#BeforeBlackPresidents: Liberal blogs spent more time attacking Republicans than Democrats.

[babylonsister]

http://blackwaterdog.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/beforeblackpresidents-liberal-blogs-spent-more-time-attacking-republicans-than-democrats/

#BeforeBlackPresidents: Liberal blogs spent more time attacking Republicans than Democrats.


Finally, there was a really awesome Twitter party last night, under #beforeblackpresidents. Some of the best tweets:


The debt ceiling was raised SEVENTY-FOUR times without incident. SEVENTY-FOUR TIMES.

No-nothing representatives didn’t make videos calling the President a liar.

A POTUS could tax the rich at 91% and be called a Republican–not a socialist!”

middle names were irrelevant.

DADT was law & pre-existing condition exclusions were here to stay.

Deliberately sabotaging economic recovery was not considered a legitimate option 4 the opposition party.

The President would get the credit he deserved for killing Bin Laden and rescuing the economy.

The Democratic party actually had the president’s back.

A President wasn’t attacked by GOP, Professional Far Left and Teahadists.

NO ONE screamed ‘you lie’ at the president during a state of the union address.

people with 3rd grade educations didn’t constitute a political movement.

more @ this link:

http://twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23beforeblackpresidents

[Empowerer]

1. This needs to be said and read . . . recommended

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[TheWraith]

107. Kicked, since I can't recommend. nt

[Doctor_J]

2. #Also was true before Dem presidents tried to give away SS and Medicare

and let the ultra-right-wing faction of Congress dictate policies

Tripe

Edit: When I voted for the man, I didn't think he would fall back on, "You don't like me because I'm black"

[babylonsister]

4. Has 'the man' ever said that? I didn't think so. Seems to me this

is the perception of others.

[Doctor_J]

6. This "tweet" says exactly that

and in so doing denigrates the tweeter and the president. And the person who spreads it to other forums

[babylonsister]

9. Why do any of these tweets denigrate the President? Seems to me

you're doing a lot of that w/o providing any supporting evidence.

[great white snark]

7. Has he given away SS or Medicare either?

Very odd statement.

[ElboRuum]

8. Welcome to ignore, Johnny Bravo. n/t

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[theaocp]

12. Wow. Thank you for taking the time

to write that response. It was a pleasure to read it. :hi:

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

16. WTF? n/t

[Fearless]

18. +1

[treestar]

20. Do you really believe what you just posted?

Should the House be powerless? This is because the debt limit is suddenly a problem the 75th time.

[ProSense]

27. Know your facts

Clinton:

Now, what's the issue here? Why is Social Security in trouble? First of all, if you're getting a check now, relax, you're going to be fine. That's not the issue. The issue is this: we are living longer. The baby boomers are coming up for retirement, and those of you who gave birth to baby boomers know that until this crowd started school last year -- this crowd of children in school -- the baby boomers were the largest American generation ever, and larger than our children.

So that when we retire, the baby boomers, there will only be about two people working for every one person drawing Social Security. To give you an idea, today there are more than three people working -- about three and a half people working for every one person drawing Social Security. In addition to that, there will be more and more and more women retiring and living on Social Security because women, on balance, have a longer life expectancy. And they are less likely to have pensions or personal savings. For 25 percent of the women on Social Security, it's the only income they receive.

Now, when the 75 million baby boomers retire and when there are only two people on Social Security for every one person --two people working for every one person drawing -- we will in about 20 years start having to pay out of the Social Security trust fund, as provided by law, benefits, because the annual income won't be enough to cover the annual outgo. Then in about 34 years, even the trust fund won't be enough to cover the benefit.

Here's what this is all about. If we start now and make some modest changes now that don't have to affect people on Social Security at all, and if we use this money that we have in the surplus -- which I think I should add was produced entirely by the Social Security tax itself -- then we can make modest changes and preserve Social Security in the 21st century in a way that will accommodate the changing population patterns and still make sure it's there for the people who need it.

If we do not do that, if we say, well, heck, we waited 29 years for this surplus, let's take the money and run, let's have a little fun, give me a tax cut, give me a new program, give me this, give me that -- before we know whether we need this money to save Social Security -- and keep in mind it was produced by the Social Security tax -- and we miss this opportunity, then what's going to happen? Sooner or later, within a few years -- keep in mind, every year that goes by the problem is only going to get tougher, it's not going to get easier, because you have less time to fix a big problem -- then sooner or later we'll be forced with the choice of either saying, well, I'm sorry, we can't do this so we're just going to have to cut benefits 22 percent, in which case a lot of seniors will be in deep trouble. Or we'll say, our conscience won't let us live with ourselves so we're going to raise the taxes 22 percent -- and that's a whopping tax increase -- and keep in mind the payroll taxes paid by small businesses in years where they make money and years when they don't make any money. The payroll taxes paid by people on modest incomes as well as by wealthy people.

link

In addition to the discretionary spending cuts, our budget did reduce entitlements, making reductions in agricultural subsidies, asking upper-income recipients of Social Security to pay more tax on their income, lowering reimbursements to Medicare providers, making other adjustments in Medicaid and in veterans' benefits. Now, all these cuts are already on the books. We are also cutting -- with the help of the Vice President's National Performance Review -- over 250,000 positions from the federal payrolls, largely by attrition and early retirement over the next five years. We're finally attempting to reform the system in ways that will permit us to save billions of more dollars in discretionary spending through reform of personnel budgeting and, most importantly, procurement systems -- if the Congress will authorize all three of those systematic reforms.

link

"But I want you to understand what's happening. Today, Medicaid and Medicare are going up at three times the rate of inflation. We propose to let it go up at two times the rate of inflation. That is not a Medicare or Medicaid cut. And we have kept private sector increases so that they won't go up as much. So only in Washington do people believe that no one can get by on twice the rate of inflation. (Laughter.) So when you hear all this business about cuts, let me caution you that that is not what is going on."

link

[CakeGrrl]

31. "You don't like me because I'm black" - WTF?

Do you remotely comprehend that this is a blogger's interpretation of what's going on?

You seem pretty hell-bent on putting blame on the President in any way possible - you're not even stopping to consider what this writing was about before proclaiming it the President's own failing as if HE wrote it.

Ridiculous.

[Doctor_J]

66. The OP said that liberals are attacking Obama because he's black

or actually the tweet whence this OP arose said that. This is patently stupid, since every last one of us voted for him. And I also think that the president himself would laugh at the suggestion that the "professional left" are unhappy with him because of his race. Or are you claiming that we voted for Obama so that we could have a black man in the WH to gripe about?

Man, the people who applauding the president's surrender of SS and Medicare have gotten pretty far out there in their defensiveness.

[bornskeptic]

32. Clinton wanted to cut Medicare as part of healthcare reform, and Carter

slashed Social Security COLAs. I don't suppose that marrers if you're a victim of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

[rury]

40. Clinton and Carter were white

Obama is black.
White men can get away with things that black men cannot.
Obama is being judged more harshly because of the color of his skin.
That is all!

[shellgame26]

72. That's it in a nutshell!

[Dr Fate]

78. The racist Liberal Blogs gave Clinton & Carter a free pass.

You could look all over the interent back then and not find ONE SINGLE Liberal blog going after either of them.

[Mr Deltoid]

117. So, liberals are racists now?

I thought 85% of them support Obama, according to some poll. I am confused now!!

Were there 'liberal blogs' during Carters administration? Were there 'liberal blogs' during the Clinton presidency? It would be refreshing to see Obama supporters arguing the merits of his policies rather than throwing turds at fellow Democrats.

[comtec]

124. YES Because the INTERNET WAS AROUND in 1979!!!!

*sighs*
god forbid someone has an actual, factual, evidence based reason for being pissed at this president.
and I seem to recall a hell of a lot of liberals were right pissed at Clinton for much of his presidency.

I know facts have no meaning to you, but consider this... we're criticizing, NOT SAYING WE WANT PAILIN OR A REPUBLICAN IN OFFICE!!!


you can go back to your little fantasy world now.

[hulka38]

134. Yeah, not ONE SINGLE liberal blogger was criticizing Carter!

OMG

:rofl:

[amborin]

136. major fail! or a joke? people weren't blogging on the internet back then; WWW only really got star

ted about 1990

[COLGATE4]

115. Oh Bullshit! Obama is being 'judged', as you put it, because he has

been a Leader who failed to lead, a Chief Executive who prefers compromise, ANY compromise to a tough negotiation with his adversaries and, in general, a huge disappointment to many of us who wholeheartedly worked for and supported him in 2008. To attempt to assign racist motives to those who now criticize his PERFORMANCE is despicable in addition to being sophomoric.

[comtec]

127. pssst.... facts have no place for appologists

They ONLY know obama is their guy and any dissent is seen as evil!
despite the fact that consideration of our side would IMPROVE THINGS FOR ALL!
oh well, i guess this post will be deleted too.

They HATE IT when you point out their hypocrisy. And compare them to bushies.

[Wilms]

58. Not sure the Carter charge is accurate.

Carter claimed there was a flaw in the COLA law passed in 1972. Was he wrong?

http://socialsecurityperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/05/president-8-jimmy-carter-1977-1981.html


The 1976-83 COLAs were based on increases in the CPI-W from the first quarter of the prior year to the corresponding quarter of the current year in which the COLA became effective. After 1983, COLAs have been based on increases in the CPI-W from the third quarter of the prior year to the corresponding quarter of the current year in which the COLA became effective.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/colaseries.html

And look at the chart in that link and compare with the rate of inflation during the late 70s and early 80s. On average the COLAs tracked inflation closely.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=2

Is there another analysis of this?

[PragmaticLiberal]

143. Yeah, this is rarely mentioned.

I wonder why.....

[Skip Intro]

49. +1

[great white snark]

3. Thank you. K&R.

[countingbluecars]

5. K&R n/t

[DCBob]

11. There does appear to be a new set of rules since we elected President Obama.

Sickening isnt it.

[woo me with science]

22. Yeah, sickening that cutting Medicare and SS are considered defensible now. nt

[shellgame26]

73. Has that happened?

NO IT HASN'T!
The fact that the repubs are in a tizzy is a testimony to this president's defense of medicare, S.S. If They had reached a deal you all would have been screaming "HE CAVED!"
he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

At least the Tea-party is HONEST about why they hate this president. Y'all...not so much..

[muffin1]

111. He "put them on the table".

And by "y'all", are you suggesting the "leftists" on DU are racists?

[Dr Fate]

80. Exactly- High-Tech Bloggers used to respect the presidents from past decades.

I guess the old archetype of the Blogger with the "press" card in his hat is a thing of the pass.

Back then, the bloggers used to revere Presidents like Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, Clinton.

My how times- and blogging- has changed.

[PVnRT]

110. I didn't realize there were bloggers before the development of the internet

[Jakes Progress]

14. Shame on you.

[woo me with science]

45. +1

[Demit]

15. Liberal blogs are questioning the premise that this president even is a Democrat.

With justification. Who would have thought a Democrat would propose *raising* the Medicare eligibility age? Who would have thought a Democrat would allow Social Security to even be a topic in these debt ceiling talks? Four new wars, secret prison sites, unchecked authority to assassinate Americans, going after whistleblowers & medical marijuana users...it all boggles the mind of this voter, who in 2008 thought she was voting for a Democrat.

[Ikonoklast]

61. 'Liberal blogs'. Oh, my.

I'm sure that blogs read by tens, TENS of people will influence the thinking of millions of voters.

[Demit]

75. That is a very silly reply.

I guess it's because, even with a full day to think about it, you really have nothing to come back with otherwise. To perhaps try to explain to me how it could be that—leaving all the other things like drone bombings and secret prison sites aside—a Democratic president has both offered to raise the Medicare eligibility age and allowed Social Security, which has absolutely nothing to do with the national debt, even to be discussed in debt ceiling talks.

It doesn't take liberal blogs to point this out. Millions of voters can see it on their own. Millions of voters can watch this dismantling of the safety net as it unfolds. And you & I can watch what happens next November when it sinks in to millions of voters that it was a "Democrat" who led the effort.

[ProSense]

17. Check it out

The Obama Presidency: Change

[treestar]

19. Great list!

:kick:

[KingFlorez]

21. Not all racists are conservative

And a lot of "progressives" are just too extreme, rather than racist. It's a combination of many things.

[Dr Fate]

88. Some Liberals are Emo-racists. n/t

n/t

[Mr Deltoid]

113. A lot of bizarre name calling going on lately

Case in point.

[paulk]

23. the race card again

re: henny penny...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

104. Yep.

[young but wise]

24. K&R.

Love it.

[Blasphemer]

25. This ignores the facts of the spread of the Internet and the phenomenon of blogging

Before Obama, as blogging became a widespread phenomena, and Facebook and Twitter took hold a REPUBLICAN was President. Between 1992 and 2000, when a white Democrat was President, the Internet was NOT what it was today. Not by a long shot. The election of 2000 and 9/11 combined to turn political blogging into what it is today. If one wants to make an argument about traditional media - newspapers and TV - that's fine but this particular argument is a failed one and, as someone was dealt with racism her whole life, I believe it undermines legitimate criticism of racial politics. When Palin, McCain and the Teabaggers were basically calling for him to be lynched, THAT was racism. It seems as though ANY criticism is automatically regarded as unfair and therefore must be racially motivated. Where does that leave us? Genuflecting at the feet of a politician just because he is black? That is insane. It is our responsibility to hold all politicians accountable for their decisions. Just as I criticize my family members (who happen to be black) when I feel they are doing wrong, I will do the same to any politician. "It takes a village' doesn't just mean holding hands, singing kumbaya and ignoring those ideas and actions which undermine the health of a community. Speaking up and Speaking out is part of what it takes to have strong communities - locally, nationally and globally.

[babylonsister]

29. Good post and I agree with you; we didn't have

the internet, blogs, in-your-face news 24/7 during the last Dem admin, so this is new to us all. But I am also glad you pointed out that racism does indeed exist.
I have no problem with anyone criticizing this president 'responsibly' for actual affronts, not what-ifs or because of his skin color.

[golfguru]

56. +1,000,000,000,000

That's a Trillion, since all the budget talk now is in Trillions. A Trillion here, a Trillion there....you know the rest.

[Supersedeas]

83. I agree -- accountability is sometimes a delicate dance

[Kaleva]

26. Rec'd

[frustrated_lefty]

28. Before Obama, no democratic president had

-extended the Bush tax cuts;
-expanded upon the Bush military actions;
-authorized the assassination of American citizens;
-so avidly pursued whistle-blowers whose whistle-blowing was clearly a service to the country;
-demanded Americans purchase health insurance while simultaneously a) throwing single-payer out the window, and b) making backroom deal with Big Pharma to not negotiate for lower medication costs;
-made so god damned many backroom deals after running on a platform of transparency;
-bailed out the banks which helped destroy the economy, turned around, and lectured Americans on the need for shared sacrifice;
-used social security and medicare as bargaining chips;
-neglected job creation during one of the worst periods of unemployment in the nation's history;
-spoken with such open admiration for Reagan, used his language, framing the debate in republican terms which are incompatible with democratic policy.

You must be right, though, it has to be his skin color.

[ProSense]

30. Hmmmm?

-extended the Bush tax cuts; (A Democratic President repealed Glass-Steagall)
-expanded upon the Bush military actions;(Bombed Kosovo)
-authorized the assassination of American citizens; (Bullshit! Got a link?)
-so avidly pursued whistle-blowers whose whistle-blowing was clearly a service to the country; (Nonsense. Bush launched the investigations and now Obama is cleaning up the mess: "Though the inquiries began under President Bush")
-demanded Americans purchase health insurance while simultaneously a) throwing single-payer out the window, and b) making backroom deal with Big Pharma to not negotiate for lower medication costs; (More nonsense: Obama never campaigned on single payer, but he established a path to get there)
-made so god damned many backroom deals after running on a platform of transparency; (There was no deal)
-bailed out the banks which helped destroy the economy, turned around, and lectured Americans on the need for shared sacrifice; (Bush bailed out the banks)
-used social security and medicare as bargaining chips; (Know your facts)
-neglected job creation during one of the worst periods of unemployment in the nation's history; (yes, he needs to do a lot more)
-spoken with such open admiration for Reagan, used his language, framing the debate in republican terms which are incompatible with democratic policy. (Smart strategy)

[rury]

41. Spot on as always ProSense!

[Dr Fate]

90. Exactly- both did all these awesome things, leading us to where we are today.

n/t

[Demit]

79. "Though the inquiries began under President Bush...

...it has fallen to Mr. Obama and his attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., to decide whether to prosecute. They have shown no hesitation, even though Mr. Drake is not accused of disclosing the N.S.A.’s most contentious program, that of eavesdropping without warrants."

Finished the quote from the Times piece you linked to. Kind of puts a different light on it, doesn't it?

[Dr Fate]

89. Emo-Racists dont realize that they were both just as awesome as the other on the issues you list.

And both have gotten us to where we are today.

Thanks for that list of all the awesome things centrism has done for America. We still feel all the wonderful effects to this day.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[girl_interrupted]

34. And before Obama they impeached Clinton

so I ask you, what's worse? Clinton had a 68% approval rating during the impeachment trial, finished his term & left with higher approval ratings of any President since WW2 ( higher than their God, Reagan) Nothing spared him from criticism or his wife, his daughter, his mother, his brother, anyone whoever knew or worked for him, endless investigations, millions of dollars spent. He was also criticized by the Left for his policies, and still is. He was never spared any criticism. And still isn't. His color didn't save him.

As far as it having to do with Obama's color, of course racism exists, but not enough for him not to be elected the first black president. People were listening to his words, not looking at his color. And that's where Obama has his biggest problem. People are in dire straights and have been for awhile. They voted for change, and they are not seeing a change in their personal lives. So a lot of people are very disappointed, tapped out, scared and worried. They are seeing the prices rise on all their essentials, while their wages aren't. When they see tax cuts for the rich, when they hear talk about cuts in SS & Medicare & Medicaid, they are terrified, because they are already having a hard time making ends meet. The continuation of some of bush's policies, doesn't exactly fill them with confidence either. Wars still continue. Unemployment continues to grow, those who are still working are being asked to give up some of their benefits, it's very uncertain times. Yet we hear about "shared sacrifice", but that is more aimed at the have nots, then anyone else. So people are frustrated.

Before Obama, there was Condi Rice & Colin Powell, both appointed to very high levels of republican administrations. Republicans didn't have a problem with their color. They were criticized by our side, because we didn't like their politics, not because we didn't like their color, we lumped them in with the rest of the republicans, and now republicans are doing the same to Obama. There was Clarence Thomas, who claimed Democrats went after him because of his color. Democrats will tell you differently. Now you have Herman Cain & Allen West and they don't like Obama & they are all the same color.

When you break it all down, it comes to one thing...Republicans don't like Democrats and Democrats don't like republicans, it's an ideological thing. And as far as the "teabaggers" are concerned, they are still republicans, nasty ones at that, who want to try and show you they would not have approved of the 8 years of republican spending, but somehow couldn't find the time to complain about it then. Bunch of phonies.

The internet now gives voice to people, like never before. And you're not always going to hear what you like, but you are going to hear it, nonetheless. There really isn't anything, any of us, can do about that. As Harry Truman use to say "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen". It's just the way politics work.

[JoePhilly]

42. If Obama got a BJ from a white female intern, what do you think would happen?

I'm pretty sure that I know.

btw ... When Colin Powell endorsed Obama ... Limbaugh, the voice of the GOP, called Powell a racist.

The screaming "you lie" during a State of the Union ... their calling Michelle a racist. Sorry. Obama is held to a very different standard.

btw ... I'm a white guy in my 40s, and I get to hear what too many whites will say when only other whites are listening, even when they don't know them all that well.

And of course, Obama isn't the one complaining about it. He can't become the angry black man, and he can't complain either.

[babylonsister]

44. ++++++++++ !!!!!!!!! nt

[Doctor_J]

65. Um, this tweet is about liberals and Dems being too rough on Obama

btw ... When Colin Powell endorsed Obama ... Limbaugh, the voice of the GOP, called Powell a racist.

The screaming "you lie" during a State of the Union ... their calling Michelle a racist. Sorry. Obama is held to a very different standard.

This has nothing to do with the original post

[Scurrilous]

35. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Mimosa]

36. This latest tactic to 'defend' the President is divisive, stinks of desperation.

This is :-( :-(. And a bit UGLY.

I remember well the 8 years of the Clinton administration. Did anybody then listen to Limbaugh? Read the American Spectator and the Weekly Standard? TV talk shows were filled with anti-Clinton hate.

The biggest difference is the internet wasn't developed, so it couldn't be used ads a 'force multiplier.'

Babylonsister, it's undeniable there is a racist component to Obama hatred. Where you've got it wrong is that 'liberals' don't even care about race. What 99% of us care about is the economy, the destruction of the social safety net, and America's future.

How many times have you read that what liberals DON'T LIKE is Obama compromising with Republicans? How many times on DU have you read the Harry Truman quotation about people voting for real Republicans over democrats who adapt Republican policies?

In defending the Preisent you have chosen the lowest road. You are now impugning good people who use their right to disagree with the implementation of policies, who don't like the direction in which they perceive the president is leading the country. You should think again. Is this the road you want to take on this board?

[Pisces]

38. Truth sticks in the craw doesn't it. What goes on here is ugly.

[sudopod]

67. If things sticking in craws is the whole measure of truth

then why don't all philosophers live on nude beaches?

[Number23]

43. "Where you've got it wrong is that 'liberals' don't even care about race."

I lol every time I see that.

A few articles for you to read, if you're interested:

'With Friends Like These, Who Needs Glenn Beck? Racism and White Privilege on the Liberal-Left' http://www.timwise.org/2010/08/with-friends-like-these-who-needs-glenn-beck-racism-and-white-privilege-on-the-liberal-left/

'What white people fear' http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/whatwhitepeoplefear.htm

Key snip from the second article that I find particularly relevant:

"Liberals are quick to denounce both the thinly veiled and the openly reactionary conservative racism. But what of the fears of liberals? White liberals might reject the very idea they are afraid, citing their support for diversity and multiculturalism. But my experience suggests that while white liberals reject conservative assertions of white supremacy, many fear the loss of white centrality. White liberals are willing to renounce the idea that white people are superior, as long as they are allowed to live comfortably in a world where white is the norm."

...In the institutions that adopt the liberal view, diversity is just fine (as long as whites remain in control) and multiculturalism can flourish (as long as white norms remain dominant)."

I agree with alot in both of these article and disagree with alot too. But ANYONE who makes the assertion that "liberals can't be racist" or "don't care about race" is in a state of denial so deep they need a SEAL team to help them out of it.

[Mimosa]

50. I'm not going to waste my life.

Of course liberals or anybody else can be racists.

But here on DU except for trolls who get banned there are not any racists posting. We dems don't need to start tearing each other apart, here, calling names.

[Number23]

54. "But here on DU except for trolls who get banned there are not any racists posting."

That's the second time today you've made me laugh.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[GillesDeleuze]

70. ^^ ding.

[COLGATE4]

116. Spot on. K&R!

[ZombieHorde]

37. "Liberal blogs spent more time attacking Republicans than Democrats."

Blogs did not become popular until after Clinton took office. There were a few blogs towards the end of the Clinton years, but nothing like today. The only US Presidents who have served during the reign of blogs are Bush and President Obama.

[Cali_Democrat]

57. ^^^YUP^^^

[bullwinkle428]

74. Stupid facts...they always have a liberal bias!!1!

;)

[rury]

39. WOW...So true

Racism dies hard in this country...all over the political spectrum!

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[babylonsister]

51. Beneath me? You've got to be kidding.

I do think there is blatant racism against this President as you've stated, often from the left (and no, I won't name names but there's one currently up in GD/P by a well-known 'liberal' blog that is consistent), but there are plenty of times I've posted stuff here for discussion. Are you trying to censor me?

And no, I don't think you're racist, so don't take this as a personal attack. Actually, this wasn't directed at anyone here personally; why is it that we can't discuss why this info/these tweets are out there vs. personally attacking the messenger, or taking it personally?

[Forkboy]

52. "Are you trying to censor me?"

How would that be possible even if I wanted to do so, which I don't? You really even have to ask that of me? I've been here 10 years. Have you ever once seen me try to censor anyone in anyway? Hell, I'm not even comfortable alerting on shit here.

I think you're smart enough to know how this is being used here. You say it's not directed at anyone here personally, but we both know which blog you're talking about, and we both know how many people here read it. The implication is that anyone reading said blog must also be racist. Again, I think you're smart enough to know this, and understand how it can be used to chill valid criticism.

As for taking things personally, I rose three points in my post, not one of which you addressed. Instead, you've focused on the one comment about you. Who is taking things personally? I asked you about me because I assumed you knew me well enough by now that the point could be understood that some people can read things from places you don't like and not be racist. I didn't take your OP personally in the slightest bit, the question was asked to make a point.

[babylonsister]

53. I addressed your first point in my response on this thread (#29);

as for responses to Bush, we're not talking about him in this context, nor could we ever be; as to your third point, the tweets referenced were written by people who see the racism and probably not on this site ever or often. I found it interesting that this isn't the only place where racism is being noticed on the left. It has nothing to do with daring to disagree with anything, but people's perceptions of what is going on 'out there'. Is it okay with you to open up a discussion w/o chastising me for it?

As for 'said blog', think what you will, I used it only as an example. I don't pile on, I don't read it, and frankly, I'm not interested in what that blog has to say. I see people here responding to it which is why it was used as a ready example.

And I'm not trying to 'chill' anything. Yes, I support the President. I see what's going on. You are welcome to disagree. That's what discussion forums are about. I do appreciate the fact that you don't 'cast asparagus' my way.

[Forkboy]

76. I want to apologize to you for questioning your motives.

I think the points I raised in my deleted post are valid (I got censored lol), but my questioning your motives was not. I'm not Mr. Patience to start with, and between near constant migraines daily, stress from being told what might be causing them, and even more stress over the SS issue because I'm barely hanging on by my fingernails as it is, I just unloaded on the wrong person. However, this is just an explanation, and not an excuse, and I'm truly sorry I questioned you that way. I know you're a great person, and I'm very sorry.

[babylonsister]

94. Hey!

:hug: :hug: :hug: I read about your migranes; I'm very sorry you're getting them, Forkboy. :hug:

[CrazyBob]

55. I have to say it

Its clear to both of us that there is a LOT of racism out there directed at the president.

But I don't think those are examples of it.

[OwnedByFerrets]

47. Oh fuck that. Liberal discontent has NOTHING to do with color.

[Supersedeas]

93. same argument we heard about the discontent regarding the extension of Bush tax cuts

[JTFrog]

48. Huge K&R

[Tarheel_Dem]

59. Wish I could rec this a thousand times.

:kick:

[Doctor Hurt]

60. I am going to bump this thread every day

a day will not go by where DU doesn't see this.

[Bobbie Jo]

62. +1

I'll help you.

Anyone who can't see that this president is held to an incredibly different standard is either willfully disingenuous or habitually myopic.

Kick

[Dr Fate]

91. Me too. Calling out the Emo-Racists will make them support centrism.

Liberal voters usually respond positively to being accused of hating people.

[Supersedeas]

101. Which kind of makes you wonder....

[WI_DEM]

63. Well before President Obama we had 8-years of Bush so of course liberal blogs were

attacking the GOP. I don't think that Obama's skin color has anything to do with attacks on liberal blogs. I think it has to do with his policies.

[whatchamacallit]

68. Absolute fucking garbage.

Another pathetic attempt to paint any and all criticism of the president as racist. WTF, if this were even remotely true, Obama never would have been nominated, let alone be president. Maybe the reason he gets the same flack, liberals usually reserve for republicans, is he falls all over himself to be one.

[GillesDeleuze]

69. dont call me racist, sister.

unrec.

[shellgame26]

71. K&R

Yup yup...

[Dr Fate]

77. Liberal Blogs used to give Clinton, Carter, Kennedy, LBJ and Truman a free pass.

My how times have changed.

[GillesDeleuze]

84. its like being emo causes racism or something

right, doc?

[Dr Fate]

85. Emo Liberals may as well be the Klan as far as we can tell.

Or maybe that was the Emo Progressives.

Emo Liberals, Emo Progressives, Emo Democrats- whatever they are calling themselves this week- they are as racist as the day is long.

FACT: Emo Bloggers never attacked any of the past presidents but always go after Obama.

So yes, there is a connex b/t Emoism and Racism.

[Mr Deltoid]

118. Bizarre

Absurd at best.

[Mr Deltoid]

119. 'Emo' is a code word for 'white'

[Bobbie Jo]

133. What?

Care to elaborate?

[Mr Deltoid]

135. Sure

"Emo Liberals may as well be the Klan as far as we can tell"

Need I go on?

When I read stuff like this coming from Obama's 'Supporters' it sours me on him.

[Bobbie Jo]

137. "Need I go on?"

No, you've covered it, thanks.

When I see conflated analogies from professed "liberals," it sours me on the idea that anonymous posters should be taken at face value.

[Mr Deltoid]

138. 'Liberals are racists and KKK',

THAT'S a get out the vote message Democrats can hang their hats on

[Bobbie Jo]

139. Except...he didn't say that.

Conflate away. "emo" would be the qualifier in this case. At no time did the poster refer to ALL liberals.

[Mr Deltoid]

142. Putting the vague word 'Emo' in front of the attack does not cleanse it's meaning

Race baiting is a form of racism, it stinks to high heaven, and it has no place within the Democratic party.

[Bobbie Jo]

145. Nor does denying it exists

in the face blatant evidence. It has no place here or anywhere.

Perhaps a touch of confirmation bias would explain some of the defensiveness and denial of the obvious.

[CreekDog]

81. Wrong...we're not criticizing Obama because he's black but because he's centrist

And though you act like nobody criticized Clinton or Carter for the fights they had with the liberals of their presidencies --you're wrong. They were criticized for the same things back then.

[ItNerd4life]

82. BeforeBlackPresidents: Blacks didn't call their fellow Democrats racist. What is this crap? nt

[Dr Fate]

86. B/c centrist and center-right DEMS fight for minorities more than liberals ever have.

Just look at the record.

[Supersedeas]

122. Comparing Levin and Leahy's record with say Conrad and Baucus

or say comparing Nadler, Lewis, and Markey with Mike McIntyre, Heath Shuler, and John Barrow.


Sometimes the pinch is in naming names and substantiating blanket accusations.

[Number23]

95. Do you know any black people?

[Amimnoch]

87. While racism may very well be the heart of some dischord

it may even be a sub-conscious cause of dischord or bias with some people.

But, the premise here, as per the topic is that liberal blogs have a different history of behavior based on race?

A couple of things that are not really fair with that premise:

Even DU wasn't created until January 20, 2001.. so really there was no discourse to make a comparison on with regards to a Democratic president previously. Heck, odds are the vast majority of people on here, and other bloggerss weren't even blogging during most or even all of President Clinton's.

It's hard to accurately compare modern internet discourse with discourse that was never available, didn't exist, or had MUCH smaller numbers of users than exists in this age.

[grahamhgreen]

92. If the President suggested this: "A POTUS could tax the rich at 91% and be called a Republican–not a

socialist!"

We would all be on his side.

[Little Star]

96. Not this crap again! Thank heaven for the hide thread function.

[Phx_Dem]

97. Sad but true. K&R

[Dr Fate]

98. Yup- every Emo Liberal blogger I know hates black people.

so sad, yet so, so true.

[Supersedeas]

147. wow

[Enrique]

99. Gallup poll: Obama out-teflons Reagan

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x722228

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

102. Sigh.

[DFab420]

103. +1000

http://weeseeyou.com/2011/08/12/progressive-angst-and-president-obama-its-not-him-its-you/

Something also discussed here.


The white progressives own issues with a black leader.

[GillesDeleuze]

105. you do understand when web2.0 happened.

right?

[DFab420]

106. what?

[GillesDeleuze]

108. blogs were not widely read until mid-way

thru the bush admin.

[DFab420]

109. ok? wth does that have to do with my post?

[Enrique]

112. before black presidents

we used to talk about our wars at DU. And about civil liberties. Now, those topics are too negative, I guess. Gotta put happy faces on everything now. :patriot:

[Mr Deltoid]

114. Race baiting?

Sad it has come to this.

[Roy Ellefson]

120. Progressive

Hmmm...I've been a progressive for 50 years...now I'm evidently an emo-progressive and a racist to boot. Who would have thunk that.

[Nancy Waterman]

121. This is terrific

I am too late to recommend but I can still post my support!

[xocet]

123. Criticism of President Obama from the Left has nothing to do with race. He was elected by the Left.

n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

125. Not quite

He was elected by 53% of those who voted in that election in 2008 and not all of them were "the left".... whatever that means... Amazing how DU has suddenly defined what "left" is. :crazy: And "criticism" here has become bashing and right-wing talking points of late.

[xocet]

126. So you suggest that he will win another election without people canvassing for him, without GOTV...

without donations, without all the things that those most committed to his initial election did to help him? It was neither the Independents nor the Republicans who did any of this for him. It was the Democrats, and the Democratic Party is the Left.

If you want to try to divide the party with some subclassification scheme that you have dreamt up, that is your problem. There is no "Professional Left".
If you want to portray criticism from the Left as somehow related to "race", that is your delusion. There is, however, ample, legitimate criticism of President Obama's policies.

Trying to make criticism of President Obama from the Left into a "race" issue is reprehensible.

[Supersedeas]

141. Maxine Waters put some of this in perspective in her recent comments about

why many have been reluctant to push the President.



"Let me tell you why. We don't put pressure on the president because ya'll love the president. You love the president. You're very proud to have a black man -- first time in the history of the United States of America. If we go after the president too hard, you're going after us."


http://www.businessinsider.com/maxine-waters-says-congressional-black-caucus-getting-tired-of-making-excuses-for-obama-2011-8

[Phx_Dem]

128. Love. Rec.

[ForeignandDomestic]

129. ....

Wow Such Bull Sh!T, as a African American I find this utterly ridiculous. Obama is catching heat from Liberals everywhere because he is a president who embraces Republican idealogy far too often!!

Aa a matter of fact I have my own claims to make, most of you apologist only stand steadfast behind Obama because he is a black President with conservative principles were he a white President with conservative principles ie: Bush, these same apologists would be ripping Bush a new one if he were bringing about the same "reforms" to Social Security and Medicare as Obama has been advocating!

[Enrique]

130. worst thread on DU

wish I could unrec again.

Terrible OP, terrible discussion, terrible all around. :toast:

[Blue_Tires]

131. kick

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stevenleser]

140. Kick. Too late to Rec unfortunately. :-(

[Jakes Progress]

144. At long last, have you no sense of decency? Have you no shame?

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

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