General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI believe there is merit to the argument...
...that raising hell about demonstrably bad decisions like the broad-spectrum support of fracking, the broad-spectrum support of NSA intelligence-gathering on citizens, the fast-track-push support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the as-yet-undecided but pretty-much-done deal for the Keystone XL pipeline, the seemingly imminent decision to deliver arms to demonstrably crazy people in Syria who are not our friends, etc...
...might just maybe make those who raise that hell a better Democrat than you?
When I threw my support behind John Kerry in 2004, despite his soul-crushing Iraq War vote, it was on the promise I made to myself that I would climb up his back and tapdance on his head every time I disagreed with him. Sadly for the planet, that opportunity died in shadow in Ohio. I voted for President Obama three times - primary, general, general - on the same promise. I've tried to live up to it as best I can. Sometimes I've done it poorly, sometimes I've done it well, but I cling to consistency as best I can; I treat the man like what he is, a politician who at times makes mistakes, and nothing more.
Steeping in the rancid tea of self-satisfied opinions, with no disagreements and only a chorus of "Amens" around you, is a recipe for disaster. We owe it to the officials we vote for to hold them to standards, to try and make them better if we can. We owe it to the country. To do any less is to create a bubble, and as we have all learned to our sorrow over the last ten years, bubbles - both political and economic - eventually burst, and the rain falls on all of us when that takes place.
There's been a lot of chatter around here about the DU rules, about tightening those rules, accusations of subversion, etc. I'm a part of the reason for that, but it's been building for a while.
Politics is not a team sport. Holding politicians accountable is a solemn duty. I have never voted for a Republican in my life, I always vote, and I have been here since 2001 fighting for the same things you fight for.
I also criticize my president when his actions are worthy of criticism. Sometimes poorly, sometimes well, but when he deserves it, he gets it.
He's also gotten every vote I've had the opportunity to give him. I support him, and I try to make him better in whatever small way I can.
That makes me a very, very good Democrat.
1000words
(7,051 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)(Need I post a sarcasm thingy?)
1000words
(7,051 posts)Apparently, some now feel they can be openly hostile and still garner the same result.
polichick
(37,152 posts)didn't help get people to the polls in 2010.
psiman
(64 posts)Rahm Emanuel hurt your precious fee fees so you got your revenge: Republican control of the House for at least two terms, and the absolute frustration of the progressive legislative agenda for the last three quarters of President Obama's term.
You may feel awfully self satisfied, but that does precisely nothing to mitigate the harm caused to those caught in the jaws up Republican obstruction.
You will not escape responsibility, for you DIDN'T.EVEN.TRY.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Is that you Rahm?
Zenlitened
(9,488 posts)Your pathetic mewling turns my stomach
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4761856
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This is a pretty nasty personal attack, and nutty besides.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 31, 2014, 09:00 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Way out of bounds.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
I was juror #6.
polichick
(37,152 posts)I had not voted.
Maybe it really was Rahm!
Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)This site is a propagandists dream, the new Yahoo. I wonder why the original founders just gave up on the place? I read one of them actually giving a longtime poster a hard time the other day too.
My ignore list is over 500 now and I still spend most of my time here adding to it.
Wake up DU, you're becoming irrelevant.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I do not understand.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)are not worthy of respect.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)There are plenty of reasons for Democrats to raise hell about the Democratic Party leadership and the direction they are taking the party.
Embracing common core and privatized education is not in keeping with long held Democratic Party ideals. It is an attack on the loyal teacher's union.
Advocating Chained CPI for Social Security when we (FICA) have paid in a massive surplus that was squandered in wars of lies is not in keeping with the ideals of the Democratic Party.
And pushing destructive trade deals that have shipped our jobs out of the nation is not in keeping with the principles of the Democratic Party. We can see that by looking at the mistakes of the 1990s.
If you want to lie down and believe anything they tell you, go ahead. But do not expect the rest of us to act like sheep. We are from the 1960s, we don't play that bullshit.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)whatever happens is your fault. As for you calling yourself a whiner, that's your issue. Stop calling yourself one.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I guess I expected too much.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)That should solve your desire to deny things problem.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Tell me which of these posts about a Democratic public official or party leader helps the GOP:
* S/he voted the wrong way on this bill.
* S/he made a regrettable nomination or appointment.
* S/he issued an executive order that was, on balance, good, but that will nevertheless have some bad consequences.
* S/he issued an executive order that was, on balance, bad.
* S/he said something with which the poster disagrees (post explains the basis for the disagreement but without calling the Democrat a fascist or the like).
* S/he missed an opportunity to take a bold progressive action that would have been good public policy and, by galvanizing the base, would also have been good politics.
* S/he receives significant financial support from Reprobates A, B, and C.
To my mind, none of these posts are ones that a DUer should automatically be ashamed of making. (Be ashamed if you get the facts wrong, etc., but don't reject the post just because it criticizes a Democrat.) Furthermore, none of them are posts that should be hidden on DU.
Your post leaves me uncertain whether you intend blanket condemnation of posts in any or all of these categories, which is why I'm seeking clarification.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)How fucked up is that. I'm sure the GOP is delighted with that behavior.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The point of my post was my impression that you:
(1) define any criticism as bashing, and
(2) consider all bashing to be counterproductive and harmful.
This seems to mean that no one may offer any criticism of any decision by any Democrat (except, presumably, during a contested primary).
My view is that, for example, fast-tracking TPP is a bad idea. Some Dems are for it and some are against it. I refuse to pretend that there's nothing wrong with that bad idea just because some Dems support it.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)is actually just a fact. Live with it.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I believe you're looking for... boggier environs?
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)to beg for forgiveness for offending her delicate sensibilities. Largely because Rahm is a fucking coward that lives in terror the mean Republicans might say something bad about him.
Your post doesn't even rise to the level of pathetic mewling. It's much closer to a guy yelling at a stop sign for trying to control his mind. Completely disconnected from reality and the only purpose it served was to make you feel self righteous. At no point did the post you're responding to even so much as allude to any of the nonsense you spewed in your incoherent screed.
nikto
(3,284 posts)A gem of the top 1%.
polichick
(37,152 posts)nikto
(3,284 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)hoping for change that we were in for more heavy handed authoritarian (Republican-like) rule. When voters are given a choice of a Repubican and a Democrat that acts like a republican, they pick the republican. Look what's happening to schools and teachers in Chicago. Not following Democratic principles.
If you want a Republican to win in 2016, then nominate Clinton-Sachs and dont try to blame it on anyone but the wishy-washy centrists.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Warpy
(111,174 posts)Voting GOP is unthinkable, they're just too nuts.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...and I used to think that was the rule, rather then the exception around here...
jmondine
(1,649 posts)but one who, like all serving in D.C., is under a constant barrage of well-funded pressure from lobbyists and special interest groups who could care less about party affiliations, as long as their self-serving agenda is catered to. I can't even imagine what that pressure must be like.
It takes loud, forceful voices, like those here on this site, to rise above the cacophony and be heard. It is our duty to be diligent and inform our representatives of where we stand, to have their backs when they show courage and to voice displeasure when they cave.
This makes us good Democrats and good Americans.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)and when he doesn't deserve it, he gets it too.
Sid
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Politicians.... or the OP?
(Insert distinction without a difference here)
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.
President Obama has two dogs, so he's covered there. Other than that, the man fought long and hard for the position of President of the United States. Surely he had some inkling of what the job entailed. That includes the inevitable criticisms and complaints that will come from outside one's own party, and also from within one's own party.
When one allies oneself with the so-called "centrists" and dismisses those on the left within one's own party, when one allows the "center" to be redefined again and again so that it continues to shirt further right -- well then one can expect criticism from the left flank, that same flank that one is so willing to routinely dismiss.
I have plenty of sympathy for what he has faced from the Republican party, it is beyond disgusting on so many levels. But it took Obama 5 years to figure out (or to publicly acknowledge, anyway) that he can't compromise with these intransigent idiots. WTF took him so long? He's a smart guy.
Anyway, I wonder if you realize how patronizing you sound about the President. To paraphrase: "Awww, the poor guy sometimes gets criticism, even when he doesn't deserve it". Here's a clue: he really, really does not need coddling. He can handle himself just fine. He has shown time and time again that barbs from the left roll off him easily (although barbs from the right seem to hit their mark more often -- things that make you go Hmmm...).
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)and when he deserves it, he still doesn't get it
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)In a democracy, we're not supposed to "trust" politicians. It is our responsibility to hold them accountable. People are fond of elevating politicians to "leaders" and forget that they are Public Servants and are supposed to answer to the their employers.
I've been a Democrat since 1965 and have voted in every federal election. I usually vote for the Democratic candidate but feel no allegiance to the party and have, and will, vote for 3rd Party candidates when my party strays into conservative, even reactionary, territory and just being "Not as bad" is not good enough.
840high
(17,196 posts)for JFK. Not as bad is still bad.
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)the nation is moving to the right and Democratic Party has gone right along with it.
We are faced with the phenom of "socially liberal, economically conservative" i.e. Ronald Reagan meets gay marriage.
Citizen United is making things even worse, of course. On the one hand, I'm pissed as hell that the middle class keeps getting shafted no matter who is in office, on the other hand, middle class is horrible at looking out for their own best interests and to a large extent they deserve what they get, which is less than zero these days.
Now, watch as middle class chops off their left arm (India and China took the right one) with TPP free trade agreement.
Then, as a million more jobs hemorrhage to Asia, the middle class will bitch and moan and demand cuts to food stamps to pay for the damage done by their own hands.
Both Democrats and Republicans take advantage of a weak middle class, Republicans, built their brand on this, but conservative Democrats are gaining influence on what used to be Republican policy (e.g. "clearly, we need spying and we must raise the retirement age to 75" .
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)You cannot bring the light to the darkness you must bring the darkness to the light.
If we truly love life, the world we live in and want positive change, then this also implies to look at the issues and injustices in the world so many of us like to ignore or deny. This is not being negative, but the work to be done during this Time of Transition
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.
- Martin Luther King Jr.
Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesnt fit in with the core belief.
- Frantz Fanon
Personality is the mask we carry over our essence. The vehicle for essence to work through so to speak. Our personality is conditioned and programmed through upbringing in a society that is built on lies, and the stronger the programming, the harder it is for essence to come through. Hence, de-programming and facing the lies of ones personality is key so it becomes a direct reflection and expression of essence, which ultimately leads to conscious actions based on ones inherent potential. In a mature person, essence and personality form one continuous I, which is to say that the person is unified.
People are always infused with all kinds of fantastic ideas about themselves, the world, people, love, idealism, society, etc. Led by his eagerness to evade a disagreeable reality, man gives free rein to his imagination and is inclined to believe the first agreeable lie he encounters along the way. The individual projects his personal illusions onto a cold and immutable reality, and thus deceiving himself, he endeavors to contemplate reality through rose-colored glasses. Disillusion is a painful process and can be prolonged, depending on how much time the individual takes to realize he is living artificially and that this condition is a product of his internal dreams. Great courage is required to face reality and to destroy the mirage of a pleasant dream.
- John Baines
randome
(34,845 posts)Or better than anyone on DU, for that matter.
We'd have better luck debating the issues if you would stop debating personalities.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)is always awesome.
randome
(34,845 posts)You think of yourself as a 'better Democrat' than the rest of us because you raise some issues? Where do you get off thinking that?
Last time I saw you, you weren't raising an issue at all, just throwing juvenile insults around.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and has no idea that maybe that's not in the constructive criticism category.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)As if raising ugly shit splattered hell is a mark of a better democrat - like insulting the President, and hurting his family and supporters, in some gawd forsaken other universe maybe.
Huge Superiority/Inferiority issues.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Okay, fine, here's my take on matters. Take Snowden, for instance. (Really, I mean take him. He'd be glad to go anywhere.)
Most of us really don't care about the NSA keeping copies of the metadata. As this debate goes on, those who insist that everyone should feel the same level of outrage begin pointing to Snowden as 'heroic', which leads to a mini-debate such as 'He is not! / He is!' and soon devolves until the original points are fairly lost.
No one is saying Obama is the New & Improved Jesus. But that same scenario plays out when the hard-core denigraters want to convince us he is preposterous and the next best thing to evil. He is not. He has done some great things and some not-so-great things.
So maybe you could lead the way to stop insulting him and focus squarely on the issues.
I realize that isn't as 'sexy' a way to change minds and influence hearts (or however that goes), but it's a good strategy for the long term.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Caretha
(2,737 posts)makes one wonder
...you see it is unconstitutional to even collect the "metadata". Maybe you also think the Constitution is "just a fucking piece of paper"?
Perhaps you support George W Bush too or at least his political philosophy.
As a Democrat I was appalled when the Cheney/Bush cabal held to that belief - and now still as a Democrat, I'm appalled that our Democratic President Obama does not take action to rectify it. He was a Constitutional scholar you know.
randome
(34,845 posts)I only used it as an example.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
Caretha
(2,737 posts)so I take that to mean that you actually do disapprove of unconstitutional spying and wish that our Democratic leaders would work to end it?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I'm going to guess it has something to do with that sentence.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)The Irony fairy is nearly seven feet tall, weights in at 248lbs, and has the general disposition of a hungover Gunnery Sargent. And a wickedly pointed sense of humor.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Explains the bruises...
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)I hear him laugh at my expense quite a bit though.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)but the conclusion drawn - quite hilarious. The poster might as well have shrieked "There is no sun in MY night!" as though it was an informed statement.
Then goes on to tell you about how well a solar panel works at midnight, and why you should have one.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)But, I suspect you figured that out already.
Thanks for not disappointing.
Response to randome (Reply #13)
darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"When I threw my support behind John Kerry in 2004, despite his soul-crushing Iraq War vote, it was on the promise I made to myself that I would climb up his back and tapdance on his head every time I disagreed with him. Sadly for the planet, that opportunity died in shadow in Ohio. I voted for President Obama three times - primary, general, general - on the same promise. I've tried to live up to it as best I can. Sometimes I've done it poorly, sometimes I've done it well, but I cling to consistency as best I can; I treat the man like what he is, a politician who at times makes mistakes, and nothing more."
Too bad he didn't run in 2008.
<...>
So this is it for me. Yes, he has made some bad decisions. Yes, there is reason to be pissed at the man. But I think about his willingness to wade into a three-hour confrontation with the editors and writers of the heaviest political publications in the country. I think about how well he stood his ground, made his arguments (and apologies, in regards to the IWR vote). I think about him talking to those kids at that school, about how utterly genuine is his desire to defend the environment and, in the process, defend our economy, the planet and our national security. I think about how goddam smart he is, and how both these instances displayed that intelligence so completely clearly.
I think he would make a magnificent president, and I think it is nothing less than a full-spectrum calamity that he is not president right now. If he ran again, I am not sure I would support him in the primaries, simply because I do not know who else will be running. But if he gets the nomination, he will have 100% of my support and energy. I don't base this decision on what I've read at DU or elsewhere, but on what I have seen from the man with my own two eyes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x650034
Now, it's RW talking points: "It seems he's against it after being for it before being against it. "
WillyT
(72,631 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)Spazito
(50,182 posts)to do better, I have seen where it causes the one doing the name-calling to lose credibility and negate any valid point they might have wanted to make.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)Now, I wonder if that post will cause some self reflection among the folks who have been flinging poo all over DU.
Spazito
(50,182 posts)the poo flinging you reference, it isn't conducive to promoting a discussion in any way.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)When that garbage stops, I'll stop.
No attempt at conversation has done any good.
I've decided to play the game on THEIR terms.
Therein lie the responses you see.
Spazito
(50,182 posts)but merely a disingenuous attempt to fling poo. Good to know.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)But, I am quite certain that your slam about name calling was directed at Will Pitt, not the poo flingers currently populating DU. Hence the sarcasm, LOL!
Spazito
(50,182 posts)and why it often fails when claimed after the fact.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)I guess the thingy really is necessary.
abakan
(1,815 posts)Is nothing more than, intellectual laziness. It shows no valid point and the writer is really more interested stirring up the people who believe the President needs protection from words. What he needs protection from are deeds, deeds with no purpose other than to pit democrats against democrats.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Then I nominate myself for a Democratic lifetime achievement award. Some of us are still on the frontlines.
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Post removed
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I also criticize my president when his actions are worthy of criticism. Sometimes poorly, sometimes well, but when he deserves it, he gets it. "
Don't pretend despicable name calling has anything to do with "criticism."
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)companies, then you wouldn't be very happy, in the moment, with a President who didn't even try to get single payer passed.
For the record, I think the ACA was (mostly) a positive step, albeit too small of one. But I sympathize with Will's frustration.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)democratic board is trolling,no matter what reason you use to justify it. You seem to enjoy a status here that protects you from hides and locks for whatever reason the admins have,you took advantage of that and that shows a lack of character on your part.
rudolph the red
(666 posts)fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Possibly because they feel a kindred to WilliamPitt who is one of the willing non-anonymous public figures who has done more to advance Democratic goals with his online and book writing putting himself in front of a wave of pubic bashing, poo flinging, and possibly death threats than any anonymous nit that wants to be like Mike but doesnt have the stomach for it?
Just a guess.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)MineralMan
(146,262 posts)A nice self backpat, there, Will.
In your own mind, I suppose you really do believe that, and that's your prerogative. You do criticize the President. That is a fact. You also call him vile names. That is a fact.
Another fact is that some people may judge differently your status as a "very, very good Democrat." That is their prerogative.
I'm afraid that I can't actually agree with you on your assessment of yourself. Sorry.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...because he used some bad words about that same man...
Got it.
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)I also voted for President Obama three times. Actually four, because I voted for him in my precinct caucus meeting, too, in February of 2008. Minnesota also has primary elections, where I voted for him again.
Despite my disagreements with some of his decisions, I have never called him a "piece of shit used car salesman." Nor would I ever call him something like that. That's the difference. Thanks for your reply to my post.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 1, 2014, 03:20 PM - Edit history (1)
I generally don't call politicians names, and certainly have never denigrated whole groups of people.
I do call out the ACTIONS of elected officials, which is the duty of all citizens.
Are you saying you have never called out people in a denigrating way? Of course if that is true, then you definitely would have the moral authority to criticize someone else. Just curious about how people view themselves, since you raised that re Will in contrast to how others may view them.
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)as a "piece of shit used car salesman."
Nor would I ever do such a thing. I'm not taking your bait, though, sabrina 1. But I would not refer to a Democratic president in such terms. That is what I'm objecting to.
I hope you have a nice day.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Neither you, nor I, know that he voted at all, let alone for whom and/or how many times.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)If there's one thing I'd stake my soul on, it's that Will Pitt voted the way he said he did...
I am amazed that we are now at the point where we are not only flinging accusations of racism at him, but that he has lied about his voting for democrats over the years...
UN. FUCKING. BELIEVABLE.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)faith/belief.
I do not know Will, nor have I been with him in the voting booth ... and neither have you (I presume).
What is "UN. FUCKING. BELIEVABLE" is that in a post where those that support (or, don't buy into/argue against) the over the top name calling of this Democratic President are called "blind followers", "worshipers", "cheer leaders", etc.; but those championing the name calling place their complete faith that some random blogger is who/what he says he is.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...read his books...listened to him speak...and so he's either THE most persistent right wing fascist troll in history....or....he is who he says he is....
I'm going with the latter...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Since you were responding to me, I thought you were referring to me.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...not quoting, or in this case what would have been mis-quoting, something that you had specifically said. Sorry for any confusion.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I do not recall anyone calling Will racist or a rightwing troll. I do, however, recall some saying he was using language that would be used by rightwing trolls ... which is true.
marble falls
(57,014 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I thought the absolute worst thing a white liberal could be called was "racist" and the worst thing any liberal could be called was a "rightwing troll" ... even as their actions approximate those of racists and rightwing trolls.
marble falls
(57,014 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...the racist one was new from one person in particular that started that despicable smear last week..
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Will a troll; or calling his language troll-like?
I highly doubt anyone takes Will to be a rightwing troll ... now a anti-Democratic Party, left-leaning libertarian ... That's an open question.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...some just come right out and call him a troll...others hide behind the "you sound like a troll" to avoid an alert...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)for me, remains open.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)principles, while others think that being a good Democrat is never, ever criticizing any Democrat, especially the President.
Principles trump blind loyalty.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I'm sure you view yourself as a very good Democrat. The fact is that some people may judge differently your status as a very good Democrat also. That is THEIR prerogative.
I and most DUers agree with Will on his assessment of himself. There is no question about it actually.
You probably wouldn't know much about Will being you weren't around here when being a good Democrat wasn't easy, due to the Right Wing's vicious and constant attacks, of which Will was and is a constant target.
Most of us here remember a lot about those years and frankly know a whole lot more about Will's creds as a Dem than some of those, laughably, having the gall to criticize him on his status as a Democrat.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)In fact some of "us" at the time were posting on right-wing boards denigrating Democrats.....all for a higher purpose of course.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of spending time among the very people who were the cause of most of what people like Will eg, found themselves desperately trying to fight against.
Good democrats fight for Democratic Principles. And they support the election of other good Democrats who will fight hard against those who are trying to turn this country into a bank for the top 1% and constant source of cash for their illegal wars etc.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)albino65
(484 posts)When fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in self-righteousness, riding a blue donkey, and carrying a huge chip on his shoulder. I cannot worship at the altar of WPitt. I am an agnostic.
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)Since you mention it though, I don't see how the TPP, extending Bush tax cuts, Penny Pritzker, not pursuing Wall Street malfeasance, expanding the militarization of Homeland Security and local police forces, invoking National Security to shield War Crimes among other things and zealously pursuing those who blow the whistle on any of it can be construed as guiding America away from fascism.
If I may dare to interpret what W Pitt is saying, we not only should applaud when our democratic leaders do the right thing, as citizens we have a duty to 'hold their feet to the fire' when they do the wrong thing. To excuse the wrong because we like those leaders personally and don't want to criticize them is to invite more wrong.
I for one agree with him. The wrongs of our leaders must always be criticized, and those who do so ARE better citizens than those who don't.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)one of the strangest posts I've ever read on DU. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,351 posts)Your criticism is what has very often been rancid, and it didn't start with piece of shit used car salesman, either. In the case of your "ACA problem" and Obama's sure-as-hell-gonna-bomb-Syria-because-he-has-put-his-own-nuts-in-a-vise, just to name two recent airballs from you, it hasn't been deserved either.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)At least that's how it's supposed to work in a democracy.
DU rec
2banon
(7,321 posts)we're supposed to give our party a free pass and look the other way or sugar coat poison pills. If you can't do that, then just s.t.f.u. got it?
Big
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Democratic. Democracy. Underground. Not Lemming Overground
did you see grasswire's post yet?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024756673
treestar
(82,383 posts)they work for all of us, not just those who consider themselves pure.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)terminology and their attacks on our president, is neither wise nor will it lead to progress of any sort. We've been there already once. It cost us 8 years of a savagely Republican president, and it looks like some have not had quite enough of that, and are wanting to go there again. Simply engaging in knee-jerk responses are useless, particularly if these are helping the Repukes.
williesgirl
(4,033 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Saying "piece of shit used-car salesman" is not what makes one a superior human being, much less a subsection like a Democrat.
Rule One of Holes: when you're in one, stop digging.
Rule One of Performing: if the audience hates your performance, it's not their fault. It's yours.
Enough already. You are a very talented person who stepped on your crank. It happens. To ev-are-re-body. Just admit it and get back to the writing you once did: the writing that earned you the reputation that is now at risk.
Because talent is too rare, and I for one would find it sad to see yours destroy itself.
All the best.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)than everyone else here.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I think they would rather eat the Sun, instead of give a simple apology or just say they are wrong about something.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)MicaelS
(8,747 posts)The vile name you did, I for one, am not accepting the apology. You're are going to have to do a lot better than that.
I expect vile name calling from Republicans. I don't expect it from a supposed Democrat, on a board that explicit supports the the United States Democratic Party.
I don't worship at the church of Will Pitt, either. You're lucky I'm not an Admin. If I were, I'd have PPR'd you in a second, and you would never be allowed back.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Not by a long shot. His intent is clearly to fan the fires of discontent that he has taken to lighting here on DU. (That and feed his followers another opportunity to cheer-lead him onto the Greatest Thread Page.)
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)DallasNE
(7,402 posts)The vote you are referring to is the vote to go to war in case Saddam did not comply with UN Resolution 1441. Saddam fooled a lot of people by agreeing to the terms whereby UN weapons inspectors spent 3-4 months searching for any evidence of WMD. They found none so that would have expired that war resolution. But Bush ordered the UN inspectors out and invaded Iraq anyway. The war Bush fought is not the war Congress authorized. As such, the war was illegal and Bush should have been impeached -- instead of reelected. My problem with the war resolution was more timing than any thing else. It was premature and should not have taken place until it was clear that Saddam was not in full compliance. Up until that point it could only do more harm than good, as confirmed by history.
The [font size=3]Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq[/font]
WAS
an Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq.
EVERYBODY KNEW it.
Thankfully THESE Democrats had the courage and integrity to vote AGAINST it:
[font size=4]The Democratic Party Honor Roll[/font]
They voted "NO" on the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq.
Bush was unable to "fool" them.
They had the intelligence and integrity to see through the Republican Lies,
and were unafraid to take a STAND.
United States Senate
In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :
Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)
Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
United States House of Representatives
Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:
Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu
(Apologies for the loss of formatting.
I've had this list for a long time,
and somewhere along the line of transferring this file
and upgrading to different versions of MSWord,
the states and districts of many were deleted.)
DallasNE
(7,402 posts)SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- 1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .
Now you tell me if the war Bush fought is the war this resolution authorizes. Yes, I opposed this resolution as I didn't trust Bush to abide by the provisions set forth in this resolution. Bush was simply too dumb to understand the limits this contained and going rogue was just too tempting. I will concede that the wording is sloppy but the "and" ties the two conditions together.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)"2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .
I won't forget that Sen. Hillary Clinton is NOT on that list
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Thanks Will, you are a much better Democrat than the people who are trying to get you banned from this site.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)"We have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent interests."
Is there some other way to be that works in a democracy? It's for certain that being a fan doesn't work very well.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I joined the Democratic Party in 1967 because I believe in certain Values and Goals.
The Democratic Party did NOT give me these values.
I didn't start fighting FOR these values because the Democratic Party told me that THAT is what I now have to start believing in.
I joined the Democratic Party because I was willing to fight to move our country in the direction of a Newer and even Better "New Deal" for the Working Class,
and an even Greater and more egalitarian "Great Society".
FDR Economic Bill of Rights
Among these are:
*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
*The right of every family to a decent home;
*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
*The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
--FDR, State of the Union Address, 1944[/font]
Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.
When a Democratic Politician moves TOWARD the above Traditional Democratic Party Values,
I will cheer in SUPPORT.
When He/She moves AWAY from those values,
I WILL voice my STRONG opposition.
I have been raised in the Democratic Party tradition of voicing my opinion,
and have EARNED that right through 47 years of Party Line voting, donations, shoe leather, and GOTV.
My vote and support WILL go to whoever BEST embodies these values.
I am too old and tired to again support the Least of the Worst.
Let the chips fall where they may.
[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)and wish I could yours too...
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Thanks,
and thanks from everyone who knows WHY they joined the Democratic Party.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Champion Jack
(5,378 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024755799
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised - The Obamacare Photos the MSM Doesn't Want You to See
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024761330
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)bullwinkle428
(20,628 posts)totodeinhere
(13,057 posts)Very few of us at DU would not do that. But where the disagreement comes is how to best accomplish those goals. That's the rub and that's where the disagreement starts.
And there is no doubt in my mind that President Obama enthusiastically shares those goals as well. Yes I too disagree with the president on some issues and how best to advance the progressive agenda. But the President is no POS. I would draw the line at that.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/28/1273109/-Paul-Krugman-President-Obama-is-is-turning-out-to-be-a-little-bit-of-FDR-after-all
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)More divisive (and strangely self congratulatory) bullshit.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Raine1967
(11,589 posts)I've been told how to be a very good Democrat.
I regret (in a few ways) to tell you, Will, that you are not succeeding in whatever it is that you are trying to communicate to those that don't follow and agree with your every word without question.
You really don't want to address what exactly people are upset with you about. You had and have a lot of people come to your defense over a post or two that I am sure led to this post.
You have deflected the specific reason -- a very specific post, that many here on DU are upset about. This isn't about politics, or sport. It's about community --
You are not better than the collective of DU. You are a part of this community and as such, I believe you do not deserve to be held to a different standard. If you really believe that the President that you voted for 3 times is what you called him, embrace it. It would go a long way to explain the excuses that so many people made for you, such as you 'were very stressed'.
I know you don't give a fuck if I read your columns anymore. It appears that you don't give a shit about dissent to your opinions. (case in point: *thanks for kicking my post* )
I don't know, Will. I don't think I will ever read what you have written with the same respect I once had.
and I know...
You probably don't care. I'd also bet you're glad I kicked your post.
peace.
Raine
one_voice
(20,043 posts)wiggs
(7,810 posts)LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)These posts speak to a desperate need for attention. Not unlike a child.
And it's also about tearing down authority. It's really nothing personal against the President. Believe that. The commentary would be the same if it were Jebby, Rand Paul or some other as yet unknown Democrat who crossed the line just once.
Some people covet the struggle. His worst nightmare is a president that does all of the things he would like him to do.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)K and R
Richardo
(38,391 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)I also criticize my president when his actions are worthy of criticism. Sometimes poorly, sometimes well, but when he deserves it, he gets it.
On only two recent occasions you were WRONG! There are Plenty more and you know each and every one. You were WRONG about the President using a wounded soldier as a Prop for more war (but you used that screaming OP as a prop for yourself and your clicks and your need for attention).
You said you were working on the medication problem with insurance companies for 2 or 3 months and finally in exasperation, you came here to take a dump on all of us and on the President in the most vile and sickening way because you were unable to solve your problem. DUers helped you and it was the next day, with that help, you found a solution to your family's problems. What does that say about Your abilities to work problems through and find solutions, to investigate and to learn - not very much I'm afraid. Especially if your 'profession' should include having these abilities.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Same people hi-fiving.
Another coming soon.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Of course the president isn't a POS used car salesman. He's a thoroughly good person, although he may have a little used car salesman in his blood as does every successful politician. And when he lets his good intentions and skilled oratory run away with his common sense he deserves to be called out for it.
IMO the press didn't realize the magnitude of the pile of shit he inherited when he took office. And being the decent human being he is he would never stoop to the level of blaming those who created the pile of shit. It may sound cynical but I believe innate decency is a liability in 21st century American media driven personality centered politics.
My reaction to your post is keep it up. My advice to Obama is start being a dick.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Don't venture down the road of who is a "better Democrat" than who...
It's a discussion which is a one-way track to a very ugly end, and frankly speaking, playing that card is beneath the Will Pitt I've known all these years...
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)and I agree, this is not the person I've gladly read for years.
This will not go well, I believe. One person can stop this and I hope that person does.
This OP does not give me hope.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)and I mean any: Long-timers, nubcakes, recent converts, low-post trolls, the admins, anarchists, moderates, communists, conserva-dems and the DLC crowd can type up a long, heartfelt post about what makes them a better Dem than anyone else...Almost all of them would have different reasons, and almost all of them would be completely valid while generally in-line with the party's stated goals...
Hell, to this day I believe I'm a better Dem than 90% of the people here... Yeah, I might be a legend in my own mind, and some of my reasoning would be rock-solid legit while the rest of it is highly debatable -- But it happens to be my reality and the way I see the world...Just the same as it is for Will and the rest of us...
The difference is even if I get called out, I have the good sense not to reply with something so immature...I'd just as soon tell any critics to get off their ass and search the archives to see if my posting history has ever made me to be something I'm not...
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)I really hope that closure is found in this debacle.
This is one of the very few times when I've felt so inclined to chime in on a matter of this sort. I've been at DU for a long time as well.
Thanks.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He's very, very far down that road.
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)I thought I was supposed to be trying to be the Best Person I Can Be In My Circumstances...
*mumble, mutter... damn moving goal posts... mumble mutter*
Broward
(1,976 posts)hopemountain
(3,919 posts)and verbal tantrums holding the president accountable?
yowzayowzayowza
(7,017 posts)Ad hominem against other members of our big tent is not a reasonable engagement process for a 'very, very good democrat,' rather more useful to an ignorant 'piece of shit' imho.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)Generic Other
(28,979 posts)to remind the complacent and complicit that you aren't just going along to get along.
I have been on DU long enough to have discovered I do not like sycophants. I don't like two-faced people, liars, bullies or people who always feel the need to purge someone from among our number for unorthodox thinking. The tactics of these individuals include intimidation, acidic mockery, extreme self-righteousness (ready to cast the first stone and every one thereafter if need be), and eager willingness to brutally attack vulnerable people when they are down. All of those sound like Republican qualities to me.
The ease in which the principles and beliefs of the left have been cast aside by those who once called the left allies saddens me. And it's not because we were beaten to a pulp in battle, but because we didn't surrender fast enough before the fight began. Or because we were rude and impatient, then disgusted and resigned, and sometimes even angry as hell.
To be honest, I have begun to feel like I don't belong here anymore. I didn't fight the Bush regime with every ounce of my being to see their policies become institutionalized by my side. I didn't post here thousands of times about things I cared about only to give up because it was clear that no one else cared that much when push came to shove. When it came time to stand up for something, there were those who stood up for the wrong ideas as long as they were promoted by the right people. And who would allow no criticism of those who deserved some. And much criticism for those whose positions hadn't really changed at all.
I feel like I am lighting matches in the dark now.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Take a moment to think about it from the perspective of the people who disagree with you.
You're calling them sycophants. It isn't that they have a different opinion. Or think a different route to the same goal would be better. You're saying they are unable to think for themselves.
There's also a very large contingent that happily bully. Such as this OP, and his army of supporters. This OP is also a call to purge - he's "better" than those who disagree. Because again they're just mindless sycophants playing a "team sport".
DU, like all communities, is what you make of it. If you used to like it, but now want to burn it down, you may want to take a minute to reflect on whether or not you added to the kindling.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)I can see them, and add my own.
With enough of us who will STAND for traditional Democratic Party Values,
we can turn the night into day.
Those who STAND for NOTHING
will FALL for ANYTHING.
[font size=3]Centrism....because it is so damned EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who DO!
[/font]
You will know them by their WORKS.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)
To be honest, I have begun to feel like I don't belong here anymore
.
And I am still debating with myself if I belong. Hmm, well see. It may take some ass kicking.
Perhaps if WilliamPitt had dribbled blood on his post it would have washed away the mud?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)I too hate bullies no matter what party they are in...but mostly it is the GOP who have made it an art form.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)From the heart. Thanks for your candor.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)The polarizing language about the president makes a good faith discussion on the merits extremely difficult. You are a smart guy, and you knew that echoing the insult that you used in the previous shitstorm would get exactly the response you got. I didn't particularly appreciate the last shitstorm, and I'm not going to get much utility out of this one either. This one thread isn't the end of it -- there are going to be a half a dozen other threads that get started over the next few days to rehash the appropriateness of calling the president names.
Obviously, you received a lot of blowback for your last thread, and you are receiving a lot of blowback for this thread. I am not so naive to think that you or anyone else would actually back down in the face of that kind of resistance -- to do so would feel like admitting weakness. And I know you're not going to back down simply because the administrator of DU expressed his distaste for insulting the president -- here on DU I am The Power, and a good progressive can't be seen to be backing down from Speaking Truth. I get that.
I'm just hoping that maybe next time, when you or anyone else on DU is thinking about starting a thread in which you insult the president, you think about those of us who don't really appreciate it. I'm not telling you what to do. And I'm not trying to score points here. What I'm trying to do is simply to share a piece of information with you: Some of us don't like seeing the president insulted. What you choose to do with that information is entirely up to you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4736199
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)So if the purge comes take me with you...I don't want to be left alone in a site that is nothing but praise for the leader and the party...I could get that at any right wing site.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Raine1967 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)No politician is infallible. No politician should be blindly supported.
Some people think the president can do no wrong. Some people think he's perfect. It's akin to deifying the guy, ffs.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)They seem to have no values of their own.
They don't have a clue as the WHY they support the Democrats.
They never enter a discussion about POLICY or Traditional Democratic Values.
Supporting the Democrats (or the President) seems to be the entirety of their rationale,
or maybe they just prefer Blue over Red?
If you don't STAND for SOMETHING,
you will FALL for Anything!
radiclib
(1,811 posts)..you are a "fascist" who called the president a "piece of shit"?
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Except I pretty much refuse to call myself a Democrat anymore, given that so many are milquetoast, wishy-washy, corporate types that I'm ashamed to be in the same group.
Obama is just another politician, not one deserving of a pedestal. No one is. They all LIE to get elected. Every last one of them. We should never believe a single word any of them say. We elect people to do OUR bidding and if they screw up, they're out, Obama most certainly included, whatever excuses they might make for him.
Yes, the Republicans are worse, but they have nothing to do with drone strikes or the TPP. Obama owns that, should it come to pass. And it will make everyone's lives worse, not better. Selling us all out for the corporations, as supposedly "good" Democrats have done time and time again (see NAFTA and Clinton for the gory, rotten details.)
Ptah
(33,021 posts)Thanks for my new sig line.
samplegirl
(11,465 posts)lockstep....republican obstruction is proof enough.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 1, 2014, 09:52 AM - Edit history (1)
Let's walk in lockstep for Universal HC, an end to fracking, an end to torture, a 50% cut to "defense" budget, a $15 minimum wage, an end to corporatization of the public schools, an end to the Bush/Obama tax cuts for the hyper-rich, and a veto of the TPP. I agree that this would be very good for the party
mrchips
(97 posts)With criticism of the president. But when you call a wounded vet who is being acknowledged for his service in front of a national audience watching the SOTU a "tool," I take great umbrage. Instead of recognizing your over the top attack on both the president and the vet, you launched an attack on me. I agree. You do criticize the president "poorly." I suggest you look in the mirror and ask yourself whether or not you are actually serving any purpose at all.
calimary
(81,127 posts)Glad you're here. As you can see
we have some massively heavy discussions, and some of us are as hard on ourselves and our team captains as we are on those in the enemy camp. I personally would rather see all that vitriol directed more directly at the bad guys (the GOP) rather than our own, especially the poor sap in the White House who is taking the biggest beating every time something is perceived to have misstepped or just plain ol' gone wrong.
CRIMINY! I'm one of those who is still chafing at some of the things Will said about the President. And Will - I respectfully address this to you, too. YES you have a track record of some pretty fucking magnificent prose and I have MANY times screamed "BRAVO" at the top of my lungs. I've even had you as a guest on a radio show I hosted during Campaign '08. But for crying out loud - you were WRONG in your over-the-top laceration of the President when he dared to show the real, glaring, painful, and costly (emotionally as well as physically and financially) effects of war. That bothered me tremendously. And you were wrong again, in my own puffed-up-and-sometimes-ridiculously-annoying-and-cringeworthy opinion in further lacerating the President as a fucking SOB used car salesman. That bothered me an awful lot, too.
This man entered the White House aiming to HELP PEOPLE, dammit. Especially the neglected and outright broken ones. His heart was, and is, in the correct and honorable place. I mean, really - you'd prefer the alternative??? It's not his fault that we have a cavalcade of assholes climbing his ass from Day One. Actually, NIGHT One, when all the normal people with souls and consciences were celebrating on Inauguration Night, there was that cute little Sore Loserman cabal meeting in secret elsewhere in DC to plot their course toward ensuring his failure, and at least one gas giant on the radio bellowing flat out - "I Hope He FAILS!"
Voice your objections if you have them, Will. By all means. I've certainly complained, too, when I've found him lacking, disappointing, not this enough or that enough. But Jesus Mary and Joseph, you don't have to go after him with verbal neutron bombs. And then flatter yourself that you're being a great Democrat (?!?!?!?). Perhaps some occasional anger management efforts might be in order? Might help your blood pressure anyway.
And perhaps it's worthwhile to add one thing more, here. It's indicative of how much weight your words - yours in particular - carry, Will. That's a well-earned trophy and compliment as big as the Matterhorn. But it's a seriously heavy burden, and responsibility, that you're thus given to haul around, as well.
Thanks.
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)a persuasive argument.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Hear, hear!
Autumn
(44,986 posts)But Obama has also done some crap stuff that no one forced him to do. They way I see it, I voted for him twice, I've never voted for a republican in my life and I'm not going to start now. No one is going to depress my vote and make me stay home because they don't like Obama and say something negative about him on a message board. He's not running again, we elect a new President in 2016 and he will be gone, so if someone doesn't like him or one of his policies here on DU I'm not going to take my ball and go home.
I can alert on a post, if the jury or the hosts leave it I can ignore the poster or trash the thread. Who gives a fuck. I will never understand how people can get all bent out of shape because someone criticizes a politician or their policies.
I consider myself a fucking great Democrat.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 1, 2014, 08:49 AM - Edit history (1)
...somebody criticizing a politician doesn't bother me. I don't see politicians as some Superhero or god-like figure. I don't pledge undying lifelong allegiance to the Dems like some people do to sports teams. They have to earn support.
Why can't people who disagree just say--"that's your opinion, Will, not mine" --and not get all twisted up about it?
It worries me that some DUers think we're all supposed to toe the party line around here. That's what really looks weak to me.
idendoit
(505 posts)sheshe2
(83,668 posts)No. Calling the President a POS does not make you very, very good Democrat.
LuvNewcastle
(16,838 posts)There shouldn't be a cacophony of arguing and gnashing of teeth every time someone criticizes Obama. It's ridiculous. The problems on this discussion board are all about this extremely vocal small minority here who stir up a bunch of shit when people say that Obama leaves a lot to be desired as a President.
Who gives a shit if someone curses Obama? We don't owe that man anything. He works for us, and he's not doing a very good job at a lot of tasks he's performed. He's better than many others we've had, but I don't think that's enough.
Most Americans are good people, and we deserve public servants who will give their best. We have very few people in Washington who are doing that. So that's where we are today in this country, and if we get angry sometimes and curse one of them, so fucking what? Get over it and get a life.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right.
Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. [font size=3]To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.[/font]"
T. Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star,
May 7, 1918
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)marble falls
(57,014 posts)for Romney even knowing what we know now. I'd vote for the President a third time if I could, but he's wrong about Gitmo, the wars, the NSA, probably Keystone, too. Why does the bog try to include us out?
DebJ
(7,699 posts)was the issue. Just how I saw it.
Aldo Leopold
(685 posts)under the guise of talking about the President.
1000words
(7,051 posts)from folks who can't seem to figure out "hide thread," and "ignore."
Aldo Leopold
(685 posts)not mine.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)It's BACK!
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)gulliver
(13,168 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)the often seen sentiment that we must criticize them when they do not act like Democrats is ironic coming from the same people who allege they don't like purity tests.
sheshe2
(83,668 posts)Egotistical or what!
treestar
(82,383 posts)it's about coming together and working with other people even those who don't agree 100% of the time. Compromising. And that is anathema to the ego-driven. My principles or the highway.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)and indecisiveness and I realize I have seen this type of over-reaction before.....
Let's see what the next 24 hours brings.
randome
(34,845 posts)...by terrorizing his family and killing his friends.
(For anyone who gets that reference.)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
Number23
(24,544 posts)Short, sweet and devastating.
TBF
(32,017 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)1.) When you're in one, stop digging.
Your "piece of shit used-car salesman" post was completely over the top. Had I been on the jury, I would have voted to 'hide it', something I seldom vote to do. That said, I am not in the 'you need to leave DU' crowd-- not at all.
You would do well to remember an extremely useful admonition my father taught me about disagreeing with him: "It's not what you said that got you in trouble, it's the way you said it that did."
Peace.
llmart
(15,534 posts)I would also like to add "when you've made a mistake, man up, own it and apologize". Words matter, Will, and I hope with some maturity you will come to see that if the content of your comments is solid, you don't need to attract attention by using the f-word constantly and the gratuitous name-calling of our President. It just comes off as attention seeking and reeks of the self-gratification you rail about.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)lumpy
(13,704 posts)Skittles
(153,122 posts)rumdude
(448 posts)...by Soft Cell.
1000words
(7,051 posts)rudolph the red
(666 posts)KROQ used to play it often.
UTUSN
(70,652 posts)ozone_man
(4,825 posts)Criticism of our own party is absolutely necessary to make it healthy. Well, to be clear, the Democratic Party is not always my party, but when they support traditional Democratic Party principles, they are. It's hard to know which works better, the carrot or the stick, trying to teach Democrats where their principles are. A little of both works best I think.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Whining that leads to another Republican president getting elected (they've been there and done that - 2 terms of it) does only harm.
Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #187)
Skittles This message was self-deleted by its author.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)Perhaps you are more mainstream Democrat. If Obama wants my vote, he has to earn it. There is no blank check from me. If he cuts SS, expands NSA, weakens environment policy, creates more wars, we might as well have a Republican in office. We need some change we can believe in, just like he said. I'm holding him to that.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)so important.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)tries to do everything they can to shut us up and stop us from resisting and exposing their policies.
Fracking? Pipelines? Drilling? Spying? Nukes? Appointing republicans to high level government positions? Continuing the conquest of Afghanistan?
All Third Way promoted policies.
^What's not to criticize?^
randome
(34,845 posts)Using inflammatory language is the mark of someone who can't articulate his/her point very well. We have a lot of things to unite us, even if opposition is the sole criteria.
Most of us are against TPP and Keystone. Most of us would prefer single payer. Why not meet at center field to discuss the things we are in agreement on?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Many of these folks are purposely confusing criticism with gratuitous, misdirected RW insults. Some are even going so far as to frame the reaction to make it appear as if we're trying to shut down ANY criticism.
Not only ridiculous, but incredibly intellectually dishonest.
Lock step, blah blah blah.....
Zorra
(27,670 posts)etc., why aren't you joining us in criticizing Democratic support for these horribly destructive RW things, and trying to get them stopped?
What positive change does sitting around a circle jerk singing a congratulatory version of "Feelings" bring about?
These RW fuckers are destroying our planet, and we need to stop them before they do, and discussing how much we all love "Hello Kitty" isn't going to do jack shit to save our planet and our democracy from the predations of the 1%.
There is no ethical justification, none whatsoever, for any Democratic leader to support these things. I did not sign up for this, I did not elect Democrats for this, and I feel betrayed and violated by these things.
The President, and other Dem leaders, totally need to get their Democratic priorities in order. Working for genuine positive constructive change? good deal, yay, doing your job as an elected Democrat. Love ya!!!
Yes, we've made some significant social progress. That's wonderful, an example of Democrats "just doing their job", like they should.
Promoting RW policies such as committing rampant, thoughtless acts of environmental destruction for corporate profits, trade deals that are extremely harmful to the 99%, appointing republicans, unnecessarily continuing a senseless war, begun by a greed driven Machiavellian republican administration comprised of madmen, for 5 years, etc?
Inexcusable for any Democrat under any circumstances, unless someone has made serious threats towards their families, and they have the means and will to carry out these threats.
Personally, I now suspect that a significant amount of the irrational "We Love Obama So Much That Anyone Who Criticizes Him When He Promotes Destructive RW Policies Should Be Excoriated And Banned From DU" ludicrousness we see here is a cover for people working to help ensure that Third Way pro-corporate profit interest policies are not defeated.
We don't support Third Way RW policies, but we never criticize them, because the President supports them and we just love him so gosh darn much that we can't bring ourselves to speak out against these truly awful things.
?
Third Way policy is total bullshit propaganda to neutralize the Democratic party as an effective force to combat the predations of RW wealthy private interests, and Democrats need to stop apologizing for this RW bullshit. And IMO, in this case, silence by Democrats really does mean consent. Fiddling while Rome burns is bad enough. Helping the arsonists set the fires is far worse.
If you want progressive Democrats to stop criticizing the President, then help us stop him from promoting destructive Third Way RW corporatist policies.
Otherwise you will appear to be insincere, in pretending, or actually believing, that nothing is wrong, especially when you excoriate Democrats who justifiably complain about serious problems, and you will, in fact, be blaming the victims for complaining about being "raped".
Some of us who see this contradiction have little choice but to wonder about why this contradiction exists, given the fact that any sincere, barely informed Democrat recognizes that we have extremely wealthy, powerful enemies in our midst, enemies who are deliberately acting against the best interests of our planet, and against the people and other life forms on our planet as well.
End of Story.
Thanks to DUer madfloridian for posting the Third Way BOD graphic
Daily Kos Will Not Enable Those Who Enable The Third Way
You are as good as Will!
This needs to be a topic unto itself.
Bravo.....do not stop speaking out.....this is why I still come to this flea infested place.
We need "Off".
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Generic Other wrote in post #65 -
I have been on DU long enough to have discovered I do not like sycophants. I don't like two-faced people, liars, bullies or people who always feel the need to purge someone from among our number for unorthodox thinking. The tactics of these individuals include intimidation, acidic mockery, extreme self-righteousness (ready to cast the first stone and every one thereafter if need be), and eager willingness to brutally attack vulnerable people when they are down. All of those sound like Republican qualities to me.
What we have here is a hardcore, tiny, cheer-leading squad that is hopelessly outnumbered, and they want to drive DU into ghost town status by trying to enforce their narrow, extreme, near fanatical points of view on the rest of us.
A recent poll is an excellent example, they asked if Fox news-style bashing of Obama and the Democrats should be added as prohibited to the official rules. Interesting poll, right? It lost by a 70% - 20% margin. Think about that, 70% to 20%. That kind of margin, in a nutshell, says it all.
rudolph the red
(666 posts)Calling him a POS isn't a criticism, it's a direct insult. Any other DUer's would have been instabanned. That is what pisses me off, you seem to have some unofficial special status. I read the rules when I registered, I guess I missed the part that said they don't apply to you. Either the rules apply to everyone, or the don't apply at all.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)The entire front page should be nothing but shirtless pictures of Obama and fawning praise from people that know you're supposed to capitalize any pronoun that refers to Him. Anything less means you want Republicans to win, because Rand Paul.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Imho.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I'm right there with you, brother.
Hell raising is certainly warranted.
Those that don't want to see hell raising are not paying much attention or something.
meanit
(455 posts)have been absolutely savaged on this site before, especially during primary seasons. A few of the ones who were at the forefront of that bashing were never censored, and are now part of the Will Pitt lynch mob.
If Pitt's "POS used car salesman" rant pissed you off, then that's fine, you have a right to be pissed. But the outrage is a bit hypocritical and smacks of an agenda.
G_j
(40,366 posts)I don't recall if it was the same people who now want a purge. I found some remarks aimed at Kucinich to be absolutely hateful. I guess that's another story. Generally, there has been tension between"centrists",
and "leftists" here. Certainly many of the people so upset about WP's original remark, don't find a problem with hurling vicious insults at their fellow DUers. Certainly, there is no shortage of hypocrisy.
reddread
(6,896 posts)first order of business for some posters appears to be name calling and smearing of other posters and political figures tied to the left.
I dont see progressives (in the more classical use) attacking other posters, trying to tear apart the party.
They simply want justice and fairness for all, in order to support the illusion that America has a moral leg to stand on.
I prefer right and wrong to left and right, but history will show, as it has, where some of these folks stand.
or crawl.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)....
QC
(26,371 posts)Slick Willy, cigar jokes, talk of white trash and trailers, you name it.
The only stale insult missing from the Free Republic Cavalcade of Classics was Hitlery Klintoon.
Ugly, ugly stuff.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)I don't usually rec the posts by Will or Manny, though I am on their side in the Great Debate. Will's infamous name-calling post was beyond the pale and completely useless, and probably warranted a suspension. But this needs to be said.
The president and the party won a landslide in 2008 by conjuring up an image of the Repukes as enemies of the country and of its citizens. Ever since that landslide they have been mumbling, dissembling, cowering, appeasing, floating trail balloons on Chained CPI, asking for fast track authority to pass TPP, praising fracking, trying to end public education, passing Heritage Care...and losing. How can the Fan Club not put these two things together?
You want unity? Fine, get on board with a $15 minimum wage, an end to fracking, an end to torture, and prosecution of the war criminals and economic terrorists from the Bush era. It will be good for the country and even better for the party.
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)There should only be ONE GOAL here, and that is preventing Republicans from taking office.
It DOESN'T MATTER if the elected DEM is not as "LEFT" as you want, because the alternative is much worse.
When the Democrats control both the House and Senate -- then we can start "criticizing" to more Progressive candidates.
But until this happens, attacking DEMS just helps the Rethugs.
C'mon folks, concentrate on the bigger picture.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Exactly my thoughts.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)...liberal ambrosia we all love? That guy?
I guess Obama's letting him have the used car on Saturdays. Yeah. That must be it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesnt always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one youre already in.[/center][/font][hr]
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Stop cherry picking. You shouldn't try to hide the fact that the administration is more in line with the Republicans than with liberals.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/12/bernie-sanders-obama-has-been-a-disappointment-but-he-can-still-save-his-presidency/
The Progressive:
And he noted without pleasure that the President of the United States was talking about cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Sanders said, FDR and Harry Truman would be rolling over in their graves.
Sanders argued that such talk from the Democratic President is not only horrible public policy, it is bad politics. If both parties are advocating cutting these social programs, The average person is going to say, Where is the difference between the two parties? I dont know who you think is going to vote for you when you say youre going to cut Social Security and Medicare.
Sanders said hes been in meetings in the White House where there have been very straightforward conversations with the President about why hes giving up so much ground. Sanders said he wasnt sure what Obamas motivations were but that the President has a desire not to be confrontational.
Bernie Sanders: Obamacare is a good Republican program
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Senator Sanders: A Victory for Workers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024400795
See, Obama hasn't cut Social Security, and yelling about stuff that might happen doesn't negate the things that have happened.
That's the funny thing about this thread: It's a celebration of "I'm better than you because I can deny stuff."
theboss
(10,491 posts)I know that this deeply philosophical reflection on our shared duties as citizens essay always follows your fuck-ups. It's meaningless, because the actions outlined in it are not what you do.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)emsimon33
(3,128 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
He will reap what he's sown, together with the rest of the DC dems. Since they seem to be on the record as wanting private schools, for-profit health "care", TPP, KXL, Chained CPI, fracking, and so on, having a Republican isn't going to alter their agenda that much anyway.
randome
(34,845 posts)But that is definitely not what this thread is about. It's about criticism versus flaming.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
Caretha
(2,737 posts)told me upthread not point out anything that he stood for because it was irrelevant to this thread. You won't win one against as slithery apologist.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,222 posts)Dalai_1
(1,301 posts)Blue_Roses
(12,894 posts)stg81
(351 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Not as good at writing as you are, but you should be proud!