republicans on Defense, on National Security, on Economics, more than he agrees with Democrats?

[ProSense]

44. You should ask him.

Ask him about his nominees to the CFPB and the EPA.

Maybe he's a secret Republican. Ask him, and let me know what you find out.

[sabrina 1]

46. I asked you.

Why eg, is someone like Clapper part of this administration, considering he is a Bush guy who agrees with Bush policies, the very thing we elected Democrats to change?

Are there no Democrats who could be Director of Intelligence?

And if it's okay for the President to agree with Republicans when he thinks they are right why is not okay for other Democrats to agree with Republicans when they think they are right?

[ProSense]

49. And I told you what to do. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

60. Is Dodge your middle name?

Why even bother to post a comment?

[ProSense]

62. Don't ask stupid questions unrelated to the point I made. n/t

[JoePhilly]

14. Clearly its ok to agree with Republicans, particularly when they call

President Obama a Nazi.

That happens right here on DU on a fairly regular basis.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Please link to an example

Or pull your post.

Thanks.

[JoePhilly]

17. No, and no.

Just wait a little while and another will appear.

Although I will admt that the reference might be to the Stasi next. That's been popular recently too.

[Oilwellian]

18. Yes, I saw the Stasi mentioned recently

It was a very interesting discussion about the old Stasi official and what he thought of the NSA spying on all Americans. I'm sure he felt a great sense of pride when learning America was following in his footsteps. Isn't that special?

[woo me with science]

21. +1 I believe he said the Stasi would be jealous of the NSA.

[Oilwellian]

25. That's right

It was such a special moment on DU.

[JoePhilly]

122. The funny thing is that I had not seen that particular DU reference to

the STASI when I posted above. But I knew we were DU for another nonsensical claim like it.

Apparently, some have their hyperbole setting turned up to 11 because the competition for eyeballs is so fierce.

The only reference that has not been making regular appearances around here would be references to MAO, which would complete the "agree with Republicans", Tea Party trifecta.

[JoePhilly]

159. Well, this is ironic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3346805

After all ... you see the writing on the wall ... right?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

20. three people on one jury used the word 'hyperbole'

At Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:06 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Clearly its ok to agree with Republicans, particularly when they call
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3308510

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This is awful, seems to be a false accusation that others might believe to be true if they read it.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:10 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: While stretching to Nazi is a bit of work, there are people here that do all BUT that on a fairly regular basis. I think the hyperbole here serves a valid point.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Hyperbole (or maybe truth?) to make a point about a the chronic Obama bashing is okay.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: crazy talk
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Joe was asked politely to back up his claims and refused. Hide.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Hyperbolic and unfounded accusation that only leads to acrimony. Can't see why it should stay.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This post has broken no rules.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the

[JoePhilly]

129. Thanks ... btw ...

After I posted above, some one actually did post an OP making a STASI comparison.

[sabrina 1]

26. Please post an example of your claim or you need to remove that post.

Also while you are at it can you explain why President Obama seems to agree more with Republicans than Democrats on Defense, on National Security, on Economics since he has appointed so many Republicans to those positions in his Cabinet? If we had wanted Republicans we would have voted for them. So can you explain this please?

[JoePhilly]

123. Again, no. Such refeences are made her all the time.

After my post, some one actually did post an article making a comparison to the STASI too. The funny thing s that I had not seen it.

Your dislike for the President is showing. As a simple example. Obama got us out of Iraq, yet you would claim he agrees with republicans on Defense. Republicans were vehemently against leaving Iraq.

One of the things that some of us hated about Bush was that he was the President of only half the country. He never saw the job as being President of the entire country. I'd rather have a President who actually attempts to govern as the President of all of the people.

And we have one.

What you and many of the others seem to advocate is for a President who only represents the interests of their party, only governs for "their half".

What you actually demand is that Obama be more like Bush, only govern for half, and not for all, of America.

[sabrina 1]

133. My dislike is not for any person. Politics is not about 'persons', it is about policies. Your

incorrect assessment of my position on policies which you have in your own mind, transferred to the 'person' is very revealing whether you realize it or not. To use your logic eg, I could say 'your dislike for Progressive Policies is showing'. Or 'your support for Bush policies is showing'. But that would just be an opinion and since I'm not sure at all where you stand on policies I would not embarrass myself by making such a definitive statement without being absolutely certain.

We did not elect Democrats to continue Republican policies, and we did not elect Democrats to sneak Republicans back in through the back door and place them in powerful Cabinet positions.

I am a Democrat who does not march in lockstep the way Bush supporters did with ever decision made simply because OUR team is in power.

Half the country is WRONG and they need to be educated, not appeased. I didn't support Democrats so we could appease those whose ideas are so bad for this and other countries. I supported them so they could represent ALL of the people by doing what is right for the country.

What a strange comment, to support appeasing those who are wrong just to show we 'represent ALL of the people'. How does that show representation of ALL the people? If you do something that is wrong it affects ALL of the people. To represent ALL of the people means doing what will benefit ALL of the people even if half of them are too stupid to know what is good for them.

[JoePhilly]

135. What you are saying is that we should ignore half of the country.

I did not say appease them, that is your word.

Selecting a Republican for some position is not "appeasing" anyone. You pick some one who you think will do a good job, and who will not be afraid to tell you their position, even if its one you might not agree with.

And I did not claim you marched in lockstep with Obama as the RW did with Bush. In reality, Bush marched in lock step with those RW nuts, not the other way around.

Did you know that the far right wing is just as sure as you are that it is THEY who are right. And given the chance, many of them would totally ignore your positions too. And they'd select leaders who would, and do, ignore your views.

And they would see YOU as the one who needs to be educated ... they would see YOU as too stupid to know what is good for YOU. Sound familiar?

You don't realize it, but you are acting very much like they do. They expected Bush to walk in lock step with them. You expect Obama do the same.

A President should not govern that way.

[Bobbie Jo]

136. Nailed it. nt

[sabrina 1]

138. We are not talking about A Reublican we are talking Republicans in Defense, in Economics, in

National Security. This is NOT what we voted for, we voted Republicans OUT because we don't want them in power, because they have BAD ideas.

If half the country is wrong, that is why we have two parties, so that OUR party can fix the garbage the other Party is responsible for.

You have a strange idea of what 'representing all of the people' means. A vast majority of Americans, somewhere around 80% OPPOSE touching SS. Yet, to appease these wrong Republicans we have a Democrat putting SS 'on the table'. So how is THAT representing 'all of the people'?

I will criticize policies I disagree with especially when they affect ALL of the people negatively even if half the people have been indoctrinated and don't yet understand why they are wrong.

I don't care much about personalities, I'm sure they are all very charming in person, but that is now what they get elected for. If you care about the person more than the policies, that is your business, just don't expect the majority of the people to ignore their own interests on behalf of some politician they don't even know and who doesn''t know them.

If you want criticism of the Presidents policies to end from those who voted for him, then ask him to stop appointing Republicans, we voted them out for a reason, and stop offering up some of the most popular Progressive Democratic Policies to the chopping block. And to stop allowing his representatives to trash the very people who elected him and instead, to start trashing Republicans who didn't vote for him.

[thetonka]

153. Half the people is not all the people.

National Security. This is NOT what we voted for, we voted Republicans OUT because we don't want them in power, because they have BAD ideas.

If half the country is wrong, that is why we have two parties, so that OUR party can fix the garbage the other Party is responsible for.

You have a strange idea of what 'representing all of the people' means. A vast majority of Americans, somewhere around 80% OPPOSE touching SS. Yet, to appease these wrong Republicans we have a Democrat putting SS 'on the table'. So how is THAT representing 'all of the people'?

You say we don't want the Republicans in power and thankfully we have two parties so when half the people are wrong we get our way. Then you talk about representing all the people.

Which is it?

And remember, in the last two elections, the President took less than a 10% majority with a bit more and a bit less than 60% turnout. That is hardly all the people.

The fact is, neither party represents all the people. If we could get more of each side to agree we might see progress. As long as both sides have elements(arguable more in one party than the other) that refuse to even listen to the other guys things will just get worse.

Vote for what is right, regardless of party support. If you think the Democrats are always right and never wrong you are just as bad as the people who think the Republicans are always right and never wrong.

[leftstreet]

42. Where have DUers called Obama a Nazi?

I haven't seen that

Unless it was in one of the breastfeeding threads

[ucrdem]

51. Oh come on.

Posted Tue Jul 9, 2013, 09:07 AM:

"Max Keiser: Prism & Purity Nsa Follows Nazi Tradition"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023208004

Now I'm not at all slamming the OP, who may have posted that as an example of the rampant ODS among the Teabagger far right, who make Nazi comparisons all the time, for example wrt gun control. But some of the pundits considered most respectable here, for example Hedges, all but call Obama Hitler in just about every screed. And yes, all but, because he's a clever boy and doesn't make his villainy that easy to spot. But it's easy to spot anyway and yet Hedgeboy always gets the recs.

Chris Hedges: 'It's frightening how hard Obama is fighting us.'

http://dailybail.com/home/chris-hedges-update-on-anti-ndaa-lawsuit-vs-obama.html

[rhett o rick]

59. That's your proof that DU'ers call Pres Obama a Nazi "on a fairly regular basis?

Let's see if I follow your argument. Chris Hedges comes close to calling Pres Obama a Nazi and posts in DU that refer to him get recs.

So if you rec a OP about Chris Hedges, you are calling Pres Obama a Nazi.

The poster said that it was ok to agree with Republicans, "particularly when they call President Obama a Nazi. That happens right here on DU on a fairly regular basis."

So I would say that allegation is a big failure. Looks like disruption to me.

[ucrdem]

68. If that's a question, the answer is no,

you're not following my argument. But thanks for misrepresenting my post. Looks like disruption to me.

[rhett o rick]

78. The original post #14, stated calling Pres Obama a Nazi "happens right here on DU on a fairly regula

regular basis." That was followed by post #42 asked for proof, "Where have DUers called Obama a Nazi?"

Your response was, "Oh come on" ".... some of the pundits considered most respectable here, for example Hedges, all but call Obama Hitler in just about every screed. And yes, all but, because he's a clever boy and doesn't make his villainy that easy to spot. But it's easy to spot anyway and yet Hedgeboy always gets the recs."

I ask again, that's your proof that DU'ers call President Obama a Nazi on a "fairly regular basis"?

DU'ers do not call Pres Obama a Nazi. I say that's a lie. I would welcome proof otherwise. And rec'ing posts re. Chris Hedges dont count.

[ucrdem]

81. A jury disagreed with you on post #14, and I posted several links. nt

[rhett o rick]

95. Neither you nor poster #14 provided any links showing any DU'ers calling Pres Obama

a Nazi. And poster #14 claimed it "happens right here on DU on a fairly regular basis." On a "regular basis" but not one single example.

[ucrdem]

101. Absolutely false. I supplied links in post #51 above. nt

[rhett o rick]

103. The link you posted did not show a DU poster calling Pres Obama a Nazi.

And even if it did, your friend said it was a regular thing here in DU. Now dont you agree that's an outright lie? Intended to inflame and disrupt? Why else would he make such a claim? Think about it for a minute. If a DU poster call the president a Nazi, that poster would be PPR'd faster than (i better not say).

If you want to discuss issues and not just bad mouth DU'ers, let me know. Otherwise, go bother someone else.

[ucrdem]

104. Look, you made a claim. Your claim is false. This is your stink, not mine. nt

[rhett o rick]

105. You claimed that DU posters called the President a Nazi. That is your stink. nm

[ucrdem]

108. That is another false claim, as your friend below discovered. nt

[sabrina 1]

142. Um, no you didn't. But thanks for the proof that no DUer ever called the President a 'nazi'.

[ucrdem]

147. Actually, I did: I posted two links, an excerpt, and a video in #51.

And the rest of your claim is equally ridiculous.

[treestar]

55. As I've told many right wingers, you can't get out of it that way

hint, insinuate, and then say well I did not say it exactly.

[ucrdem]

61. Sometimes they DO say it exactly.

Pretty often in fact:

[leftstreet]

87. Put up or shut up. You claim DUers call Obama a Nazi

Prove it

[ucrdem]

90. Oh? And where did I claim that?

[leftstreet]

91. You're not even very good at this

When asked for evidence that DUers call Obama a Nazi you passively post links unrelated to DUers, hoping to suggest a correlation, then aggressively claim 'I never said that'

go away

[ucrdem]

100. You didn't answer the question, because I said no such thing. nt

[rhett o rick]

111. In your response to post #42. Did you forget? Or did you think your clever wording would get by?

No DU'ers call Pres Obama a Nazi.

[ucrdem]

115. I made no such claim, and if you think I did, post a direct quotation with a link. nt

[treestar]

134. Highly insinuated in some of the NSA/Snowden threads

The Stasi, the USSR, and Nazi Germany. I could find some with some time. Of course it's lunacy.

[sabrina 1]

144. You're not going to like what is happening in Europe then if you don't like the very apt

references to the Stasi. Germans who experienced the surveillance of the Stasi are now outraged to find out that their OWN Government, led by East German Merkel, about whom rumors have been floating for years, re her father's participation in the Stasi, has been cooperating with the massive surveillance by the US of the German people. The outrage now and the comparisons to the Stasi are all over Europe. After all, it is very recent history and there are far too many victims still living to forget what is was all about.

As one victim said recently 'The Stasi would be envious of the NSA's surveillance program'.

[emulatorloo]

155. Yes indeed.

[sabrina 1]

143. Then prove it. So far you have failed to do so. n/t

[ucrdem]

145. Wrong. I proved it with two images, and in the post you just answered.

#61: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3309321

Busted. Again.

[sabrina 1]

148. ??? That is an image from the Drudge Report, a despicable site to which I would never give a

click. That is your own post, are you saying YOU are the DUer who posted a Drudge image comparing the President to a Nazi? I see no link to any DUer there. Drudge, as far as I know, is not a DUer, although you have to wonder sometimes with all the support lately for Bush policies.

[ucrdem]

149. You need to read more carefully. Hint: pronoun reference. nt

[sabrina 1]

150. You need to prove what you claimed. Hint ~ Duers called the President a Nazi.

Still waiting but I don't expect to see it, because if anyone did that here it would be immediately alerted on and the DUer would be gone.

So again, name the DUers who called the President a Nazi or stop wasting everyone's time.

[ucrdem]

151. You're the third person to make that false claim. Prove it or begone. nt

[JoePhilly]

124. Bingo. nt.

[rhett o rick]

53. Good grief, are you for real? nm

[ucrdem]

19. It's an excellent starting postition.

1 - It may be true that Republican cooperation is usually required to accomplish anything legislatively, but the odds are that anything they propose will be packed with nasty surprises and any changes they require to Dem proposals will be bad ones.

2 - And if you look at any of their showboat pronouncements, for example Rand Paul's "objections" to drone warfare, surprise, it's not what you want it to be: he's objecting to the DOMESTIC drones, which as far as I know haven't killed anyone, not their quasi-military use, which is what the NYT exposed in their infamous series.

3 - So I'd say that as a rule of thumb, you can't go wrong by disagreeing with everything they say or propose, at least until you understand exactly what they're saying or proposing, and that means reading the legislation.

Now if your next clever move is to bring up Romney care or some such, please see #1.

[sabrina 1]

28. So why does President Obama have so many Republicans in his cabinet?

Thanks in advance, keeping your comment in mind, which I mostly agree with re Republlicans which is why I would never support them. Do you think the President doesn't know these things about Republicans? Or do you think we have no Democrats who are qualified for those positions?

[ucrdem]

36. The short answer is optics.

Having observed BHO in action my conclusion is that he does what he thinks he needs to do to the degree that he thinks he can. Sure he delegates, and takes advice on matters beyond his ken, which are pretty few these days, but by and large his advisors, cabinet members and secretaries carry out policies that issue from the White House, which more or less means Barack, Holder, possibly Joe and a few others dependable allies he generally relies on. It's a pretty select group as far as I can tell. So in a sense it really doesn't make all that much difference who he appoints to most executive offices, except insofar as they may have qualities that might help them carry out WH policies, like Hagel for example.

[sabrina 1]

43. It makes a whole lot of difference to those who voted for Democrats rather than Republicans

who, if they had wanted Republicans would have voted for them.

A 'select' group? Clapper, eg? What on earth is that man doing in a Democratic administration? He is the epitome of what drove people to go out and vote Democratic, to get rid of such people from our government.

And don't get me started on his economic team. Talk about the foxes guarding the henhouse. Why not a few actual Democrats who might have pushed for exposing the Wall St. crimes that toppled the world's economy? I don't know about you, but most Democrats I know voted for Democrats with that in mind.

To whom does this not make a difference? And if the President can be so pragmatic about Republicans and their poliicies, why is it so outrageous for ordinary, intelligent people to do the same? I trust ordinary people's wisdom on the whole far more than I trust politicians.

[ucrdem]

48. The problem is that most cabinet-level positions require Senate confirmation

which has been a real problem as you must know. Even Hagel barely made it through thanks to McCain, and Brennan took heat from stand-with-Rand and his adoring fans. So like it or not the optics matter.

[treestar]

54. Plus they are working for a Democratic President

So it hardly matters what their own politics are. These posters who go on about this kind of thing are just looking for something to complain about.

[ucrdem]

57. Yes, exactly. Oddly enough,

the loudest complainers don't seem to mind that a certain dreamy Senator from Kentucky happens to be a Repuke. Go figure.

[rhett o rick]

96. Do you really think Comey is the best man for the job?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023309903

I think the intelligence agencies have been operating for many years without any oversight.

[rhett o rick]

80. You honestly think that Clapper, Mueller, Comey, Alexander, and Brennan changed

their ideologies magically in 2008? They are using the same programs that they have been using and perfecting for the last two decades. More likely they tell Pres Obama what's what.

[treestar]

89. they don't have to agree with the President politically to carry out the job

I can do my job even if my boss is a Republican.

These jobs are simply carrying out the President's policies. It's not like they can oppose the President in some way.

[rhett o rick]

94. I am betting the Pres doesnt know the first thing about the intelligence

business. I dont think he is going to change PRISM or any other functioning program. If he wanted these agencies to function differently than they did for Bush, he would have appointed people that agreed with the DEmocratic ideology and not the Republican ideology. Do you honestly think he can demand that these hard and fast Republicans can start to think like Democrats? All of a sudden stop violating the Constitution and the FISA Laws. Pres Obama has extended the Patriot Act and the FISA law and continued the reign of those that have been running the programs for years and years, because he apparently agrees with their ideologies.

[1StrongBlackMan]

157. I posted something about this …

During the last (sub-set of) DU freak-out on this matter. I pointed out that those doing the questioning, are denying their real world experience. They, in real life, work every day for and with people that are politically distinct from themselves, yet they carry out the mission set be their boss. Why would they expect the political class of doing anything different than they do in THEIR lives?

[whatchamacallit]

63. Convenient and

total crap. In reference to the OP, it seems you're trying (desperately) to make a distinction between happening to agree on an issue and being forced to agree. Lame.

[sabrina 1]

120. Oh bs. So effing sick of the excuses we have for everything that is wrong about this country.

It sounds so weak. The one thing Democrats fought hard to dispel, the accusations of weakness. Well I"M not weak, I fight for what I want no matter how hard it is to do, and I generally get it. Because that's what happens when you fight.

Unless of course you don't really want something. Which I believe is the case here.

So what is the point of voting for Democrats now, can you tell us? All we have heard are excuses for why Dems can't do this or that. Even when we give them the WH and Congress and the Senate, they STILL can't do anything?? Because of those mean Republicans ... .

Well, if this is what is going to be the answer to all those disillusioned young people and Independents, 'he can't do stuff even when we have the WH and the Senate and Congress' because the Repubs are mean, then WHY THE HELL should we vote for such a weak party?? Are you saying the Republicans are strong and Dems are weak? Because that's what we are hearing. I don't buy it, we COULD get what we wanted, but what we wanted isn't what Wall St and the MIC want.

[rhett o rick]

112. The long answer is that he had no choice. Those in charge told him who to appoint. That's why

he appointed so many Republicans. Either that or he follows the Republican ideology. You choose.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever,

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

[whatchamacallit]

35. +lots-o-numbers! n/t

[hrmjustin]

29. Republicans are an afterthought.

[markiv]

30. don't think, just obey

or you will not have our approval

it's the only way we can protect your freedom

[RobertEarl]

31. Knee-Jerks!!

N/C.

[99th_Monkey]

32. OTHER: Yes, otherwise they will be skewered on DU for having ANY truck w/ GOP. ~nt

[burnodo]

45. I think we should always oppose everything Republicans want

Whether we agree or not

[hughee99]

64. What do we do when Chuck Hagel wants something? n/t

[burnodo]

69. 'twas Obama's fault for nominating him

If he believes things like Republicans do, then we should not listen. I'm not a partisan Democrat, but after this Cuccinelli shit, I want to see Republicans disavow some of the nonsense that's spewed on a daily basis. Otherwise, they have no credibility and should be shunned.

[hughee99]

85. He works for Obama though, and presumably what he says

is in line with the Administration's policies (or they'd fire him).

[burnodo]

86. Ohhhhh....well

I wasn't going to pursue that point

[hughee99]

93. Then, of course, you have those issues that get unanimous votes...

I just think it's not a good idea to define your position strictly based on your opposition to someone else's position. It lets them set the agenda and gives people the impression you have no ideas or core values.

[burnodo]

99. Well it certainly works for Republicans

Maybe Dems could take a lesson?

[hughee99]

102. Does it really work for them, though?

Do people vote repuke because of this, or is it the massive gobs of cash and propaganda that brings in the voters? For the repukes, their job is to just make their voters not think too much, but without the cash and propaganda, no one would listen to these idiots in the first place.

[burnodo]

109. It keeps them within miniscule percentages of the popular vote

So I'd say yes

[rhett o rick]

113. That is the lamest thing I have heard for a long time. Why would you appoint someone that is

a Republican and hope that you can convince them to behave. WHY DONT YOU APPOINT A DEMOCRAT? Two possible reasons, one he has no choice who gets chosen because the NSA tells him what to do. Or he loves the Patriot Act and the FISA Laws and indefinate detention. And he loves the job that Clapper, Mueller, Brennan, Comey and Alexader (ALL REPUBLICANS) are doing.

Why appoint a Republican and hope you can convince them to behave? The threat of firing them? Oh pleez.

[hughee99]

114. They always have the option to fire him if he doesn't behave, just as they had

that option to fire Clinton or any other Dem appointment. I suspect they had a talk with him before giving him the job, laying out their goals and getting his ideas, and wouldn't have hired him if they even suspected they weren't on the same page. In any case, I would have much preferred they picked a Dem for the position, but that ship has sailed.

[MrMickeysMom]

50. Always question authority

Whether it be from one or the other party.

For everything else, please have yourself fitted for a nose ring...

[Deep13]

52. Every person has a duty to seek the truth. nt

[Demeter]

65. Just when they talk stupid; or make shit up; or violate the Constitution

The rest of the time, we should give them full recognition and support!

[madokie]

66. We should do whats right

of course most times that is not what the republicons would do. I can't remember when the last time was that the republicon's had our best interest at heart in decision they make as a whole.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

67. Neither party should dismiss utility in favor of ideology or emotion. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

158. Aww …

You pick governance over “principle” … as every democratic form of government anticipated. Ain’t that a quaint, and rarely expressed, sentiment these DU days!

As you can guess … I am sooooo glad the loudest voices here at DU do not have the courage of their convictions, as to actually engage in our democratic form of government (other than via rock throwing on the internet) … there would be no governance; just more of what the modern gop has brought us to.

[bluedigger]

70. Fuck Ron and Rand Paul.

I probably agree with both of them on many things, such as "the sky is blue". The difference is that I believe it is blue due to science, not because the Creator made it that way. Why do you keep dragging those fuckers out on DU? To make them appear as reasonable and rational good ole folks? They ain't, and they have no place on this board, whether our end positions are the same or not. Our paths to reach those conclusions are completely different, as are our goals. Well, mine, anyways.

[whatchamacallit]

73. The majority of posts referencing the Pauls are by the

"I see Paul people" straw merchants. The OP is in response to those.

[bluedigger]

79. I think it's a strawman hypothesis to begin with.

Just because you hold the same position on an issue as Paul doesn't make you a supporter of Paul. Maybe a small number of DUer's conflate those, but most are sophisticated enough not to. This was never much of an issue when discussing marijuana legalization, but now it''s a thing to be used in the Snowden wars. It sucks as an argumentative tactic, but the best way to fight it is to ignore the Pauls and not use their arguments and sources if you wish to disassociate from them.

[whatchamacallit]

82. I agree

not many try to use the Paul's opinions, but many get their own opinions tied to the Paul's, like notes tied to stones so they'll sink to the bottom of the lake.

[quaker bill]

72. even a broken watch

is correct twice a day. Of course, a broken watch is correct far more often than a republican. However, it is possible that one will be correct at some point, so I would not dismiss the possibility, but I will not hold my breath waiting.

[shawn703]

75. No, but

Keep in mind that the Paulites, LaRouchites, Beckites, etc are generally a few bricks short of a full load. Maybe you agree with them on an issue or two - hell I probably agree with most of them on the issue of what color the sky is on a clear and sunny day - but beware their "analyses" since they do have agendas that differ from most Democrats, and often resort to tactics like exaggeration or just plain old making shit up to try to make their points.

Just use common sense when considering their arguments. Are they citing credible sources? Are they stating facts that can be easily verified? Or if you stop to think about what you're hearing or reading, do you picture someone speaking in a manic tone drawing lines on a chalkboard to illustrate and "prove" whatever is the latest conspiracy theory to pop into their skull?

[ZombieHorde]

76. In my opinion, ideas are greater than party labels. nt

[L0oniX]

152. ^^^this^^^

[On the Road]

77. Always Disagreeing with Your Interlocutor

ignores the evidence that the most effective way to destroy a debating opponent is by agreeing with them provided it is done correctly.

[xchrom]

83. du rec.

[Half-Century Man]

84. You do what is right

duh

[pampango]

88. repub libertarians, fundamentalists and corporatists rarely agree.

It is almost unavoidable that one has to agree with some version of republican on some issues.

[Bluenorthwest]

97. The way I look at it Manny is that Republicans and any other malcontents are free to agree with me

at anytime, on anything. This will improve their general outlook and serve the greater good. For me to agree with them is going to far. I'm already correct. If they wish to join me, fine. Same goes for the Republican's assistants the Moderate Centrist 'Democrats' and Third Way types, no offense intended of course.

[liberal N proud]

106. When republicans tell the truth or use facts, I will agree with them.

Since the are known for lies and making up their own data, I can't trust anything without verifying.

[carolinayellowdog]

110. Once a month Rand Paul says something sane

agreeing with him that day does not make me complicit with the BS he recites the other 29 days

[Union Scribe]

116. Look at 'em freak the hell out. Lol.

This is the sort of question that makes the people who think politics is a team sport, versus actually having and defending specific principles, just lose their shit.

[LeftishBrit]

121. Not just for the sake of doing so...

I don't approve of what I call 'mirror-image-ism'; i.e. thinking that the people who are opposed to the current right wing are always the good guys (e.g. giving Mugabe a pass because he's opposed to Western imperialism, or liking the Iranian government because the American Right hate them, etc.)

Nor do I think that one should defend spying on citizens and restricting civil liberties just because Ron Paul or (in the UK) David Davis criticizes these things.

One should not rely on right-wingers to determine what one should think - even in the sense of automatically opposing their views.


However, the real problem in this area is that occasionally people have said that Dems/ left-wingers should actively collaborate with the Ron Pauls of the world, and that reducing the social safety net is an acceptable price to pay for preserving civil liberties. In fact, real civil liberties cannot exist without a social safety net.

[B Calm]

125. Do what is right, but when was the last

time you ever agreed with a nasty no good for nothing republican?

[MrScorpio]

126. With this current collection of Right Wingers, absolutely disagree with everything

The Republican Party has lost all and any common sense that it's once ever had.

Nothing good can come from accommodating any of their hare-brained schemes and conspiracies.

[Douglas Carpenter]

127. if certain Republicans are against spying on our own people- then I think we should support it

and we should label anyone who opposes massive spying our own people as Rand Paul right-wing shills.

[MinM]

131. Rand Paul's neo-Confederate sympathies are a deal breaker for me...

https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/354707546034016256

https://twitter.com/thinkprogress/status/355673113477910529

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/357921917975535616

https://twitter.com/Consortiumnews/status/358563733116694528

https://twitter.com/matttbastard/status/359303167311220737

but that's just me.

[Zorra]

132. Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile. nt

[One_Life_To_Give]

137. Only when trying to enter the Pyramids of Mars nt

[DFW]

140. THEY are the party of "NO." We are not.

If they are behind something sensible, then we have bi-partisan agreement. Disagreeing automatically because it comes from the other side is a Republican tactic. It isn't ours, nor should it become ours.

[Omnith]

141. The possible responses for the poll don't seem well thought out.

[grahamhgreen]

146. Apparently it's impossible to disagree with them once you're elected President ;^)

[emulatorloo]

156. Divide and conquer, baby!