I thought ANY Obama-bashing violated the site rules !!

[RBInMaine]

Skinner, where are you?? Your post-primary rules were VERY clear: Site users are EXPECTED to support the Dem candidate. PERIOD !! So, anyone out there with fog in their heads better damn well get this clear. No more pro-Nader, pro-Kucinich, or pro-anything but OUR candidate CRAP. This is DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, underline DEMOCRATIC. We have a MAJOR chance here to MAKE HISTORY and toss out the R's but good. And what do some want to do, the same old far-left IDIOCY of standing in a circular firing squad. Would you people kindly get a grip once and for all and at least until November train your fire on the GOP. That is the point here. God. To think of what we have been through after 8 years of sheer Bush/Cheney/Republican hell, and we have to deal with people actually spending their time and energy criticizing our own candidate. Forget this ultra-ultra-left insanity already and either obey the site rules or get the hell out and rant the insane pipedreams and needless crazy criticisms somewhere else. No, as he freely admits himself, we don't have a "perfect" candidate. Fine. We concede the point. Happy now? But we do have one that is a thousand times better than McSAME and the rotten corrupt idiot we've had for the last 8 years. I hope others will join me and call on Skinner to ENFORCE the site rules and block ANY anti-Obama posts. Thanks.

[Alexander]

Skinner has made it clear that constructive criticism is acceptable.

Did you fail to read his bulletin?

[butterfly77]

22. Except when it comes to Hillary the saint...

[Alexander]

29. Skinner has also made it clear that the primaries are over.

I had a lot of problems with Hillary, but that's all water under the bridge.

The primaries are over and it's time to act like it.

[JuniperLea]

31. You need to read Skinner's sticky notes

At the top of GD: P...

[Alexander]

36. Why me? I'm not bashing the nominee and re-fighting the primary wars.

Maybe you need to read my posts before you go telling others what to read.

[JuniperLea]

37. I don't care what your other posts were...

Judging ONLY by the post to which I was responding, you clearly didn't understand the deal here at all.

Just trying to help.

Willful ignorance is a personal thing. Don't let me interfere.

[Alexander]

47. Whatever, you are making no sense at all and you refuse to explain yourself.

So whatever point you are trying to make couldn't be that important.

"Just trying to help.

Willful ignorance is a personal thing. Don't let me interfere."

Yes, I'm sure the world needs more of your condescending snark disguised as help. :eyes:

[rg302200]

50. I did and Skinner Clearly said...

"Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here."

Posters screaming that...

They won't help Obama

Won't donate to Obama

Obama is not to be trusted...

are not offering constructive criticism...thet are doing the MSM and GOP jobs for them!

[az chela]

1. yah thats real democracy.Also no freedom of speech on here

folks

[Political Heretic]

8. 1st amendment rights don't apply here.

It's a private forum, you agree to rules limiting your speech when you sign up.

[John Q. Citizen]

23. The rules do. The Op ought to learn them and quit making up new ones based on

whims.

[Kajsa]

Where oh where do you find a message board

that doesn't have rules?

Having rules seems synonymous to "no freedom of speech"
according to you.

Then why are you even on a message board since they all
have rules of conduct? Doesn't that violate your "freedom
of speech?"

:shrug:

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

11. Constantly ragging on Obama again and again over the same thing isn't exactly constructive

edit: this is a reply to response #1

[Kajsa]

15. I could not agree more with you, Chimpers!

I'm not agreeing with az chela at all here, in fact

I'm pointing out the absurdity of claiming " no freedom of speech"
when a privately owned message board has rules of conduct.

ie- I'm with you.

:)

[tbyg52]

2. The mods can only block them if they are alerted

or chance to notice. I'm assuming they *do* delete them if one of these two things occurs....?

[AZBlue]

49. I've been alerting like crazy lately - but a lot of posts have remained.

I'm not sure what to think.

[The Magistrate]

56. That Would Depend, Ma'am, On What The Alerts Concerned

If you alerted on posts you viewed as 'bashing' Sen. Obama, then if there was no action, that would be because we moderators did not come to a consensus that the posts were not constructive criticism. We try to be fair to all forum members, and to employ a sort of 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard. When something is much in the news, and is a sort of thing that evokes strong feelings in many people, like the F.I.S.A. bill, we also try and make allowance for the passionate feelings of the moment: something that passes muster a day or two after a vote in Congress might not do so a week or two later.

[Runcible Spoon]

64. just because something offends your fragile sensibilities does NOT mean that it's against DU rules.

I suggest you either learn to accept debate and differing views or find another site that gives you less stress. There is also an Obama group here, and in its mission statement it is limited to only positive Obama discussions. Go check it out!

[panader0]

3. I thought so too.

I responded to a post yesterday where the poster, angry about the FISA vote, said Obama=Bush. I told him to find a new site.

[DevonRex]

4. The crux of the matter is what is considered constructive and what

is not. That is a gray area that many people use to their advantage when spreading their gloom and doom.

[babylonsister]

Constructive criticism=good. Divisive, corrosive criticism=bad.

Alert is your friend should you see the latter.

[Arkansas Granny]

5. Not all criticism is bashing and criticism is allowed per Skinner's rules.

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6344459&mesg_id=6344459

However, calling out the admins or mods is never a good idea.

[WillParkinson]

6. Depends on how you define "anti-Obama"

By your standards would disagreeing with him (in post) be anti-Obama? Where do you draw the line? I disagree with him on many issues. At the moment he's only grudgingly getting my vote. I would never in a million years vote for Mr. McCain, but my vote is still Mr. Obama's to lose if I feel that the tack he's taking does not agree with my core values.

That said, he has said a few things in the last couple of days (mostly read about in posts here) that I *HAVE* agreed with, so that's a step (for me).

But if you cannot disagree with a candidate and you're expected to show blind loyalty to him or her then I fear that many people would be "anti-Obama" by your standards.

[jody]

7. Is it just Obama-bashing or any Democratic nominee? DU rules say "You are not permitted to use this

message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office." :shrug:

[msongs]

9. yes remain silent while your constituional rights are trampled by anybody dem or repub. ok nt

[IndianaJones]

10. welcome to GD:Tattletail. nt.

[dionysus]

17. lol, right on cue....

:rofl:

[Evergreen Emerald]

12. explain to me how writing on a board is doing anything

to help or hurt the candidate?

[dionysus]

18. it doesn't, it just spoils it for everyone else when we have to defend the nominee from other dems..

[AtomicKitten]

13. this is being used as a cudgel gratuitously by many who were never on board to begin with

gotta wear hip boots around this joint

[The Magistrate]

14. Here Are The Rules Of The Site On The Topic, Sir

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.




Note that while constructive criticism is allowed, divisive and imflammatory attacks are not. We moderators do our best to draw this distinction, and arrive at a consensus on which category a statement best fits into.

It is certainly going too far by half to conclude that a person engaged in constructive criticism of the nominee does not support him.

[KAZ]

19. Then tell me why you allow this shit, pal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6477573

[tbyg52]

20. My guess would be because no one alerted on it.

Yet.

[KAZ]

24. I would tell you that I did, but that's a rule violation.

:)

[sniffa]

32. Request Error

Looks good to me.

[Better Believe It]

68. So What's The Matter With That Post?

It just reports what's been in the news and discussed among many Black leaders and activists WHO WILL NOT under any conditions support McCain.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

27. Are You Talking To Me, Sir?

[LostinVA]

28. I REALLY hope you forgot the sarcasm smiley

I have disagreed with The Magistrate on many things, but calling him a "quisling" is both outrageous AND against DU rules. All he did was post the DU rules. Good grief!

[Bake]

60. The Magistrate can obviously take care of himself!

:woohoo:

Well done, Sir! I salute you!

:patriot:

Bake

[TexasObserver]

34. WTF?

I hope that's a mistake.

[mtnester]

48. Nasty aren't you?

Abbra cadabra, presto chango...DISAPPEAR

That spell may take a few minutes

[Me.]

43. You've Made An Important Distinction

Thank you

[dionysus]

16. yes!!

[John Q. Citizen]

21. What is your problem?

[LostinVA]

26. Uh oh -- IBTL

[skooooo]

44. ibil 2

[JuniperLea]

30. Where do I begin?

You're calling out Skinner... no no. You are questioning the mods... no no. You clearly didn't read any of the sticky notes on the subject before starting your rant... no no.

IBTL!

[Lord Helmet]

33. bashing of the candidate appears to be OK here

I read the rules differently I guess.

[golddigger]

35. Lmao...I belong to no organized party. I am a democrat.-- Will Rodgers

[JoFerret]

38. Supporting Obama and working for his election

is not the same as suspending critical faculties.

[Blue_In_AK]

39. I would prefer to underline the UNDERGROUND part..

I'm feeling like creating UNDERGROUND UNDERGROUND.

[billyoc]

40. I think it's McCain advocacy, rather than Obama bashing, that's not permitted.

:shrug:

[The Magistrate]

42. 'Obama Bashing', Sir, Is Not Permitted, But There Is A Wide Range Of Views On What That Is

We moderators have to balance posts against standards of 'constructive criticism' and of 'divisive and imflammatory', and do so in a manner fair to all our members in the course of reaching a decision by consensus. We know going in that we are not going to please everybody....

[Blue_In_AK]

41. The rules seem to be unequally applied.

I've seen plenty of Democrat-bashing around here -- most particularly against Nancy Pelosi recently and many others in the past. Do any of you remember how John Kerry was raked over the coals after the 2004 election? Some of the things that were said about Hillary during the primaries were in incredibly poor taste, I thought, and certainly qualified as bashing -- mostly coming from the Obama supporters.

I don't think there's anybody on this site that plans to vote for McCain, but if we're going to be prohibited from expressing our displeasure at some of Obama's positions, then I don't particularly want to be here.

[jody]

45. Bashing Pelosi has been permitted even though she is the Dem nominee for the CA 8th district. n/t

[Runcible Spoon]

65. Bashing Pelosi is allowed because she actively works AGAINST Democrat's interests.

:grr:

[jody]

69. Apparently Pelosi is still supported by the majority of the 236 Dem members in the House. n/t

[tkmorris]

46. I haven't seen any

I have seen posts that were critical of Obama, or just disagreeing with some position or another, but I have not seen any posts saying they refuse to support him.

Got link?

[rg302200]

51. Check out this line

"When someone stabs you in the back and violates your trust, they are no longer trustworthy. This is not about purity, it is about the Constitution.

Obama = Bush = McCain = Democrat = Republican"

from a response to a post at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6477326&mesg_id=6477368

Look at post number 9

The post are out there...unfortunatly

[The Magistrate]

55. Thank You For That Link, Sir: The Troll Who Put That Up Was Terminated Around Noon Today

We did not manage to get to all his recent posts, but I have now removed that one.

[defendandprotect]

52. Now this has reached what I call WHINING levels . .. !!

[shadowknows69]

53. I agree, it's becoming really unpleasant to read here.

[rg302200]

54. Its getting annoying I know

I find it harder and harder to log onto DU each time that I do. But this used to be the place I came to to get away from all the bullshit the MSM was feeding us. Now the shit has followed me here...if the Obama bashing doesn't stop I guess I am going to have to go find somewhere else to ease my mind!

Great Post....k&r

[LVjinx]

57. Um, they have said they still will vote for Obama. Stop trying to pretend otherwise.

They're entitled to have an opinion, even if you don't like it. This is a site for the discussion and promotion of progressive values, not a place to stifle differences of opinion. Hyperventilating and accusing anyone who has even the teensiest discomfort with Obama of wanting McCain to win is childish, ineffective, and in fact harmful to Obama's message. I'm going to vote for Obama, but I don't like him even one little bit. But I still intend to support him in the general, because there are going to be Supreme Court vacancies. If my motivation isn't electorally pure enough for you, deal with it.

[dionysus]

59. so just because some griefer "claims" they are dems who will votefor him, that makes it so?

thats quite gullible...

[Runcible Spoon]

66. trying to figure out whether or not some anonymous douche on the internet is 100% truthful

is a pointless waste of time. You can't magically know what someone is or isn't going to do, why twist your undies in a knot about it?

I'm just here for the discussion. I don't keep myself up at night wondering if Poster X is REALLY a Freeper since 2005 with 10,000 posts. :eyes:

[truthisfreedom]

58. Obama raggers are space-wasters.

Clear 'em out. NOW!

[Runcible Spoon]

67. what constitutes "ragging" and what does "clearing them out" mean?

pray tell...

[LWolf]

61. Are you yelling at the site owner, because you don't like

the interpretation of and enforcement of his rules?

Because criticism and bashing are not synonymous, and you'd like them to be?

Because, like a preacher pulling scripture out of context for a sermon, you don't want to balance your favorite part of the rules with the rest?

<snip>

But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Perhaps it is you who needs to read the rules

or do you wish for Free Republic II where no dissent is allowed?

[Runcible Spoon]

63. whoa calm down there, don't give yourself anal spasms...

all you're going to get is a lock and a message to direct all concerns to the moderators. They are doing a fabulous job striking a balance between open debate and keeping order.

[mix]

70. another cop on the beat

eom

[Top Cat]

71. I thought ANY Obama-bashing violated the site rules !!

I agree we need to stand together t.his is what e need to take back the Whitehouse