I refuse to apologize for being a Democrat.
I'm not apologizing to anyone who doesn't feel I've passed some kind of progressive litmus test.
I'm sure as Hell not apologizing to any Republicans, Tea Baggers, Cave Dwellers, or Freepers.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Last edited Mon Dec 30, 2013, 08:30 AM - Edit history (1)
"apologize" for, OBD.
Proud to be a Democrat and Appreciate that I'm living in these times when Obama is President! 
Actually it still pisses me off that a sell out democrat like Max (if you can even call him a real Dem) was given the task.
treehuggin' liberal
stop apologizing!
Last edited Mon Dec 30, 2013, 03:02 PM - Edit history (2)
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression*
http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.
1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.
3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical."
4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.
6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).
7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."
9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.
10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.
12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?
13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.
14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.
15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.
16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.
17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.
_____________________________________________________
*Thanks to Matariki for reposting this list recently.
Not a single response from the poster, you notice.
-Laelth
Hi, everybody upthread
I'm going to see if I can address some of the comments here, rather than posting a whole slew of answers.
To those who expressed support or rec'd the thread: Wow! Thanks! 
To those who said "Nobody asked you to" or words to that effect: Last night there were a whole series of "I refuse to apologize" threads in GD. Being a Democrat seemed like something to refuse to apologize for.
To those who attack my screen name or Blue Dogs generally: I vote for Democrats; have given money to Democrats; and have even phone banked on an occasion or two. Do I support a fair minimum wage -- closer to $12-15 an hour? Absolutely. Do I support the ACA? Absolutely. If it serves as a stepping stone to single payer, OK; if it becomes the way the US does healthcare, OK. Either way, it beat the alternative, which was if you couldn't afford healthcare, don't get sick.
OTOH, would I like to see Joe Manchin continue in the Senate despite his flaws -- yes I would. Do I wish Ben Nelson had stayed in the Senate and run against Deb Fischer? yes, I do. Do I think it is axiomatic that every single idea from every single Republican is bad, or unworthy of discussion. No , I don't. Do I think Elizabeth Warren is always rignt? No I don't, but she's right most of the time.
Over my time at DU, I've been accused of everything from wanting to dismantle the social safety net to wanting to sew seeds of division on the site, which is amusing given that I'm a relatively non-controversial, low key poster. The majority of what I post are articles of interest or outrage that are found elsewhere.
Nevertheless, I don't apologize for my views. I don't expect anyone to apologize for their views. I do wish we would spend far less time attacking one another (outside the context of primaries), and instead focus on attacking Republicans.
Also, I support Hillary Clinton as the next President of the United States. I won't apologize for that either.
To those who accused me of being a hit and run poster: OK, I posted this late last night. Then I had to sleep. Then I had to actually do some work. This is the first time I've gotten to review the thread.
To Mad Floridian I'm very happy that you made it over to DU3. Your voice was missed during your hiatus.
That last sentence moved me. Thank you. 
Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)
from all of the usual suspects. Happy New Year to you. 