THEY QUIT !!

[lamp_shade]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=77245&mesg_id=77245

[RoyGBiv]

1. Thanks for pointing me to that ...

I know you'll get un-reced into the basement. After all, this forum has become overwhelmingly anti-Democratic. Well, I should say that the loudest voices here are expressing their anti-Democratic positions more openly now.

In any case, I would have missed that had you not posted, so I wanted to thank you.

[lunatica]

2. Expressing disappointment is un-Democratic?

That's rich!

[FrenchieCat]

4. I think that whining & crying repetitively about a bill before it goes into conference

while seeming to care so much about volunteer soldiers and Afghans, but not giving a fuck about 30 million uninsured Americans, many of them minorities, and calling to gut history making legislation just because it isn't just so, and damning the President all the while, is yes, IMO, quite...well non progressive.

I'm not sure about un-Democratic......
but it's getting close.

[lunatica]

8. Hyperbole much?

You have no idea what people care about. You just can't stand anyone to say a single thing that doesn't fit in your perception of Obama as perfect beyond humanly possible. You don't have to adore every ounce of whatever he does or says to basically support him and you don't have to 'quit him' every time you express disappointment.

[Divine Discontent]

12. Sweet Heavens how do I support your comments to the Queen of Hyperbole!

[RoyGBiv]

5. Nice try ...

Your smiley is hilarious, but your comment is entirely irrelevant.

I've been told to "fuck off," that I'm a "fascist" and that I'm no better than a "Freeper" because I have supported the efforts of our elected Democratic leaders. And I have read, thread after thread after thread, started by and/or being commented upon by individuals who counsel not voting for Democrats in the next election. I do emphatically believe that such comments are indeed anti-Democratic.

[lunatica]

9. Well please point out where I've told you to fuck off

Or, other than this one reply to your blanket generalized point where I've ever said anything to you at all.

[RoyGBiv]

11. News flash ...

Not everything is about you.

[lunatica]

13. No. But it is about you

What a stupid thing to say.

[RoyGBiv]

14. Merciful heavens ...

Had I been referring to expressing "disappointment" in my initial comment, I would have said so. A careful reader could easily have surmised that I was, in fact, referring to those who have proclaimed they will no longer be supporting Democrats, who have suggested others vote for Republicans instead of Democrats as some sort of pay-back, who have stated the Democratic party platform is a diversion, who do not post anything on this forum other than screeds complaining about Democrats and who seem to try actively to ignore or divert from criticism of Republicans, etc. The use of the term "anti-Democratic" was intentional. It has a rather clear meaning. Note the use of the capital "D" and the prefix "anti."

In discussions (which aren't so much discussions as a rhetorical variety of self-immolation) with these individuals, I have been referred to by the the terms mentioned above. Others have as well, but I chose to speak for myself because *I* am the one criticizing the tactic and do not wish to presume I may speak for others who have been targeted in such a manner.

For some bizarre reason, you chose to respond to me, sarcastically and disingenuously questioning whether expressing disappointment was "un-Democratic," when I neither said nor suggested any such thing. (I'd quibble with how you change the term I used, but I gather it would be pointless.) You chose to infer that. I sought to correct you, and then you asked me for examples of this behavior from you.

Well, if I had been referring to you -- specifically you -- in the first place, I would be able to offer an example, but since I was not, I cannot unless, of course, you do happen to be one of those individuals described in my initial paragraph and should I find any utility at all in chasing your posts to find some tidbit (which I do not). If you're not, and since I did not claim you were, why are you asking me to offer evidence to a claim I never made? The only conclusion I can come to is that you took my initial comment as some personal affront, but it's not, because *it is not about you*.

If you're simply seeking to find insult where it does not exist, fine. Go ahead. I don't know why you'd want to subject yourself to that, however.

I hope we're clear now.

[lunatica]

15. You have no idea what you're talking about

I have posted exactly one OP in which I expressed disappointment. One. You know nothing and yet you are proud to show it.

It really is about you and what you make up in your delusional mind. What an ignorant post!

[RoyGBiv]

16. Ummm ...

The mind reels.

Have a pleasant evening.

[Ken Burch]

3. anti-capitulation, not anti-Democratic.

It's up to the party to work to regain those people's trust. It's the corporate types that are the problem, not progressives who defend their principles.

[cornermouse]

6. Exactly.

:thumbsup:

They didn't even really try to pass what was needed.

[fasttense]

7. Ok here's the real problem.

We do love Democratic principles more than Democratic politicians. So, when Democrats capitulate and throw out their principals by passing legislation that enables corporate interests, it confuses their base.

Add to that that the Democratic legislature made all Americans pay, upfront, for every last dime of health-care they will ever get out of this bill. Yes, millions of poor will get cheap health insurance, but some other American is going to pay for it. Yet who paid for the war contractors before the war was escalated? Who paid for the bank/Wall Street/insurance bailout before it was handed out? Who paid for the billions in bonuses the CEOs are giving themselves? Why weren't these things paid for before they were handed over to the rich elite?

Then there is the strange little thing about President Obama appointing or leaving in, Republicons who caused all the mess we are currently experiencing. At every level of this administration you can find a neocon, Republicon, anti-gay, "free" trade idiot. But try and find a liberal, good luck. And these people, the republicons in Obama's administration, act on their principles. They defend torturers, they prosecute innocent people, they let Republicons escape justice, and they enable their cronies.

And oh by the way unemployment will make your life hell. Yeah, they claim it's a mere 10% but we really know it is closer to 25%, just start adding up the people you know are unemployed.

But there is one more ingredient that has finally made liberals revolt. Add all this to the fact that every last American (even the poor who will get subsidies) is going to be paying insurance corporations premiums until the day they die. And if they don't hand over their hard earned wages (on top of the taxes taken from their paychecks) to billionaire CEOs, who would rather see them die than give up a cent of their precious profits, they will be taxed, fined or imprisoned.

I suspect if one of the things above had been different, then most posters here on DU would not be so angry with President Obama and the Democratic majority in congress.

[lunatica]

10. Agreed

If progressives just folded their hands and gave up without being angry at the mediocrity of Obama's leadership in health care reform, which is one of the major issues that got him elected (he took anything truly progressive off the table before the debate even started!) then we would be 'quitters'. That accusation is nothing more than sloganeering at it's filthiest. And it's also as stupid as any sound bite used by conservatives over the last decade. Next we'll be called unpatriotic and told to love him or leave.