General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPolitical discussion in a vibrant, healthy democracy will include anger at politicians,
Last edited Fri Mar 21, 2014, 03:02 AM - Edit history (1)
sometimes expressed very colorfully. Understanding that is part of being an adult in a country that treasures free speech and political expression.
We've been smelling a lot of authoritarianism in this country lately. I smell a patient, ongoing attempt to change the tacit rules for political discourse in the good old USA.
It is being repeatedly suggested to us that anger toward politicians is somehow unseemly or inappropriate, instead of an expected part of vigorous, passionate political conversation in a representative democracy.
What surreal, Orwellian nonsense, to argue that apologies are owed, or that the community should be collectively offended and demanding of contrition...
[font size=3] ...because someone expressed anger toward a politician on a political discussion board in the United States of America.[/font size]
The demands are not just pathetic and silly to anyone who understands how political discourse in a free country actually works. There's an underlying creepiness to them that fits right in with the constant, weird demands to shut up all criticism as a proof of loyalty...instead of what we as Americans *should* be doing, which is to constantly challenge those hired as our REPRESENTATIVES to explain how their policies will actually represent us.
There's a chill authoritarian wind blowing in this country. We're still at the point where we can laugh off and mock demands like this made on political discussion boards....but we had better damned well be sure to continue mocking and disgracing them, because there are people in power and implementing propaganda campaigns here and across the pond who, in so many other ways...
...brutal resposes to protest, surveillance of protesters, persecution of whistleblowers, assaults on journalism, mass surveillance, orchestrated propaganda campaigns online, etc., etc., etc...
...have already shown their desire and intent to make many types of previously safe dissent not so acceptable anymore.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-03/15/government-web-censorship
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022666913
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667724
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
canoeist52
(2,282 posts)"Silencing a critic is like saying," I'm not going to go to the doctor for my check-up because I don't want to hear negative news" -Richard Wolff
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22456-economic-update-criticisms-of-capitalism
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Without criticism, possible alternatives to predatory corporate policy may never even become part of the conversation. Limiting the scope of debate is always the first goal of those who seek to implement policies that would *not* be chosen by the people if the full range of choices was laid before them.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"What surreal, Orwellian nonsense, to argue that apologies are owed, or that the community should be collectively offended and demanding of contrition... "
..."apologies" when you're wrong = "Orwellian nonsense"
Absolutely justified. "Apologies" are not for progressives. Leave that crap to the RW.
Best to ignore the fact and not try to understand. Best to double down to justify an uninformed and vile attack on the President.
This: Let's say someone truly doesn't know that the President has nothing to do with formularies. After learning the facts, that person would remove the vile attack. That was not the case. The attacks continued, and were clearly personal and intentional as the followup threads prove.
..."Orwellian nonsense"
Drug formularies are not the President's decision. They existed before the ACA. They exist in Medicare Part D.
The one thing the ACA did do is introduce a new rule applicable to appeals.
The Affordable Care Act ensures your right to appeal health insurance plan decisions--to ask that your plan reconsider its decision to deny payment for a service or treatment. New rules that apply to health plans created after March 23, 2010 spell out how your plan must handle your appeal (usually called an “internal appeal”). If your plan still denies payment after considering your appeal, the law permits you to have an independent review organization decide whether to uphold or overturn the plan’s decision. This final check is often referred to as an “external review.”
http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/appeal/appealing-health-plan-decisions.html
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)not that he's a piece of shit.
Of course that interpretation would take all the sturm und drang out of your faux outrage, and that wouldn't be any fun, would it?
I know this tactic was used before to rile up the easily manipulated. Hmm, what was it now. Let me think... GOT IT!
"You didn't build that."
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I especially enjoyed this - "Of course that interpretation would take all the sturm und drang out of your faux outrage, and that wouldn't be any fun, would it?".
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)But "Fuck you, Mr. President, you piece of shit..." is absolutely, positively, without a doubt, guaranteed to stir up divisiveness and argument on a Democratic forum.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Since when is expressing anger about a politician unacceptable on a political discussion board? Since when is argument unacceptable on a political discussion board?
Politics is inherently divisive. People get passionate about it, because it affects their lives.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)is arguably nothing more than a completely expected and predictable consequence of an extremely "provocative" post and is not an indicator of creeping, authoritarianism at DU.
This isn't simply a general political discussion board, it's a political discussion board specifically intended to support the electoral success of the Democratic Party.
Argument is never unacceptable on a political discussion board. It's why we're here.
(on edit : anyway, "Fuck you, Mr. President, you piece of shit..." isn't really an argument. The argument would be over how the senate bill came to be and how it came to replace the bill passed by the house, which included a public option. The short answer is that political support in congress for health care reform was on a razor's edge. Electing more progressive Democrats is the only way to improve health care.)
(on edit : "Fuck you Max Baucus" would be more fair. Or maybe fuck Joe Lieberman for existing.)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)You disliked Will's post. That is to be expected, since politics is inherently provocative. I didn't hear deliberate provocation. I heard legitimate anger from the husband of a woman with MS over the unnecessary cruelty of a system, here in an unfathomably wealthy country, that requires him to *fight* before he can obtain care for her.
Your second paragraph is just bizarre. Will's expression of anger warrants a demand of apologies by the community because it will interfere with "the electoral success of the Democratic Party"? Really?
How do you prove that, or do you simply want to make all strong anger and criticism of Democratic politicians unacceptable because *you* consider it dangerous? Is this a political discussion board, or a board of commercials and talking points? Again, people will have strong opinions, because this is politics.
Your third paragraph is similarly absurd. If DU rules demanded an apology for every opinion post that did not include a clear supporting argument, the vast majority of the posting here at DU would be considered unacceptable. And your complaint here is particularly silly since Will actually *did* explain why he was so angry. He described the situation they were facing, and he vented about it. He came to a politics discussion board and expressed anger about a politician. You simply didn't like what he had to say.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)because it will interfere with "the electoral success of the Democratic Party. I didn't say or imply anything like that and you've completely misread me if that's what you took away.
What I was saying was that Will's strong (some might say misplaced and over the top) expression of anger was guaranteed to stir up many of the reactions it did precisely because this is a Democratic political forum.
Somehow you seem to have reversed my position to suggest that I'm arguing against,...well...vigorous argument. I'm not sure how you turned that trick, but that's the perfect, mirror opposite of how I feel. Will can say whatever he wants to. The idea that he owes anyone on DU an apology for what he said is absurd. I neither said or implied anything of the sort. I have no idea which "third paragraph" of mine you read to mean that I would propose that "DU rules demanded an apology for every opinion post that did not include a clear supporting argument".
I don't know what you mean by I "disliked Will's post". He's been here a long time and he's entitled to his opinion. Other people are entitled to argue against him. That's the deal. Where you're getting this idea that I'm opposed to blunt expressions, argument, and counter-argument is a mystery to me.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)pretending that criticizing anyone, including a politician, is exactly the same as insulting and name calling.
Not buying it one teeny tiny bit.
I'm all for the political process, I'm all for trying to affect change, but what WP doesn't come close to affecting anything meaningful. But I have seen your schtick often enough I understand why you think what WP did was so cool.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)WMWS is one of the most respected people on DU, I have NEVER seen him name call or personally insult anyone. He makes his points and sticks to the issues. Disagreeing with someone strongly is fine, but these personal insults and name calling are making DU a place that people don't want to come to anymore.
Politics is tough. If it gets people to the point the they have lash out at those they don't agree with, maybe it isn't for them.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts).
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)completely agree with btw. It seems odd to post an OP about something that really is very bad for DU and then go ahead and attempt to insult someone yourself.
If you can find any post of mine, calling ANY DUer names, feel free to post it.
Btw, pointing out facts is not name calling or insulting someone. Calling someone names, such as 'you're a fuging dark cloud', THAT is name calling.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)maybe even look through the entire thread and you'll see the pattern. I clarified over and over throughout the thread that it wasn't about name calling per se. But, you actually don't read before you go off on someone...pretty clear isn't it?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)forum.
Isn't that what I said in the first place.?
YOU jumped into a conversation and 'went off' on ME. I responded to your name-calling and insults WITHOUT calling names or insulting you.
Something you then wrote an OP claiming to be AGAINST.
It was the funniest thing I ever saw.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Maybe you'll actually understand what is being said rather that forcing words into your predetermined paradigm. Clearly you have interpreted what I have said in two different ways, and have gone from one extreme to another. You are hunting for something to pick apart? You are looking very hard to try and prove yourself correct? WTF are you trying to do? You are all over the fucking place trying find something I said to rail against? If you have bother reading things correctly the first time, you wouldn't be looking like you are grasping at straws trying to build another strawman.
I will not bother to explain to you what you cannot bother trying to comprehend.
Again and as usual, you take words out of context and try and paint people into a corner by twisting their meaning and turning into absolutes. It's actually a very predictable stupid thing to do. Is that how you rack your post counts?
brush
(53,765 posts)syc . . .?
sycoh . . . ?
sychophant?
serial ranter sychophant maybe?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)'sycoh' eg, could be taken as 'psycho'. And much as I disagree with some people here I haven't seen anyone I would refer to as a 'sycoh/psycho', certainly not long time posters.
Was that an error, or were you really referring to a longtime DUer as a 'psycho'?
brush
(53,765 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and acceptance ... when the expressions of anger were directed towards GG, Assange and Snowden.
https://www.google.com/search?q=woo+me+with+science+Glenn+Greenwald&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com
https://www.google.com/search?q=woo+me+with+science+assuange&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com#q=woo+me+with+science+assange+site:democraticunderground.com&spell=1
https://www.google.com/search?q=woo+me+with+science+snowden&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com
I call B.S.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)and would likely be impeachable material within 24 hours.
Again, the damage to this country was not done yesterday morning at 8:00 a.m. The BIG damage began to be implemented in 1981 when the Repukes sold our country off in pieces to the corporate machine. The Repuke a-holes who caused such grave damage, and their ilk, are still in govt, on the Internet, paying millions for propaganda to delude stupid Americans, causing damage, spreading propaganda, hijacking the govt, tying the hands of anyone who even DARES to introduce something that might reverse the damaging policies and laws they implemented, manipulating, and so on.
Are we fighting THEM? Well? ARE WE? Or are we just whining a lot and sounding an awful lot like Republicans?
If there's a poisonous snake in your house because your kids left the door open, you don't go kill your kids, you cut the head off the poisonous snake. What's more, talking bad about your kids is a real waste of time and doesn't get rid of the snake.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)because the corporate Democrats pushing this garbage have never, ever been a grass roots, naturally occurring part of the Party. They are a deliberate, Koch-bankrolled infiltration with a goal of hijacking the Democratic Party to serve corporate interests rather than the interests of voters.
[font size=3]When your child, or your party, is gravely sick with a malignant, infiltrating tumor, you don't pledge loyalty to the tumor because it is a part of your child now. You excise it. [/font size]
When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556
When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432
GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116
The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414
Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121
ReRe
(10,597 posts)Thank you profusely for including those links. There are so many impressionable young minds who traverse this site and these Koch Bros DLC cheerleader trolls must be dealt with and explained, lest their rhetoric be taken seriously. 
JEB
(4,748 posts)We have some Koch funded tumors growing here at DU.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)The tumor is the Republicans.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)with regard to his tumor analogy:
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)There should be no arguing among democrats over ending for profit Health Care. Really, I never thought there was.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)The President is gonna be fine.
He's a grown man, worth all sorts of money, and he's been elected twice.
He seems to deal with criticism with class and grace.
Some of his supporters however, not so much.
And I too, have NEVER seen such an emotional investment in a politician.
& Rec !!!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)This is not different
Name it, cult of personality
It is inimical to a mature democracy, alas I don't think we live in one any longer. I wonder if we ever did?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)I monitored freerepublic for many years, every day. Their adulation of Bush was identical to that of Obama here. Same kinds of retorts, gushing, worship, all of it. Cult of personality.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)...and it still does. Soul killing.
brush
(53,765 posts)have long known the President Obama is not the progressive we had hoped for. He is in fact a centrist dem who has been obstructed at every turn by repugs and blue dogs but still has gotten some things done.
Even his haters have to acknowledge that the ACA although not everything we wanted is, and I quote VP Joe Biden: ". . . a big fuckin' deal."
Throw in the Lily Ledbettor Act and saving the auto industry and the stimulus which probably saved the whole economy from tanking completely, ended "don't ask don't tell" and . . .
Anyway, I personally am disappointed that he didn't push to the bitter end for single payer, or that he was too nice and tried too long to get along with the repugs in his first term, or get a jobs bill through, or get immigration reform done, but hey, we know who he is now — a centrist. He's not Bernie or Elizabeth Warren or Kucinich unfortunately, and we don't worship him like the serial ranter sychophants love to spout.
We support dem politicians however over repugs — even centrists (one of the raison d'etra of this site, btw. I myself draw the line at blue dogs though), and calling a sitting Democratic president a "piece of shit" on a progressive democratic site is nasty, insulting, unnecessary, agenda-driven and designed to disrupt under the guise of "frustration", and I for one can't understand those that defend the name calling. That is not criticism, it is childish attention seeking that needlessly create a shitstorm when help for his wife was what was needed.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)by saying that the person making the argument is a mindless cult follower than it is to make an argument based on ideas.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)They are not unique to the 21st century. See the love for Jackson, the fact people had items at home from Grant and FDR and Kennedy. In my opinion it is worst and inimical to democracy and "both sides" do it.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)You don't need any approval from me and I'm sure you're not interested in listening to me standing on a soap box.
Calling someone a cultist conveys utter and complete disrespect. It says that this person is weak and deluded, that his or her opinions are false and of no value, that they lack any intellectual strength or integrity, and that they're not capable of independent reasoning to arrive at conclusions which are their own.
It has no place in civil discourse, which requires at the least the assumption that the other person is truthful and is motivated to improve the common good.
It has no place in a respectful discussion of ideas.
I know you're capable of making strong arguments in support of your positions. I've seen them before.
This is not one of them.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And will leave it at that, or some will accuse me of calling out.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)crimeariver1225
(19 posts)
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)...when we aren't willing to hold ourselves to the very standards we claim to want to see?
There has to be some kind of standard, don't you think? Or should we all just be yelling "You lie!" in the middle of speeches?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Guess I'll just start copying-and-pasting my posts too.
Political speech should be built on truth and opinion.
Will's rant is not built on truth. His problems were not caused by the ACA. Formularies have been part of insurance for decades, and there's several routes to getting a drug covered despite not being in the formulary.
Additionally, virtually all single-payer systems have formularies. And people in Canada, the UK and lots of other countries have to fight for coverage of the same drug.
He blamed Obama for something Obama did not do. The proper thing to do in such a situation is admit you made an error, once you have cooled down.
Political speech should be built on truth and opinion. To do otherwise is to say Fox News's bullshit is A-OK. They're just politicians. Why should we care if Fox lies about them?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)system. The system could be better.
mythology
(9,527 posts)He didn't say that the ACA could be better. He called the president a piece of shit. Granted I generally have a problem with referring to anybody like that, but that's more about how crass it comes across, and in my experience being that angry often makes one less than capable of being even remotely objective.
But even if the idea was that the ACA isn't perfect, it still doesn't address the formulary issue which is present even in countries that have single payer. It's a fundamental problem of having the best allocation of resources based on what amount of money is being spent. Some people are always going to be missed. But if we throw everything at every problem, we'd not simply run out of money, we'd also increase the speed at which we develop antibiotic resistance viruses and bacteria.
ReRe
(10,597 posts).... it's what he has been going through, it's HOW HE FELT when he said it. The row with the insurance co. and his wife's health at risk... all that had him in an emotional heap of nerves and anger. Has no one gone to the ends of the earth for someone they love before? I think we need to go easy on our fellow DUers when they are beside themselves with grief, anger and spew something out that they normally wouldn't have said.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The advice in that thread got the medication in one day.
If I was on the jury instead of one of the "leave it" people, his post gets hidden - it's a baseless attack on the wrong person.
No advice. No medication.
Will's not a 5-year-old. Part of being an adult is reflecting on your actions, and figuring out how you could do better in the future. Will needs to think about how that pile of rage nearly cost his wife her medication. So that next time he won't cause such a risk. I have no idea if he has done so or not. Since this is a message board, the only way we'd know if that happened would be a "whoops, I was wrong" post.
It's not that far out of character for Will. "The knob was turned to 11", but other than that it's a fairly normal post.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)A post that doesn't use the word "better" (or a synonym) means he's only asking for a better system?
Yeah. Sure.
The post was a giant ball of rage caused by getting shitty advice from someone who did not know what they were talking about. He lashed out at the person who did not cause his problem because he was mad.
Also known as "BENGHAZI!!!!!"
And, btw, it was really, really stupid. The advice in that thread got his wife the medication in one day. But let's say I was on the jury instead the 3 who voted to leave it. I'd definitely have hidden. As a result, he doesn't get the advice and his wife doesn't get her medication.
Finally, please explain how you get Lieberman's vote for a better system. You can't pass all of the reform through reconciliation - only part of the ACA was. So you need a yea from the "Senator from Aetna" for a better system.
He knows he can't win re-election, so you can't threaten him there. His main goal at that point is to get on TV as much as possible, and throwing him off committees just gets him more TV time. Obama saying bad things about him gets him more TV time too.
So how, specifically, does Obama get Joe's vote for better? And once you have that, you've got to pick up the next few blue dogs too. Nelson votes yea because.....?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)You gonna bother explaining exactly how Obama could have gotten a better program past Congress?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Sanders and Kucinch, and a whole lot of other members of the Progressive Caucus that "didn't fight for a better system", but he seems to never have a bad thing to say about.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
pa28
(6,145 posts)It seems they can tolerate blunt criticism better than their supporters at times.
We have to remember the administration itself pitched itself as a post partisan entity and not specifically an agent for the Democratic party. He's the President - period - and thus open to criticism. This administration has also openly kicked the left in the balls so to speak more than once so I think it's fair to say we are looking at a two way street.
Yes it's tough out there and I don't really think it's a big deal that some delicate flower had their feelings hurt.
"Politicians are grown up boys and girls with a thick skin."
...that has nothing to do with other people being critical of unjustified and unwarranted attacks. Defending someone against attacks, regardless of where they originate, is called support.
Nader sends Bernie an unpleasant, sneering letter.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024618995
Senator Sanders' spokesman smacks down Nader
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024629502
treestar
(82,383 posts)is not quite the same thing.
It's also babyish to simply lash out at whoever is in the WH for what goes wrong in one's personal life. I don't think grown ups do that.
We didn't like Bush, but we didn't usually blame him for what went wrong for us personally.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)There is no rule at DU that posting be mature. If there were, many, many Third Way arguments (Ron Paul opposes NSA spying; therefore we should defend it!) would be considered to cross a line. There's a lot of talk on discussion boards that you won't like. Other people will disagree with your perceptions. That's the nature of a political discussion board.
Repeated dark suggestions that it's unacceptable to express anger toward certain politicians - not that you merely dislike or disagree with what the poster wrote, but that the poster somehow *crossed a line* and *owes the community an apology* - is a tactic of authoritarians. That's why you see people answering it and telling you it is full of shit.
treestar
(82,383 posts)is the height of egotistical and babyish.
Even Bush. I don't even recall people blaming him because they couldn't afford health care, even here.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)With a fig leave of elections...is accelerating. IMHO it has to do with the coming environmental crisis that's nasa even mentioned...and it is bipartisan.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)nah.
I thought Obama destroyed all that.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)as evidenced not only by the horrific assaults on our Constitution and civil liberties even under a Democratic administration...
...but also by the prevalence of weird conversations like this on DU, in which we find ourselves having to defend ideas and principles that should be basic and a given to any American citizen: things like the radical idea that you can express anger about a politician on a political discussion board, or that a government with a Fourth Amendment should not be conducting mass surveillance on its own citizens.
There's a lot of "2+2=5" being disseminated here at DU and on political boards across the internet. However, this country is still at a point in our political history when most of us can still remember that 2+2=4.
It's important to defend that.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
Whisp
(24,096 posts)so this would mean a vibrant and healthy democracy - you said that, not I.
In fact the vibrancy is almost of earthquake proportions with all the piece of shit used car salesman kind of, ahem, let's call it criticism for now. So vibrant that when I log on DU my mouse moves off my desk from all that vibrating.
And oh, it looks like you got something in your eyes, let me get it out for you. It's a piece of brocolli.
Number23
(24,544 posts)
Response to woo me with science (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Well then...
jsr
(7,712 posts)They only called liberals fucking.
Just like nobody on here EVER called the President a piece of shit used-car salesman.
They only called him a piece of shit.
Truncation is important. Fucking is good. Feces is bad.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The objections are of two flavors:
1) That phrase.
2) He attacked someone who did not cause his problem, and could not solve his problem. Formularies predate the ACA, and many single-payer formularies do not include that drug.
I'd think you wouldn't want to do the exact same thing you are complaining about.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel apologized to the head of the Special Olympics today after the Wall Street Journal reported the fiery Chicagoan privately called a group of liberal activists "f—ing retarded."
Last August, Emanuel "showed up at a weekly strategy session featuring liberal groups and White House aides," the Journal's Peter Wallsten reported lastTuesday."Some attendees said they were planning to air ads attacking conservative Democrats who were balking at Mr. Obama's health-care overhaul. 'F—ing retarded,' Mr. Emanuel scolded the group, according to several participants. He warned them not to alienate lawmakers whose votes would be needed on health care and other top legislative items."
A White House official confirms that Emanuel made the remark and reports that Emanuel called Tim Shriver last week when the Journal story first appeared to apologize to the disabled community and the apology was accepted.
"The White House remains committed to addressing the concerns and needs of Americans living with disabilities and recognizes that derogatory remarks demean us all," the official said.
treestar
(82,383 posts)so Obama is not allowed to push back? A reverse snobbery.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)instead of corporations, who, despite Romney's claims, are NOT people.
treestar
(82,383 posts)A number with very different views amongst them.
Working for us means something different from doing what you want.
And he is working for the voters who didn't vote for him too.
People need to grow up. The president isn't our Daddy. He did his job. He and that Congress made some progress. That doesn't mean each individual gets everything they want.
polichick
(37,152 posts)is not okay - even if the guy doing it seems cool and has a D behind his name.
The TPP is not okay.
The pipeline is not okay.
Allowing BP back in the Gulf is not okay.
Just to mention a few areas where the prez comes down on the side of corporate profits.
The only ones who think of the prez as some kind of family member are his relentless protectors - the rest of us remember that he works for the people.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They are going to go to the voters who vote reliably for ideas about what to support.
That's how it works.
All the blabber about corporatism isn't convincing a single voter out there. And you saying you won't vote for the Democrat because they are too corporatist leaves you with Greens of Socialists or whatever, if they can get onto the ballot. All they can promise you is they are unlikely to win.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Wake up!
btw I haven't missed a vote since I was 18 so you're talking out of your ass.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Who did you vote for, Greens? Who earned your vote? It wasn't the corporatist Democrats, was it?
They aren't going to come begging you to earn your vote. If they don't earn it, who does?
polichick
(37,152 posts)And, since you seem particularly naïve, I'll tell you the reason:
Most members of Congress don't give a shit what the people want.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)welcome to the real world. Only babies blame the President for everything.
progree
(10,901 posts)
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)the US has historically ridiculed and lambasted politicians since its inception. Just look at early 20th Century political campaigns and comment and much of it would get you banned from here.
My problem isn't the American way of campaigning and complaining, which is often hilarious, but where are the serious solutions the complainers have for what they are attacking?
Any idiot can rant and rave about the problem of the day, but few of those idiots have anything to say worth listening to after the laughter dies down. Sure, Obama is a piece of shit for not getting someone their personal pony, but then what's the reason for not getting it and how can we get it with all the opposition against and the competing ponies out there. Obama got a lot done when he had Pelosi running the House, but we forget about that and now it's just his fault.
But, apparently, the worst thing we can do is accuse a whiner of whining.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)The defenders® are defending the indefensible.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)some form of "LOL " want substantive replies with solutions.
Saying mean things about Obama has offended his fans and they want an apology. To themselves.
Hey, when various liberal interest groups approached Obama and he cleverly emulated FDR and cupped his ear and said "I can't hear you" - maybe that didn't mean what we thought it meant, is all.
Oh, and Rahm's apology? That was sincere? Bwahahahaha!
And then there is this:
the corporate Democrats pushing this garbage have never, ever been a grass roots, naturally occurring part of the Party. They are a deliberate, Koch-bankrolled infiltration with a goal of hijacking the Democratic Party to serve corporate interests rather than the interests of voters.
Can't cheer for it, no matter who "represents" the dems.
One good thing - I notice Bernie's name gets mentioned a lot now, presumably because his voting for the ACA will make people who support him change their minds, or somehow equate Obama and other corporate dems with Bernie, or somehow create the pretense that Bernie is just like, say, Hillary. Won't work, but a mention is a mention! Make a good drinking game!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I don't know where to start. It's interesting to watch them struggling with what to do about Bernie and Elizabeth and now Robert Reich. Tough assignment, to have to claim to care about the same principles they do, while simultaneously needing to tear them down.
One good thing - I notice Bernie's name gets mentioned a lot now, presumably because his voting for the ACA will make people who support him change their minds, or somehow equate Obama and other corporate dems with Bernie, or somehow create the pretense that Bernie is just like, say, Hillary. Won't work, but a mention is a mention! Make a good drinking game!
You are spot on. I'm always amused at the "Bernie praised Obama on this!" posts, which apparently are supposed to erase all history and prove that that their overall priorities and records are *VIRTUALLY THE SAME*! The more mentioning the better, IMO.
But while they're trying so desperately to find comparisons and get some of that progressive luster to roll off on themselves, they're also flailing to find the best way to take these people down without looking like frauds. So far all we're getting is hilarious, grumbly commentary about "viability," as though the electorate weren't clearly hungering for this change.
He's...old! She's...not ready! He's....TOO SHORT!!!
So, Mr. Pitt's wife is a personal pony, people whose replies often consist of some form of "LOL " want substantive replies with solutions. Saying mean things about Obama has offended his fans and they want an apology. To themselves.
What an ugly spectacle. Predictable though, considering Will's high profile at DU. He is, in a way, what they fear most...prominent DUers with a longstanding history of supporting the president and the party, standing up and expressing deeply personal rage at having been betrayed. Of course the machine had to swarm to try to take him down.
questionseverything
(9,651 posts)I started looking up formularies......every1 I found listed specialty drugs separately and all companies so far have said, paraphrasing, there is a separate process for obtaining this drug....and since you have to have a member id to apply for this coverage, it seems to me that you can not be sure you will receive it til after you buy
in my house's case we could enroll, pay the premiums, pay the 6300 out of pocket and still be on the hook for my spouses specialty med
cost containment should of been where healthcare reform started.....we still need to push that convo
and here is one other thing that strikes me as odd and I do not want this to come off as slamming drug companies because we have had one be really good to us
how in the world are these prices set? retail this drug will's wife needs is $4600/month if you have ins but on the other hand the drug company can give it away for free?
seems like the give away part is built into the retail price (which is good)? or would it be better to have it priced reasonably so more can afford it?
anyway good op
k&r
Lars39
(26,109 posts)That's good information you've found.
Autumn
(45,056 posts)democrank
(11,093 posts)Most of us on this site are probably adults, we`ve probably all seen and heard a good deal of what`s out there and we must be used to hearing different points of view. I hear different points of view in my own house, in my own family and among my own friends. Lots of different views. Some folks absolutely love President Obama, some really dislike him and some hover in-between. I`m interested in all these points of view. That`s one way I formulate my own.
Some issues on DU generate intense emotion. I also understand that, especially given the deeply personal issues some of us are facing. Life and death issues. One wrong move one way or another and someone could die issues. We all handle things differently. Some of us may read a post about child abuse and think how awful that is. Others may read the same post, bend in the middle and want to puke. It depends on who we are and what we`ve been through.
I voted for President Obama twice. I`m satisfied with him on some issues and I`m deeply disappointed in him on others. Some of his decisions have moved me to tears, to joy, and other decisions of his have made me very, very angry. One thing is for sure....I`m not taking a loyalty oath to a personality, I`m going to decide what I think and feel based on issues.
The free flow of opinions and ideas should be encouraged everywhere, including on a democratic site like this. I remember the Bush years all too well and I also remember the outcry here when his followers expressed how he could do no wrong.
ProfessorGAC
(64,998 posts)
leftstreet
(36,106 posts)theboss
(10,491 posts)If it's based on made-up bullshit, you are just a drunk at the end of the bar.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)See posts 32 and 42.
theboss
(10,491 posts)Tea Party rallies are filled with mindless anger.
We've been making fun of the "Keep Your Government Hands Off My Medicare" signs for years now.
Will posted the equivalent of that.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)You deign to decide,in political discussion in the United States of America, who else's anger is not just disliked by you, but "unacceptable."
Hence, my post about authoritarianism.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)theboss
(10,491 posts)If you are angry about stuff that is not true, you are dumb and should not be listened to.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I do sure hope that the whole insurance industry goes the way of the dodo in my lifetime by the way. All of it. When it comes to medicine profit has no place and chase the formulary is a good example of things that need to go as they stand right now.
Fact, that will leave a few folks out of a job.
Fact, some will be losers.
Fact, the nation will benefit.
Don't worry, don't expect to see that in my lifetime. Get used to the anger though
theboss
(10,491 posts)But ultimately, in single payer or any other system, someone will pay. And there will be limits.
There is no system that gives every patient any possible treatment they want at no cost with no questions asked.
Also, will was wrong about nearly everything in his post. People making false statements bother me.
Does lying bother you?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Learned from years of EMS. When people are afraid and see themselves against a wall, they might seem to tell things that look like lies to you.
Try empathy next time.
For the record, Mr Pitt is not my favorite human being on the planet. Hell, I rarely read him if at all any longer. In fact, have to yet again try to unsub from Truthout. What I saw was a freightened, angry, wall and back human being who was in real pain. Try that next time. And I guarantee you, there will be a next time.
theboss
(10,491 posts)It's his specialty.
My advice to him would stop thinking that the first thing he needs to do when he is pissed is to come here and post some rant about it. Because for some reason, he has a lot of sway here and there are people that seem to take his word as truth. So when he says, "People with pre-existing conditions cant's get treatment under the ACA," some people might believe him.
That is a problem for a truth-seeking journalist.
Like I said elsewhere, one of the reasons I rarely post here any longer (and I've been here since 2003) is because the pattern never ends.
1. Someone posts an angry rant based on either no facts or misunderstood facts.
2. An Amen Chorus Follows.
3. Someone points out the errors.
4. That person is shouted down.
5. This goes on for 300 posts.
6. The really interesting thread on, I dunno, resource management gets five posts and dies.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)It is what it is. This is an internet blogging/ "news" site.
It is what it is. What it also is, well a partisan site. If you expect truth here, well...mostly good luck with that. This said, I saw a person in real pain, but thanks, next truthout email, I will once again attempt to unsubscribe.
Though one important qualifier
I work as a reporter. Will is an Editorial writer. They are not the same thing.
theboss
(10,491 posts)I don't remember that from my journalism classes.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Do that as part of coping. I remember that as part of my psychology courses and later in my disaster response certs. Since I never took one course in journalism, but recently taught at a certificate course in wild fire gathering, I could not tell you if working reporters are taught anything on the psychology of emergency and disaster response. But perhaps they should.
But those were the skills I engaged when dealing with it. Why I advise empathy...generous portions of it.
I made the distinction since most people do not know the difference. As a reporter I deal with facts, such as what the Board of Supers passed, and perhaps why. Or what the City Council is having a hearing on Monday. Editorial writers can go into opinion.
Did they teach that major critical difference in college to you? And making stuff up, Charles Krathaumer does this regularly, for example.
Suffice it to say I no longer read Truthout, and there are many reasons to that.
theboss
(10,491 posts)I know that when I get scared shitless the very first thing I do is post on a message board.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)If you cannot comprehend why people do things that is far from my concern. But empathy is something lacking. I do hope you work as a desk journalist, assuming you are one.
theboss
(10,491 posts)I just find it fascinating that lies and half truths on a public forum seem to be perfectly acceptable to you if the person posting them is distraught.
Can I do that? Can I get upset at my kids and come here and post about how - I dunno - Joe Biden is responsible for my father in law getting the gout?
Would you show empathy if I did that?
And - for the record - I think I showed tremendous empathy. I spent an hour or two telling a complete stranger how to navigate a a complicated insurance process. That is a service I could charge several hundred dollars for in the real world.
What did you do?
Rex
(65,616 posts)with NYC_SKP that if a newbie had said what Will said...they would be outta here! I think we have all been angry at one time and said things that got us a hide or two...but calling the POTUS a POS is not my idea of constructive criticism. It's not even criticism, it is just a long string of profanities.
The ONLY good thing out of all this imo is that Will's wife got what she needed. This is the last thread I am going to discuss this - I think I am DONE talking about this subject, the amount of time wasted on it is embarrassing.
BOTTOM LINE - Will should have gotten a hide on that OP, he did NOT and some people went overboard in THEIR anger to get him banned. Being angry at each other has been really PRODUCTIVE over the years.
EOM.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I am not saying that the underlying message is incorrect. I think a fast one was pulled on the liberal backers that came out in droves in '08 for "Change." I do think the verbiage in that OP is very distasteful and probably should be deleted.
My "pile of poo" post was hidden, and it was VERY reserved compared to what was posted in anger in this situation. It was not an attack against an individual, but policies. Yet it was still hidden.
Mail Message
At Wed Aug 14, 2013, 01:52 PM, an alert was sent on the following post:
I see his reforms
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3463021
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 post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Aug 14, 2013, 01:57 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Feels trollish.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Pointed, juvenile, but seems within criticism standards.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Seems to be about the standard level of discourse these days. One step up from an emoticon.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Not cute.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Post is racist. Hide and consider PPR-ing poster.
CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DECISION
You will no longer be able to participate in this discussion thread, and you will not be able to start a new discussion thread in this forum until 2:57 PM. This hidden post has been added to your <a href="/?com=profile&uid=161473&sub=trans">Transparency page</a>.
randome
(34,845 posts)when he calls the President a piece of shit?
Okay, then. 
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
NuttyFluffers
(6,811 posts)first you worship and then you never question, let alone get upset or criticize. very easy. this is how we win.
i might have to go back to the reference sheet to figure out who that 'we' is, though.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)but some are blinded by the cult of personality and just can't stand any criticism of their guy. He's just the best, you know!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)defending WP's right to say:
"Fuck you, Mr. President, you piece of shit used-car salesman. "
on the Democratic message board.
It must be something(?) to have so many "cheer-leaders", no ... have such a fan base, no ... be a Democrat.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But positive are sick ?