Few people recognize the scope of the deliberate anti-Democrat propaganda programs in action today.

[TheWraith]

That includes propaganda programs aimed at convincing the left that Obama is an incompetent failure.

This post was inspired by the thread posted here by McCamy Taylor. In short, her thread shows how a PBS article runs with the title "Obama Changed Virtually None of Bush’s Controversial Programs" while trying conspicuously to ignore that that wasn't true, including completely glossing over the end of the Bush torture program.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: very few people realize the scope and extent of the DELIBERATE, organized attempts to propagandize people against Obama. Not just people on the right or in the middle, but deliberate attempts to sow a sense of futility and failure in voters on the left.

Seriously folks, do you think that the billion dollar propaganda machine which has been so perfected over the years would IGNORE the usefulness of "black propaganda" against the other side's supporters? You think they are content with just propagandizing some people and not others?

Someday, someone is going to break the story about how many right-wing ideological plants there are spinning in the broader "reliable" media, and even in the "left wing" blogosphere. And people will be fucking shocked. Every day, we have Republican plants and employees exploiting "left wing" media to spin and slander everything they can to try and demean or discredit Obama. Because the forces arrayed against Democratic progress know that a smear story from one of their right wing sources would be dismissed instantly by people on the left, and would even rally liberals around Obama. But cast the same smears--"weak," "incompetent," "cult of personality," "just pretty speeches," "he's only president because he's black"--from a "left wing" source that makes the right noises about liberal issues, and it slides under the radar for a great many people.

[flamingdem]

1. K+R

The billions are being used to influence groups just like DU. It might be worth taking a few breaths and considering the BILLIONS being unleashed to sow discord among Democrats. Some people posting here are a part of that. It's true.

[Kurmudgeon]

And DU is only one of many where this is being done!

All they need is enough willing dupes to allow the election to be close, then the machinery in place will do the rest.
Just like in 2000, just like in 2004. It just has to be close and the GOP wins.

[flamingdem]

5. That makes me shiver. I wish I could be a fly on the wall in a Rove or Koch

strategy meeting.

I must say I wish people on DU would recognize what Obama is up against, and what we're up against.

By bending the rules those traitors can have it all.

[Kurmudgeon]

268. That's the problem, and that's how we'll end up with the next Reagan or Dubya.

[HappyMe]

193. +1

There are loads of them here lately.

[LeftyMom]

2. We're not stupid. We're not deceived. We're just not impressed with President McDreamyabs. Deal.

It's not a fucking conspiracy.

[flamingdem]

7. Not stupid, but maybe not strategic

and seemingly willing to take up the right wing's talking points and hammer on them over and over here.

[LeftyMom]

12. Not carrying water for the center-right doesn't mean we don't understand strategy.

And any unholy alliance between the left and the right is fictional. Further, the idea that the left is somehow being duped by the right is especially laughable because- let's be honest here- those mofos are STUPID.

[flamingdem]

14. Sometimes stupid yes, but they can be effective with low info voters

and some on the left are not that bright.

[LeftyMom]

18. On the whole, people get more left-leaning with greater education.

So low information voters don't tend to be a left-leaning phenomenon.

[flamingdem]

28. If one is inside of a group, like "left" one is less likely to realize one's distorted lens nt

[LeftyMom]

35. If you think the left is some sort of monolithic group that explains part of the issue.

There is a great deal more ideological diversity on the left than on the right in this country- and there's more on the right than people on DU tend to recognize, so that's saying a great deal.

[flamingdem]

39. That's how I know DU is not the norm. Most on the left keep their powder dryer nt

[Shining Jack]

241. You mean like in an echo chamber...

where nobody can register (except the faithful) but where you can have a good laugh looking at how pathetic it is?

[newspeak]

135. oh yes, some democrats don't have the intelligence to figure

out that your cabinet choices and keeping Little Boot's retreads in place, and that includes the military and CIA (remember little boots cleaned house, only the loyal need apply) may actually signal that he's not really going for the "change we can believe in."

I'm sorry I can't get with the program because allegedly the majority of democrats are rah, rah, rah our team. I cannot and will not be a third way, DLC, new democrat. Sorry just can't do. I will always be FDR, Wellstone democrat--gee, we've gone so far sociopath, greedy, anti-rule of law right; that even claiming the principles of the old democratic platform is commie. Imagine that?

[TheWraith]

22. I agree that an alliance between the left and the right is fictional.

But that doesn't mean that you don't have right-wing tools posing as left-wingers for the purpose of spreading shit. And the attitude that OF COURSE you could see through propaganda is exactly the perspective that they would want people to have.

[flamingdem]

30. I know it when I feel it.

What they don't realize is what they leave out of the arguments. It's the hammering that gives it away, and the constant negativity.

Why should there be so much negativity here? It could be anything but it always goes to that tone. Especially when elections draw near.

[inna]

196. "Why should there be so much negativity here?" - Indeed!!111!

Everything is honky-dory!111! People are happy as clams!!111!


Root out and purge negative dissenters!!111!!


:patriot:

:nuke:

:nuke:

[Shining Jack]

244. "I know it when I feel it"

That's so rational.

[RandomKoolzip]

43. Look, DU doesn't matter.

It just doesn't. No one's mind gets changed by what goes on here. This is where Dems and leftists go to yell at each other. That's all it is. Anyone paying right-wingers to act like uber-lefties on DU is truly wasting their money.

I'm sure there are trolls, but casting all disenchantment with Obama on the left as some sort of right-wing plot is some truly paranoid shit - and it's also a fine example of denial: "No one could POSSIBLY be disenchanted with Obama! Why...why, they must be...PAID to act disappointed!" Believe it or not, people who vote for Dems actually have different viewpoints on a lot of issues than you. A lot of us vote for Dems because there's no other fuckin' choice. And after having to do that election after election...frankly, yeah, I'm really pissed off right now. Because liberals have no representation in government anymore. And rfor a few minutes there, back in 2008, it looked like maybe...MAYBE we had a sliver of a chance to actually turn the discourse to the left. But three years later, I just feel angry that I allowed myself to feel that vaunted "hope" Obama campaigned on. I feel like I want my money back.

[TheWraith]

46. I disagree. DU may not be representative, but it matters.

So do the dozens of other left wing sites where this happens. People may believe it doesn't matter, but the reality is that campaigns spend millions on trying to eke out a tiny percentage greater turnout of their base. The right is also now learning how to try and suppress the turnout of the left, in ways more subtle than the old election thug tactics. Even a small percentage change is enough to make it worthwhile for them.

[flamingdem]

64. I am a left and a Dem. I think the divisions are phoney. We can do better nt

[pnorman]

68. Google something of consequence, and see how often the top 'hits' are from DU!

Not as a voting bloc, but as an influential voice in the internet public arena, DU IS of some consequence! To such as Rove or the Koch brothers, tossing some apples of discord into our midst, WOULD be a sound investment --- PARTICULARLY since it would cost them so little, and probably impossible to trace.

[flamingdem]

116. DU has great google rankings = the right uses DU to get their anti-Obama messages ranked high nt

[The Doctor.]

83. Not the ones writing the propaganda.

They're not stupid at all.

[NorthCarolina]

274. You are 100% correct but, some however may take such a suggestion to heart,

laughable as that may seem, and that is where the true power of such posts/talking points resides. Many small individual victories add up to large victories in the long run. Chip, chip, chip.

[Pholus]

98. But but, now *I* feel demotivated -- so does that imply that YOU are a right wing troll?

We have a difference of opinion. Deal with it.

[Whisp]

11. ...

sure, the media is not influencing anything. the constant slamming and bashing and questioning Obama's manhood, leadership, spine, etc., is just good reporting. :crazy:

lord love a duck.

the same media that I think most of us here agree covered and coddled Bush now take any thread of a 'scandal' and run with it for days against the current President. And it's taken hook, line and sinker by the weak.

and yes, big media and big business Do conspire against us, if you think not, now That is stupid being deceived.

[LeftyMom]

15. People on the left have been critical of and suspicious about the corporate media since you were

knee high to a grasshopper. Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[LeftyMom]

24. Charming. I'm convinced. nt

[flamingdem]

33. I hope you realize how condescending you were

not to mention ridiculous and assuming.

[Roger Floyd]

237. Isn't this a personal attack?

[Whisp]

23. so why do I hear the same rw talking points that the sloven media transmits

why do I hear those same crap insults against the President Here? are you saying that they suddenly have become reporters with integrity?
when I was knee high to a grasshopper there weren't any Wolf Blitzers bleating the horn of plenty for the RW. guess you are too young to know some of these things.

[LeftyMom]

31. Tell you what:

If you break that gish gallop down into paragraphs and maybe cite a few examples and use your shift button I'll talk you through it. It's late, I woke up at 5 am, and if you're not going to make an attempt to communicate in reasonably correct English I'm not going to put the effort in to struggle past my headache to read a total mess.

[Whisp]

then take something and go to bed.

I'm in no mood for a lecture on how the media lies when You want it to, and doesn't Lie when it's convenient for you.

'nite.

[Roger Floyd]

233. "then take something and go to bed."

Well talk about being condescending. :eyes:

[flamingdem]

36. +1 - from the grasshoppers knee

We can see the patterns, it doesn't take a genius or a smart grasshopper ..

[Roger Floyd]

234. +1

[flamingdem]

17. Yep. The same media. If it looks like a duck

then QUACK!

[Name removed]

235. Deleted message

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

[treestar]

216. Including that name

means you are approaching it the same as the right wing does

And aiding them, of course.

Anyone with a bit of sense would know it's Obama or some horror of a Republican, and only the worst anarchist could prefer the Rs to wreck the country first as a prelude to the socialist supposed takeover. that's the only reason for the left to help the Rs win anything.

[Roger Floyd]

236. Aren't you supposed to be worshiping the Queen Bee?

Quick! run, run, run!

[patrice]

282. Present company excepted, "we" refers to an awful lot of people, with wide variations in

perception, knowledge, and understanding, that no one here can account for.

[FredStembottom]

3. So... no one has legitimate disappointment in Obama?

You can't foment disappointment.
If the accomplishments were terrific.... expressions of disappointment would be non-sequiters. They would just sound loony.
You can foment anger, feelings of betrayal, suspicion... but if people were being helped... they would feel helped. You can't engender disappointment in grateful, happy recipients of help.

[Kurmudgeon]

4. Things went bad in 2010, fix that, then complain.

[flamingdem]

8. How about a sense of porportion with that?

It seems to be missing considering the broad picture and what we're up against.

[TheWraith]

9. Of course you can foment disappointment.

Suppress and deny the real accomplishments. Claim that more should have been accomplished. Create an atmosphere of belief that the target has more power than they really do, but chooses not to use it.

It's extremely easy.

[flamingdem]

13. Let's face it most people have an IQ of 100. We're dealing with manipulators

who do run circles around most Americans. The tools are more sophisticated and it's not such a conspiracy. They have stated their goal. Defeat Obama. And they have the wealth of the country behind them and who knows how many other tricks.

They are willing to cheat and kill.

[bhikkhu]

40. Moving goalposts is a good way to foment disappointment

say you stop a collapsing economy - how about turning it around, maybe even growing manufacturing? Done that - but 1-2% growth isn't enough - we demand 3-5%!

Or what if you inherit job numbers collapsing through the floor - stopping the collapse is nothing, we need positive jobs numbers! Ok, so we got positive jobs numbers (17 months of growth in the private sector) - its still not fast enough, we need full employment, and right now would be nice!

...and in a hundred other ways as well. Anyone who remembers the Carter administration should know that government is the work of millions. Changing the guy at the top doesn't change the nature of the structure, and it doesn't do a thing about the mindsets of the majority of people involved; real change takes a great deal of time to evolve into form. Carter never got much of an opportunity, and Obama has only started. I hope he gets the chance, myself, as I don't even want to think about any of the republican options back in power...

ed: sp.

[flamingdem]

41. What the right and Koch infiltrators want is to have us focus on Obama

and the anger, that is the gift of the republicans via their destructive administrations, will again get them into power.

Diabolical, and it works.

[BlueCaliDem]

72. Bingo. Eezy-breezy. eom

[patrice]

153. Yep. Saying in effect "It's absolutely clear..." oversimplifying, is questionable. And there's

a co-relate for that kind of rhetoric, which amounts to "If I don't understand, it's not my fault; it's yours" and that's taken as proof that the other person is wrong.

No personal initiative or personal initiative is discouraged, both hallmarks of fascism, no matter what labels it wears.

[FredStembottom]

259. Again. People who have been helped aren't disappointed.

Telling relieved, excited, newly hopeful people that they should instead be disappointed just sounds absurd and disconnected to them.

[patrice]

53. Some people don't. Some people do. And pretending that it's all legitimate, when not all of it is,

undercuts the legitimacy of the valid points.

[treestar]

218. I would say not

The expectations of someone from the very far left would be modest for any Democratic President, but they'd still prefer it. Some of the expectations are just naive or ignorant.

Legit "disappointment" would not be dwelt on, since we need a Dem President and Congress at all times. R ones just hold up or reverse our supposed agenda. So why would we harp on it to the point where we are helping Rs?

Calling Obama things like "weak" is not expressing disappointment, it's being downright negative.

And some might term their disappointment a little better, like disappointment with the resistance of our system to change, disappointment that having the House and Senate was still not enough and that many Democrats are conservative Blue Dogs who were not that much help after all. Focusing it solely on the President the way it is usually done shows either an obsession with that one office and desire it be more powerful than it should be, or a bad faith desire to bring him down, to the aid of Republicans.

[RandomKoolzip]

6. Deliberate attempts to propagandize people against Obama? I think he's doing a great job

of that on his own. There's no better way to get everyone on your side to turn against you than to promise them change and instead hand them more of the same bullshit. Like others have said, there's no fucking conspiracy here, dude. We're simply paying attention, that's all.

[flamingdem]

10. Are you really that demanding? I hope you chained yourself to the WH fence during the reign of W

because that time period must have surely turned you into an activist considering your critical posture

[RandomKoolzip]

21. "Demanding?" Uh, yeah. A citizenry ought to be demanding, especially when

its very fabric was torn apart by the previous administration. But even in the best of times, yes, I expect a Democrat to behave like a Democrat and a strong leader to actually, you know, like LEAD and stuff. That stance isn't as radical as you seem to think it is.

[flamingdem]

25. That's the only argument heard here, perhaps you could angle the attack differently? nt

[RandomKoolzip]

27. Nope. Sorry. Deal with it.

[FarLeftFist]

29. You may be overstating the role of President.

But I respect your opinion. The difference is, is that what we have now is a President who is just trying to keep this country afloat after it was cannon-balled by the last administration.

[RandomKoolzip]

55. If the Obama administration has taught me anything, it's that the only power in government

apparently lies in controlling the House of Representatives. The Presidency is a weak and ineffectual station (if a Dem is President). I mean seriously - if the President is so totally powerless (well, except when a REpub is president - THEN all of a sudden the president is a goddamn tyrant who gets everything he wants!) why do we even bother putting all that energy and time and money into getting our guy elected President? I mean, I spent money on getting this guy elected. I worked for it. I made sure all my friends and family were gonna vote for Obama...because in 2008 it mattered! (In 2011, however, The Office of the President is just window dressing, apparently).

Now the same people on DU who campaigned so passionately for Obama and defended him through those years are telling the Dem voters, in essence..."Hey - how come your hopes were so high?! He's only the president - it's not as if the President actually does anything!"

Yes, I understand how government works. Up until 2010, though, power flowed from and among the three branches...after that point, it's evident that the only political power that exists only exists in the House. Weird, that.

[FarLeftFist]

56. Well the repub was a tyrant because he had a majority all around.

And tyrannically spent our surplus into a massive deficit. We shouldn't be so mad at the guy trying to fix things, we should be mad at the asshole that broke it in the first place. I wouldn't get mad at my mechanic for trying to salvage my crashed vehicle the best he can with limited tools, I would be mad at the idiot who drove through the stop sign right into my car.

[flamingdem]

62. Things are not normal now. We have a GOP taken over by psychopaths and traitors

Please keep that in mind.

[newspeak]

156. actually, the presidency is not window dressing

when it came to little boots and darth cheney being SELECTED to office. They told their repug congresscritters that all shots were coming from the WH and there would be NO dealing with democrats. And those decisions coming from their WH gave them and their friends mega moolah and left us in the state we are in today.

You don't keep the same people on the hill who created the problem if you really want to rectify it. You just don't. You don't put people like Geithner in positions to solve in economic problem they helped create. You don't turn to Goldman Sachs to aid main street. You don't turn to corporate tools to head regulatory agencies. And you especially, don't keep little boots-cheney loyalists in positions of security or military if you really want security and change.

[seaglass]

227. That's exactly it. There is no "the buck stops here" with Obama, at least according

to his most strident supporters. I do not get why they seem to purposely portray him as powerless and then get upset when people call him weak.

I do not think Obama would appreciate that kind of defense.

[alarimer]

129. That's fucking bullshit.

He is complicit in every possible way! You are blind if you can't see that.

This hero-worship of this guy just fucking kills me.

[FarLeftFist]

256. So then let it kill you.

You got all of that from my sentence above?! I stated a FACT and you call me blind?! Remove your head from your arse and calm down. You sound psychotic.

[patrice]

154. Another clue: So many are pretending that the Derivative Crash of '08 & its subsequent Toxicity

in "our" financial sector was just another "market fluctuation", NOT the authentic economic black-hole that it actually is, a situation that is so bad that the President can't even refer directly to it in public for fear of ripping (PRIVATE, i.e. secret) mortal wounds open again.

[_ed_]

171. OK, so why should we care about re-electing him, then?

If his role is overstated, then who cares what party controls the White House, right?

[FarLeftFist]

258. I didn't say his role was overstated. I said the poster was overstating.

It makes a HUGE difference who is in the White House. That's why you should get him re-elected.

[WinkyDink]

167. One demands more from one's own, for whom one has voted.

[TheWraith]

16. Case in point: the belief that Obama hasn't changed the direction of the country.

A belief drawn from... what? Ninety nine times out of a hundred, from "left wing" blogs which do nothing but attempt to destroy Democrats, 24/7. From "news stories" which deliberately downplay how things have changed from three years ago. From inundation from people who haven't gotten a specific issue addressed, ignoring the thousands of things which have gotten done.

It's the oldest trick in the book: if someone trusts a news outlet, then they perceive what that outlet reports as being the truth, even if it's biased crap. And even if--in fact, especially if--the outlet never SAYS the thing they're trying to convey, they just hint at it. It's the same way that Fox News viewers don't "know" Obama is a secret Muslim socialist because Fox told them so, they "know" it because it's "obvious" to them. Good propaganda is subtle.

[RandomKoolzip]

26. Jobs. Tax cuts. The wars.

Obama may have gotten some shit done, but the important shit just got worse.

[Tx4obama]

32. Obama was held hostage regarding the Bush tax-cut extension.

If Obama had not signed the Bush tax-cut extension then The GOP would not have agreed to pass the Unemployment Benefit Extension.

Please don't blame Obama for the bullshit that The GOP has pulled!

p.s. Regarding the wars - look at the troop levels. Obama has pulled all the combat troops out of Iraq.

[flamingdem]

44. Geesh, smart people I know give all the blame to Obama for that

I'd say that was the biggest one for causing alienation. But if you ask what he could have done ... answers are very vague. Oh, he should have tied the debt ceiling to that at least... bla ... bla

I love Bernie too but he's not going to run this country.

[TheWraith]

34. The Iraq War is ending in four months.

The war in Afghanistan is ending after next year. Obama's stimulus plan stopped the bleeding on jobs, despite a level of opposition unprecedented in American political history: and it's not me saying that, it's Jimmy Carter, who has repeatedly pointed out that Obama has been doing a stellar job considering the insanely aggressive and lock-step opposition he was handed. And the Bush tax cuts are now required to go to the scrap heap as part of the deficit deal.

Again: there are people actively out there spinning the worst possible interpretations of everything, including making things up when they have to, in order to slam Obama and Democrats. Do you think that it's a coincidence that right after Paul Ryan gets his ass handed to him over the plan to end Medicare and Social Security, suddenly Obama is accused of wanting to end Medicare and Social Security, even though Obama has done everything in his power to protect them?

[flamingdem]

48. Excellent point about how things were turned against Obama on Medicare, SS

even though if you listened what he was saying was tentative and not about hurting recipients.

More than anything he's not about wanting that ... it's not logical ... but here on DU one can be convinced that Obama wants to hurt the elderly.

[woo me with science]

93. No, some troops are being drawn down, but military involvement and spending are increasing.

The war budget is INCREASING, not decreasing, and this President has spread the military to new countries. We are not leaving Iraq - far from it. We will be in Afghanistan until at least 2024. Troop drawdowns do not mean the war is ending. Soldiers are being replaced by paid mercenaries, whom the government must pay two to ten times as much. The US is carrying out drone strikes and installing itself into new areas.

The war budget is INCREASING, not decreasing. This President's Secretary of Defense is out in the media talking about how the Super Committee must cut Social Security and Medicare, so that war funding can be sustained. And that is exactly what will happen under this President.

Ending the wars is a fiction. "Drawing down the troops" is a sham. This President is expanding the war budget and the military industrial complex, just as he is overseeing draconian spending cuts without revenues, extending the Bush/Obama tax cuts, threatening Social Security and Medicare, and sending his attorneys to the Supreme Court to chip away at our civil liberties. Do not DARE try to argue that this President has "done everything he can" to protect Social Security and Medicare, when HE PUT 650 BILLION DOLLARS OF CUTS IN THESE PROGRAMS ON THE TABLE, where they remain today for the Super Congress to use as a hostage.

Your OP consists of a great deal of vague philosophizing that is utterly disconnected from the actual policies that this President has been pushing. This phenomenon is the problem the Third Way faces and the President faces, and it is why he has cautioned his campaign people to talk about big ideas and not policy details to potential voters.

We have all been here for the past 2 1/2 years, and we have witnessed with own own eyes what this President has stood firm on and where he has drawn his lines in the sand. THAT is why your OP is receiving the response it is.

[patrice]

141. All true and all telegraphed in his 2008 campaign, with the exception of the increase in military

spending, which I loathe btw, but which I know from personal sources has, at least in part, to do with preparations for the budget cuts headed their way.

Anyone who missed how tentative Obama was about initiating references to the wars and the fact that he only went there after he saw our response to Bill Richardson's proposals that 100% of the troops be brought home yesterday (none of the re-deployment "over the horizon" shit we're seeing now) and that new multi-lateral diplomacy be implemented in the region, under the auspices of the U.N. . . . anyone who missed how open-ended Obama's responses were was just not being honest about him and, though he WAS doing what he had to do to get elected, voters have at least as much responsibility not to lie to themselves about that and then blame the candidate for not living up to those lies.

I am not happy about this stuff either, but I voted with my eyes wide open to the situation that we are in.

[patrice]

66. The authentic Left needs to build strength to deal with that stuff. It cannot do that under a Repub

lican or it's strength could be dissipated dealing with other issues that would not have been necessary otherwise.

[Claudia Jones]

230. the opposite is true

There was far more interest, participation, passion and solidarity when there was a Republican in the White House.

How can you build an "authentic Left" when you cannot point out the betrayal of Labor and pandering to the wealthy by an administration without being accused of "helping the Republicans" or being disloyal to the Democratic party?

[patrice]

271. You know what, SOME people are thinking about the process critically, NOT about

persons necessarily "helping the Republicans" or "being disloyal to the Democratic party".

If those who criticize from whatever perspective wish that others would admit that it is possible to take an AUTHENTIC critical position, i.e. that not everyone who criticizes does so for dishonest motives, i.e. that SOME criticism comes from authenticity AND SOME DOES NOT, then BOTH/ANY/ALL sides must admit that is true. It doesn't work at all in only one direction. How can one side object to being characterized as "ALL X is Y", e.g. "All criticism is traitorous", and NOT admit that is also false to say "ALL A is B", e.g. "All criticism of criticism is slavish conformity."

It's absurd to posit "No criticism is nefarious". Some is. Some isn't.
It's absurd to posit "No criticism of criticism is constructive". Some is. Some isn't.
It's the blindness to all that is so patently obvious that causes me to question motives.

How can anyone demand a right to fair and just analysis and NOT yield that same RIGHT to opposed others? . . . unless they aren't demanding a right at all, but a PRIVILEGE instead (i.e. to be above question), which IS corrupt, no matter how many DU-ers join in the Amen-choruses.

[Claudia Jones]

276. of course

Unfounded criticism can be refuted. Is anyone saying that all criticism of the party should go unchallenged? I don't think so. Is any criticism actually going unchallenged? No.

People are trying to make a distinction between "good" and "bad" criticism, yes. However, I do not think it is nefarious or nonconstructive criticism people are most objecting to, rather they are objecting to criticism in exact proportion to its accuracy and effectiveness.

[patrice]

281. Faulty and mis- characterizations are extremely common, so perhaps you can appreciate

my questions about critical competence and/or motive, both of which damage the issues.

[Claudia Jones]

283. that is easily solved

Addressing the actual points people make rather than speculating on the writer's motives or character solves that.

[patrice]

284. That would be true if people didn't take a critique of "the actual points" they make as an assault

upon their motives/person.

Of course, that problem is compounded by some who make such critiques using inflammatory language and BOTH sides are doing this.

The solution to that is for people to NOT respond to those triggers and stick to rational analyses, themselves, whether anyone else is or is not, but that also is a difficult thing to do.

One thing I did when I taught was to look for ANY opportunity to reward my "opposition" for something authentic, no matter what my other issues were with them. And they CAN tell when you're being honest about that reward or not. This does not work on a few people, true hard core, but it does help many and those who don't respond to it, well, then their response to the situation becomes their own to OWN, not something that you are provoking in them by not recognizing whatever truth they actually do bring to the table. This helps everyone to sort out what is what and who's doing what better and just because this appears to be part of Obama's modus operandi doesn't mean that it is a worthless dysfunctional tactic.

[Claudia Jones]

285. I don't know about that

Not sure what you are saying here.

[patrice]

288. You can't say even the most objective things to some people without it being taken as a personal

attack, even though it REALLY can be about the objective facts or objective logic of a position.

I know personally what critique is like in academic settings. It's not easy, but it CAN be good. Just NOT around here.

If you disagree here, it is assumed that there is NO logical basis for whatever you're saying and that you're saying it for one reason and one reason only, to destroy. Everything is divided up into false dichotomies here; THAT is not realistically valid.

Both sides are doing this and making matters much worse by their word choices, faulty logic, and mischaracterizations. None of which gets any better because almost everyone assumes that difference NECESSITATES enmity and then they manifest that in word choices, logic, and characterizations. It's self-fulfilling prophecies over and over and over again; that's DU.

It's depressing, because it's a recipe for perpetual oppression.

[Claudia Jones]

290. ah, I see

Most people are "selling" their position as though it were a product, they are not sincerely discussing anything. That is true everywhere, not just here.

[markpkessinger]

261. Not to mention ...

... vast expansion of the state secrets privilege, unprecedented malicious prosecution of whistleblowers, targeting an American citizen for assassination with no due process, continuing cover-up of war crimes and coddling of criminals in the financial sector.

[FarLeftFist]

19. I'm glad people are finally noticing this. They're trying to make people question their self-esteem

And their own self-beliefs through humiliation based on false pretenses. They are playing mind games using known propaganda tactics. They are also creating numerous fake accounts and mass posting their propaganda all over the internet and media. Everything is soundbites these days. Btw, I've noticed lately that David Koch is sponsoring many PBS shows.

[McCamy Taylor]

37. Thanks for noticing! I want an America where people pay as much attention to the news they

read as they do to the food they eat. We check nutrition labels. We should also check for bias.

[Roselma]

38. I agree. It is pervasive on lefty blogs and

the Huffington Post, and more effectively, it is out of control on Facebook. We have legitimate gripes with things Obama has done, but there is no doubt that what you say is happening beyond the actual complaint about Obama's inadequacies. If we fall for it, we get what we deserve - president Rick or president Mitt. I think that the right wingers are actually smarter than the lefties. They know what they want, and they deploy everything they've got to get it. We underestimate them at our own peril.

[McCamy Taylor]

42. On a lighter note, the propaganda machine is hard at work at Free Republic, too.

Any time anyone suggests that Romney is more electable in the general than Bachmann or Perry, he gets shot down immediately. And we all know that Romney is more electable in the general than Bachmann or Perry. Being Mormon won't mean squat in the general. But someone is doing a very good job of turning the unwashed masses against him. I assume that it is Perry's crowd or maybe Bachmann's, but you never know. I think every candidate plans to spend lots of Super Pac money next year, and Super Pac money is best used to tear down the opponent (since it can not advocate for a candidate). That means we will see the most negative campaign ever.

[flamingdem]

50. LOL. The repuke base is supposedly IQ 94 ish duuummb nt

[flamingdem]

49. Sadly, it has become "COOL" to bash Obama, the insecure jump on that as "HELPING" to

improve his presidency.

As if the forces working in Washington would be changed anyway. Result, discouragement

[patrice]

277. Problem is our definition of "win". Drones don't even think about it. Whatever the

prevailing attitude about "win" is in the Democratic party is (ha!), one of it's primary traits appears to be false dichotomies (often supported by poor logic, ego-inflation, and passive aggression, i.e. cop out on the WORK) rather than authentic accountable collaboration amongst authentic diversity.

DU "Lefties" who don't like this post: If the fucking shoe doesn't fit, DON'T WEAR IT and don't try it on either, because one can only assume that you do so because you think it's yours.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[patrice]

47. It's a near certainty that this sort of thing DOES go on. Question is what to do about it.

I propose that the best strategy is to never be suckered by insults and to always counter the logic of a point rationally and with facts.

[Tx4obama]

51. What to do ... what to do ... see link below :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1861144

p.s. And YES always use the FACTS to counter the propaganda :)

[flamingdem]

52. Insult. That's the clue. If we'd all refrain from insulting then those who do would

be more easy to spot.

I usually am immediately insulted by "one of them". But can also be insulted by an emotive DUer. So if we all made a pact...

[patrice]

61. Agreed. Not to insult & not to react to insults. Stick to the point. nt

[Phlem]

54. Then why does he

throw the left under the bus when "HE DOESN'T HAVE TO"?

I'm saying I would love nothing more in the world than to have Obama succeed, but After Rham's comments about the left and then throwing us "the people who got him elected" under the bus to pass his health care bill, it just makes one wonder. He's capitulating to the right already, demeaning his base should have never been done and didn't need to be done on Fox News.

It's hard to trust a man that has nothing but contempt for you after all you've done for him.

just sayin.

-p

[Tx4obama]

57. Take the Rahm issue ... that was twisted spin propaganda in the media

Rahm did NOT say anything 'about the left' - Rahm's comment at that conference was about 'the strategy' that was being discussed at the time.

Obama does NOT have contempt for the people that helped get him elected. It is sad to see such a dishonest remark.

[patrice]

59. Also cliches substituted for actual thought.

[flamingdem]

60. A perfect response. It is sad to see such a dishonest remark.

And good to read the facts.

[patrice]

58. "nothing but contempt" is so over the top that it suggests questions about your

judgement of reality or what you mean.

[FrenchieCat]

69. There it is! "but After Rham's comments about the left....."

The comment Rahm made was calling an IDEA retarded...
that idea being that some on the Left were going to
air advertisements attacking Democrats.....
http://www.slate.com/id/2243728/

Rahm Emanuel didn't say that progressives were retarded. He said that the decision to target Blue Dog Democrats with campaign ads was retarded. And his reasoning was that it would not convince them to support stronger health care reform, but alienate them and make it harder to pass anything at all.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2010/9/28/162842/135

and yet, here you are repeating the lie as though it was truth....
kind of what what Goebbels said about how to spread propaganda,
Repeating a myth as an excuse to be mad.
That's childish and destructive to Democrats, but not to Republicans.
So why are you helping them? :shrug:





Just saying.....

[patrice]

70. It would have driven the blue-dogs further to the right, in order to defend themselves.

It's a very childish idea of how things work politically.

[Selatius]

73. The thing is certain elements wanted to primary Blue Dogs with populist Democrats.

By that, I mean they wanted to run FDR-style Democrats that were socially conservative but very pro-working class. The consternation arose from the Blue Dogs' center-right disposition on economic issues when it's apparent left-wing solutions may have to be employed as they were during the Great Depression.

[FrenchieCat]

75. And look what happened.....

as it is obvious that the Blue dogs were replaced by Republicans....

in other words, it worked backwards.

But the point remains, that Rahm didn't call "The Left" retarded....
and yet, that's the story that has been told over and over again....

[Selatius]

81. I am not sure Democrats could have won even if that had not happened.

Republicans had the fact that Obama was a black man to energize their base. There was no denying that, and in an off-election year, Democrats typically don't turn out to vote like they usually do for whatever reason, and a bad economy typically negatively impacts the incumbent party regardless if it is a Democratic or Republican majority.

[patrice]

133. I'm all for that. I hope deeply to see that happen, so my concerns are about how to see it

develop without causing itself and certain vulnerable others TOO much of the WRONG kind of pain, the sorts of things that will cause too much regression rather than progression.

I know I'm talking about something that CAN'T be calculated/modeled at a high level: how much of what kinds of mind-sets and abilities, with what kinds of resources, in what kind of immediate situations within what kind of macro-environments, doing what, when, how, why, to what effects and, then, whatever the subsequent configuration of all of that stuff is ("lather, rinse, repeat") . . . .

But maybe it would be helpful if we'd just agree on some principles, some means of assessing those INDIVIDUAL blue-dog environments, not only for status-quo traits, but also for what's next . . . a longer (but NOT too long) strategic process.

I just don't see how we're going to get to FDR implementations without really huge numbers of people and what I assume would be the absolutely massive social, economic, and physical dislocations that would be necessary to create those numbers and which dislocations would, co - incidentally, also expose significant sectors of those people numbers to regressive factors of such a degree that they will become more oppressed not less, thusly increasing the probabilities of violence, which is the most effective oppressor of all.

Change MUST happen. New kinds of candidates, saying new things. People MUST come to it, the best kind of change that is, or "change" will just continue to fall on their heads. I think this depends upon how well the ground has been prepared, how quickly considering Earth's clock, and all of that seems to depend upon the growth rate, and the increase in growth rate, of a committed accountable movement, not so much, YET, on the blue-dogs.

[FrenchieCat]

74. And......

the Left has used this unfortunate comment from Rham to bludgeon Pres. Obama.

So, are we any better than those we say we despise?

Cause,
We say we are factual, but many of us aren't.

We claim to be intellectually honest, when many of us aren't that either.

We say they are extremists, but then some of us demand that this President
do things that he legally cannot do (like write laws and pass them all on his own),

We say we want to achieve progressive strives, but then some announce that they will not be
donating or working for the Democrat, thereby allowing Republicans to win by default,
which of course does the exact opposite of our stated goal of achieving any progress.

We order this President to fight for us, but we haven't fought for him ever since election night.

We say he is weak, but some of us attack him exactly because he is easier to attack
than the real opposition, which means some of us are cowards, when it comes to doing what's
hard, which is what the same critics say is the President's problem.

In the end, unfortunately for us who have common sense and live in a very real world of consequences,
we will get exactly the government that too many others worked very hard to have us end up with.

[patrice]

126. All of that is true, BUT one of the worst things about it is how it DAMAGES what the Left has to con

tribute to the process, the authentic Left that is.

If netizens doing the things you sketch above are not competent enough to recognize their own REALLY faulty logic, vast and deep assumptions, hyper-selective exclusive semantics, "information" without context, meaningless cliches, adulterated "science", absurd word choices and mischaracterizations, missing information . . . . if they are advocates of such low skill that they have no idea how significantly they DAMAGE their own advocacy and retard its development for the foreseeable future, then those amongst them who do know a thing or two about how to be effective need to help them engage in some honest self-evaluation and growth.

If, on the other hand, netizens know they are doing these things and are doing so on purpose, for WHATEVER (???) reasons, that too needs to be identified, for if what we are doing is not about discourse and if discourse itself is not an appropriate subject of discourse, then let's just call it what it is, which is a self-congratulatory synchronized masturbation society, complete with its little cliques wowie-fans and mediocrity cheerleaders.

[Tx4obama]

225. +100. Well said! n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

63. Translation:

Progressives are idiots and unaware when they are being manipulated. Unrec.

[flamingdem]

65. You can't take the mantle of progressive. We're all in this and all progressives

Even Obama.

What so called "progressives" of the type I'm guessing, just guessing you are do is go all defensive, cling to their identity or position and look for an enemy.

The manipulation is happening to AMERICANS. The enemy is KOCH and ROVE and the usual traitorous suspects. What irks me, as a long time progressive, is that progressives don't know where to aim their ire, like it's too painful to really look at the face of creeping facism.

No... it's more fashionable to bash Obama.

When you do that it shows a very narrow mindset and vision of our country, in my opinion.

[Le Taz Hot]

71. Obama is a Progressive???

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I couldn't get past that one sentence. Sorry, you were saying something? Nevermind, I'm familiar with the auto cheer.

[FrenchieCat]

76. You obviously don't know what a progressive is.....

Here's a list you are sure to hate,
and I'm sure will try to find a disclaimer for every single thing on it,
even if you have to be intellectually dishonest and not reality based in order to do it....
Because extremists are usually not interested in reality and
the limitation of one man in 2.8 years.

It is a fact that there is no one alive that could actually win the presidency,
actually govern, and please you too.

He pushed through and signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as “the stimulus package,” despite the fact that not one Republican voted for that bill. In addition, he launched recovery.gov, so that taxpayers could track spending from the Act.

In his first year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created and sustained 2.1 million jobs and stimulated the economy 3.5%.

He completed the massive TARP financial and banking rescue plan, and recovered virtually all of its costs.

He created the Making Home Affordable home refinancing plan.l

He oversaw the creation of more jobs in 2010 alone than Bush did in eight years.

He oversaw investment in updated and improved manufacturing processes.

He also doubled funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership which is designed to improve manufacturing efficiency.

He signed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act giving the federal government more tools to investigate and prosecute fraud in every corner of the financial system. It also created a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate the financial fraud that led to the economic meltdown.

He signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act, which was designed to to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive credit card practices.

He increased infrastructure spending after years of neglect.

He signed the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, expanding on the Making Home Affordable Program to help millions of Americans avoid preventable foreclosures. The bill also provided $2.2 billion to help combat homelessness, and to stabilize the housing market.

Through the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, he and Congressional Democrats provided tax credits to first-time home buyers, which helped the U.S. housing market recovery.

He initiated a $15 billion plan designed to encourage increased lending to small businesses.

He created business.gov, which allows for online collaboration between small businesses and experts re managing a business. (The program has since merged with SBA.gov.)

He played a lead role in getting the G-20 Summit to commit to a $1.1 trillion deal to combat the global financial crisis.

He took steps to improve minority access to capital.

He created a $60 billion bank to fund infrastructure improvements such as roads and bridges.

He implemented an auto industry rescue plan, and saved as many as 1 million jobs.

Many are of the opinion that he saved the entire auto industry, and even the economy of the entire Midwest.

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he saved at least 300,000 education jobs, such as teachers, principals, librarians, and counselors that would have otherwise been lost.

Provided funding to states and the Department of Homeland Security to save thousands of police and firefighter jobs from being cut during the recession.

He used recovered TARP money to fund programs at local housing finance agencies in California, Florida, Nevada, Arizona and Michigan.

Crafted an Executive order establishing the President’s Advisory Council on Financial Capability to assist in financial education for all Americans.

Wall Street Reforms and Consumer Protection

Ordered 65 executives who took bailout money to cut their own pay until they paid back all bailout money.

He pushed through and got passed Dodd-Frank, one of the largest and most comprehensive Wall Street reforms since the Great Depression.

He made it so that banks could no longer use YOUR money to invest in high-risk financial instruments that work against their own customers' interests.j

He supported the concept of allowing stockholders to vote on executive compensation.

He wholly endorsed and supported the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act of 2009 that would close offshore tax avoidance loopholes.

He made a deal with Swiss banks that permits the US government to gain access to the records of criminals and tax evaders.

He established a Consumer Protection Financial Bureau designed to protect consumers from financial sector excesses.

Civil Rights and Anti-Discrimination

He advocated for and signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which made it a federal crime to assault anyone based on his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.

He pushed through and signed a repeal of the discriminatory “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy that forced soldiers to lie to fight for their country, and put our troops at risk by disqualifying many qualified soldiers from helping.

He appointed Kareem Dale as the first ever Special Assistant to the President for Disability Policy.

He extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

He's appointed more openly gay officials than anyone in history.

He signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers. This was after the GOP blocked the bill in 2007. Only 5 Republican Senators voted for the bill.

Wrote and signed an Executive Order establishing a White House Council on Women and Girls to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies evaluate the effect of their policies and programs on women and families.

He expanded funding for the Violence Against Women Act.

Fighting Poverty

He provided a $20 billion increase for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps).

He signed an Executive Order that established the White House Office of Urban Affairs.

Improved Foreign Relations and American Status Abroad

He visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any previous president during his first six months in office.

As he promised, he gave a speech at a major Islamic forum in Cairo early in his administration.

He did much to restore America's reputation around the world as a global leader that does the "right thing" in world affairs, at least according to the rest of the world.

He re-established and reinforced our partnership with NATO and other allies on strategic international issues.

He established a new U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue.

He established new, more reasonable policies in our relations with Cuba, such as allowing Cuban-Americans to visit their families and send money to support them.

He ordered the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. It was Republicans (and a smattering of Democrats) who prevented him from following through.

Ordered a review of our detention and interrogation policy, and prohibited the use of torture, or what Bush called "enhanced interrogation." He ordered interrogators to limit their actions to the Army Field manual.

He ordered all secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere to be closed.

He released the Bush torture memos.

On his second day in office, he signed a detailed Executive Order that banned torture, reversed all Bush torture policies, and put the United States in compliance with the Geneva Convention.

Better Approach to “Defense”

Created a comprehensive new strategy for dealing with the international nuclear threat.

He authorized a $1.4 billion reduction in Star Wars program in 2010.

He restarted nuclear nonproliferation talks and built up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols to where they had been before Bush.

He signed and pushed to ratification a new SALT Treaty.

He created and executed a plan to end our involvement in Iraq in a responsible manner, and followed through.

Through the Defense Authorization Act, he reversed the Bush Administration and committed to no permanent military bases in Iraq.

He developed the first comprehensive strategy with regard to Afghanistan and Pakistan designed to facilitate the defeat of al Qaeda and the withdrawal of most troops, as well as the rebuilding of Afghanistan.

He returned our focus to Afghanistan, stabilized the country, and began the process of withdrawing our troops from the country.

Treating Soldiers and Veterans with Respect

He made sure that families of fallen soldiers could be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB, by providing funding for it. He also ended the media blackout on coverage of the return of fallen soldiers.

He funded Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with an extra $1.4 billion to improve veterans’ services.

He provided the troops with better body armor.

Created the Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record program for military personnel, in order to improve the quality of their medical care.

He put an end to the Bush-era stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan beyond their enlistment date. (personal note: my son will be in harm’s way for six fewer months with Obama as president, so you know I love this one.)

He supported and signed the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act, which made more money available to enable better medical care for veterans.

He ushered through the largest spending increase in 30 years for the Department of Veterans Affairs for improved medical facilities, and to assist states in acquiring or constructing state nursing homes and extended care facilities.

He created the Green Vet Initiative, which provided special funding to the Labor Department to provide veterans with training in green jobs.

He oversaw a $4.6 billion expansion of the Veterans Administration budget to pay for more mental health professionals.

Education

He has repeatedly increased funding for student financial aid, and at the same time cut the banks completely out of the process. http://bit.ly/gYWd30 http://bit.ly/e9c7Dr http://bit.ly/eEzTNq

Completely reformed the student loan program, to make it possible for students to refinance at a lower rate.

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act , he invested heavily in elementary, secondary and post-secondary education. This includes a major expansion of broadband availability in K-12 schools nationwide, as well as an expansion in school construction.

He passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which provided an extra $12.2 billion in funds.

Greater Transparency and Better Government

He signed an order banning gifts from lobbyists to anyone in the Executive Branch.

He signed an order banning anyone from working in an agency they had lobbied in previous years. He also put strict limits on lobbyists’ access to the White House.

He held the first-ever first online town hall from the White House, and took questions from the public.

The Obama White House became the first to stream every White House event, live.

He established a central portal for Americans to find service opportunities.

He provided the first voluntary disclosure of the White House Visitors Log in history.

He crafted an Executive Order on Presidential Records, which restored the 30-day time frame for former presidents to review records, and eliminated the right for the vice president or family members of former presidents to do the reviews. This will provide the public with greater access to historic White House documents, and severely curtails the ability to use executive privilege to shield them.

He improved aspects of the Freedom of Information Act, and issued new guidelines to make FOIA more open and transparent in the processing of FOIA requests.

National Safety and Security

He’s restored federal agencies such as FEMA to the point that they have been able to manage a huge number of natural disasters successfully.

Authorized Navy SEALS to successfully secure the release of a US captain held by Somali pirates and increased patrols off the Somali coast.

Has repeatedly beefed up border security

Ordered and oversaw the Navy SEALS operation that killed Osama bin Laden.

Science, Technology and Health Care

He created a Presidential Memorandum to restore scientific integrity in government decision-making.

Opened up the process for fast-tracking patent approval for green energy projects.

He eliminated the Bush-era restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. He also provided increased federal support for biomedical and stem cell research.

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he committed more federal funding, about $18 billion, to support non-defense science and research labs.

He signed the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, the first comprehensive attempt to improve the lives of Americans living with paralysis.

He expanded the Nurse-Family Partnership program, which provides home visits by trained registered nurses to low-income expectant mothers and their families, to cover more first-time mothers.

Conducted a cyberspace policy review.

Provided financial support for private sector space programs.r

He oversaw enhanced earth mapping, to provide valuable data for agricultural, educational, scientific, and government use.

He ushered thorough a bill that authorized the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products. As a result, the FDA has Ordered Tobacco Companies to Disclose Cigarette Ingredients and banned sale of cigarettes falsely labeled as “light.”

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he provided $500 million for Health Professions Training Programs.

He also increased funding for community-based prevention programs.

He oversaw a 50% decrease in cost of prescription drugs for seniors.

He eliminated the Bush-era practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug companies on price.

Two weeks after taking office, he signed the Children’s Health Insurance Re-authorization Act, which increased the number of children covered by health insurance by 4 million.

He held a quick press conference, and urged Congress to investigate Anthem Blue Cross for raising premiums 39% without explanation. Rep. Waxman responded by launching a probe, and Anthem Blue Cross put the increase on hold for two months.

Ushered through and signed the Affordable Health Care Act, which expanded health insurance coverage to 30 million more people, and ended many common insurance company practices that are often detrimental to those with coverage. He also established Through the Affordable Health Care Act, he allowed children to be covered under their parents’ policy until they turned 26.

Through the Affordable Health Care Act, he provided tax breaks to allow 3.5 million small business to provide health insurance to their employees, and 29 million people will receive tax breaks to help them afford health insurance.

Through the Affordable Health Care Act, he expanded Medicaid to those making up to 133% of the federal poverty level.

Through the Affordable Health Care Act, health insurance companies now have to disclose how much of your premium actually goes to pay for patient care.

Strengthening the Middle Class and Families

He worked to provide affordable, high-quality child care to working families.

He cracked down on companies that were previously denying sick pay, vacation and health insurance, and Social Security and Medicare tax payments through abuse of the employee classification of independent contractor. j

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act , he cut taxes for 95% of America's working families.

Under Obama, tax rates for average working families are the lowest they’ve been since 1950.

He extended and fully funded the patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax for 10 years.

He extended discounted COBRA health coverage for the unemployed from 9 months to 15 months, and he’s extended unemployment benefits several times.

Environment and Energy

He fast-tracked regulations to allow states to enact federal fuel efficiency standards that were above federal standards.

He fast-tracked increased fuel economy standards for vehicles beginning with the 2011 model year. It was the first time such standards had been increased in a decade.

He oversaw the establishment of an Energy Partnership for the Americas, which creates more markets for American-made biofuels and green energy technologies.

His EPA reversed a Bush-era decision to allow the largest mountaintop removal project in US history.

He ordered the Department of Energy to implement more aggressive efficiency standards for common household appliances.

He ordered energy plants to prepare to produce at least 15% of all energy through renewable resources like wind and solar, by 2021. (As you can see, Republicans are trying hard to kill it.)

He oversaw the creation of an initiative that converts old factories and manufacturing centers into new clean technology centers.

Bypassed Republican opposition in Congress and ordered EPA to begin regulating and measuring carbon emissions.

His EPA ruled that CO2 is a pollutant.

He doubled federal spending on clean energy research.

He pushed through a tax credit to help people buy plug-in hybrid cars.

He created a program to develop renewable energy projects on the waters of our Outer Continental Shelf that will produce electricity from wind, wave, and ocean currents.

He reengaged in the climate change and greenhouse gas emissions agreements talks, and even proposed one himself. He also addressed the U.N. Climate Change Conference, officially reversing the Bush era stance that climate change was a “hoax.”

He fully supported the initial phase of the creation of a legally-binding treaty to reduce mercury emissions worldwide.

He required states to provide incentives to utilities to reduce their energy consumption.

Following Bush’s eight year reign, he reengaged in a number of treaties and agreements designed to protect the Antarctic.

Created tax write-offs for purchases of hybrid automobiles, and later he and Democrats morphed that program into one that includes electric cars.

Mandated that federal government fleet purchases be for fuel-efficient American vehicles, and encouraged that federal agencies support experimental, fuel-efficient vehicles.

He strengthened the Endangered Species Act.

His EPA improved boiler safety standards to improve air quality, and save 6500 lives per year.

Through the EPA, he took steps to severely limit the use of antibiotics in livestock feed, to increase their efficacy in humans.

He increased funding for National Parks and Forests by 10%

Other Stuff

He has expanded trade agreements to include stricter labor and environmental agreements such as NAFTA.

He oversaw funding of the design of a new Smithsonian National Museum of African American History, which is scheduled to open on the National Mall in 2015. He protected the funding during the recent budget negotiations.

Oversaw and passed increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.

He nominated Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Sotomayor is the first Hispanic Justice in the court’s history, and the women represent only the third and fourth women to serve on the court, out of a total of 112 justices.

He appointed the most diverse Cabinet in history, including more women than any other incoming president.

He eliminated federal funding for abstinence-only education, and he rescinded the global gag rule.

He loosened the rules and allowed the 14 states that legalized medical marijuana to regulate themselves without federal interference.

His FDA banned the use of antibiotics in livestock production.

Ushered through and signed national service legislation, increasing funding for national service groups, including triple the size of the Americorps program.
http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

[BlueCaliDem]

77. That is an awesome list. Obama is *definitely* a Progressive in heart and soul

and anyone who says he isn't is being disingenuous at best.

Thank you once again for a reality check, FrenchieCat.

[Le Taz Hot]

82. The fact that propaganda is used by both sides

is not a new concept.

[deaniac21]

124. I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able

to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.

[patrice]

158. .

:cry:

[Roger Floyd]

232. TLADGAD

[BlueCaliDem]

78. How on earth can you doubt it?

Or do you just want to ignore all the progressive things he's pushed forward and signed into law?

For example, and it's a biggie - even if you don't agree that the PPACA went far enough, you canNOT deny it was a huge, progressive piece of legislature.

[Fumesucker]

90. The Health Insurance "Reform" bill was a quintessentially Republican piece of legislation..

Obama ran *against* an individual private mandate and yet thats exactly what we ended up with.

We were sold to giant insurance companies who would rather we die than they have to spend a plugged nickel on us.

The insurance companies killed a family member of mine, I hate them so much that it enrages me that the rest of us were sold to them.

Not even the miserable pathetic fig leaf of a public option, pure naked unadulterated greed run utterly rampant over the American public.

And then I have to come to DU and read how it's SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO fucking "progressive".

Utter and complete bullshit that does nothing but piss me off every single time I read it, I'm shaking as I type this.

Edited because I can't spell for crap when I'm upset.

[amborin]

147. originally from the Heritage Foundation, of all places....

[patrice]

162. The House put a door into a Public Option into that bill and was subsequently PUNISHED for doing so.

Is that Obama's fault too?

[Shining Jack]

240. It's a rhetorical question, right?

[Maven]

166. Obama is a moderate conservative. Not a progressive.

And by progressive, I mean LIBERAL, which is what it used to mean before third-way turds tried to redefine it to hoodwink the left into voting for them.

[inna]

203. "moderate" by current standards only, in comparison to, say, Palin or Perry.

[Maven]

287. True.

[patrice]

67. Translation: Everyone who is concerned about this thinks all Progressives are the same.

[sabrina 1]

79. Did someone pass out a memo tonight or something? This is the

second, or is it third OP opining about the FACT that people who are genuinely upset (about, eg, seeing SS for the first time every by a Democrat, offered up as a bargaining chip to Republicans) must be undercover agents for some mysterious organization.

This is bordering on Dungeon material at this point. Just accept the fact that people truly are very upset with this party right now. That is a FACT. Maybe if you focused on the issues instead of the Policitians, you would get it.

Seriously, these kinds of conspiracy theories are getting ridiculous ....

[Union Scribe]

80. Exactly.

Excellent post.

[The Doctor.]

85. It's not that at all. Did you read the OP?

The post about Obama 'continuing nearly all of Bush's programs' was deliberately misleading. It was for the purpose of luring people who might already have reasons, legitimate or not, for being upset with Obama, into believing he is as bad or worse than they thought.

People like having their position validated, especially if it is unpopular in some way.

The question is this:

Is the Frontline report accurate, or deliberately misleading as TheWraith has said?

Did it work on you?

That's the real question. Have you been influenced to believe that which is not true?

[flamingdem]

109. Good points. The Obama same as Bush meme is a favorite bashing meme

and OFTEN used here on DU.

So people do need to ask themselves exactly how they reached this conclusion.

[blindpig]

130. If it walks like a duck....

Imperial war upon imperial war, pandering to the financial elite, putting Social Security on the table, disgraceful environmental record, bogus health care, nope, none of this has happened....

Whose zooming who?

[TheWraith]

220. Case in point: why do you believe those things, when independent evidence shows they're wrong?

Each of the things which you list is pretty obviously false when checked against the record: an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, new Wall Street and financial regulations, a debt deal which explicitly protects Social Security, higher mileage and emissions standards, strict healthcare regulation... all of which are present, right there to be read about in the new bills that were passed. And their effect is obvious, when you look at who spent how much money to try and stop them, and when you realize the extent to which the financiers of the right have gone out

...and yet many people believe exactly the opposite is the case, despite the actual facts--because that's what you heard from "left wing" blogs and rumor campaigns. Ignore the new restrictions on Wall Street derivatives trading. Ignore the end of pre-existing conditions and the restrictions on the price of healthcare. Instead focus on insisting that the wars are infinite, even if that means creating imaginary new wars in Yemen and Sudan. Claim that the government has given away trillions of dollars to Wall Street, even though that amount of money doesn't even exist in one place. Insist that the new spending on clean energy and elimination of coal subsidies doesn't exist.

And because the source seems trustworthy and "on their side," people believe it. The same way Fox News viewers believe Obama is destroying America to turn it into a communist welfare state. Different crowds, different lies, but all with the concerted goal of destroying Democrats.

[blindpig]

265. Please don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining.

You have no idea how I am informed.

[The Doctor.]

286. Apparently, niether do you.

That was a fair question with adequate support.

The problem you have is that you believe in that which is alleged but not supported.

Why?

[woo me with science]

95. Many OP's this week arguing about the definition of "progressive," as well,

proclaiming Third Way policies as "progressive" and even accusing the rest of us of trying to redefine the word and claim it for a "narrow fringe."

The doublespeak is stunning, as though the word has always meant what the Third Way is trying to claim it means now. Now we are to accept that offering up SS and Medicare for cuts, seeking settlements with immunity for corrupt banks, and expanding the military industrial complex are "progressive" positions.

[QC]

119. "A progressive is a person who believes in progress!"

You've heard that one too?

[woo me with science]

155. LOL.

I am experiencing a new dilemma at DU: When faced with utter absurdity as an argument, does one respond seriously or in jest?

Because I just got called a fascist for dissolving into laughter when an article criticizing the continuation of Bush policies was labeled "a Right Wing talking point."

:rofl:

[dgibby]

245. One does not respond, because it would be a colossal waste of one's time and energy.

If they're that far gone, they can't be reached, so why bother?

[QC]

108. I'm having a vision....

the letter "D" surrounded by stars....

[patrice]

144. I don't understand how it is taken that OP is saying ALL such opposition is "undercover agents".

My understanding of the post in question is that it says that this does happen. It seems strange to me to assume that it refers to ALL, 100%, of those who have problems with Obama. That is the same sort of logical mistake as hearing that dogs have spots and subsequently going around thinking/saying that ALL, 100% of, dogs have spots. People don't make that kind of error in logic most of the time, so why are they doing it now?

Clouds rain. Does that mean ALL clouds rain?
Cars can be blue. Does that mean ALL cars are blue?

If there's some confusion about what someone is saying, wouldn't it be rational, and incidentally serve one's own objectives better, to begin with a question, for clarification?

[sabrina 1]

165. Maybe because there are so many of these conspiracy theories

floating around, claiming that anyone who expresses any concerns about the Democratic Party's handling of the issues, is a suspect?? There are at least two of them right now on this board. They make no sense. They basically deny that there is any reason to be upset and attempt to cast suspicion on anyone who genuinely is.

I'm beginning to wonder if THEY are being planted to silence anyone who has concerns. See what conspiracy theories do? They make everyone wonder who really is the enemy. And maybe that is what they are intended to do.

The correct way to handle the concerns of so many people would be to address the issues they are concerned about. NOT plant insidious suspicions that they must be undercover agents for George Bush or whatever the claims are.

I find them to be nothing more than an attempt to distract from the legitimate issues and why would anyone try to do that? Because they cannot defend the policies people are concerned about.

[patrice]

180. Those speaking in absolutes should be addressed on that, e.g. those "...claiming

that a-n-y-o-n-e who expresses a-n-y concerns ..." are either rationally challenged/incompetent or deliberately provocative, ergo, why?

Avoiding such absolutes is logically very commonplace. People almost never say "All x is y" because it's practically speaking almost never true. There are variations in everything and most of us know that most of the time. So why is it so common to see that understanding almost completely set aside in this environment? "All Obama supporters __________________." "All Obama non-supporters __________________." Look at how often these occur in this thread. Which side does it more often and more egregiously? I don't know, but it would be helpful if BOTH sides would be more self-evaluative, more self-policing, on this trait and stop pretending that the only time it ever happens it is the other side's unilateral fault. If people aren't reacting directly to you, they're reacting indirectly to something else that may or may not be like you. I don't think a conspiracy theory is necessary to describe this dynamic, though I do think there are those kinds of black-ops actors out there. It just doesn't take much to get the vicious feedback circle going, because we're talking about a basic thought-feeling/mind-heart trait of humans here.

What goes around comes around is the reciprocal, the flip-side, of The Golden Rule . . . that is until SOMEONE says "STOP. I refuse to give this BS anymore energy. It will not control me. I will control it, because I have priorities that are more important than this vicious circle."

[Rex]

173. Pathetic ain't it? Some people will do anything to divide up the Democratic

Party. It is just more of the 'ignorant few' telling the 'intelligent many' they are pissed off and have no clue as to why. :rofl:

[dgibby]

243. Seriously!

Thank you.

[6000eliot]

84. My impression is that the president has been attacked constantly since the day of the innauguration.

Bush had a SIX YEAR honeymoon in the media. Obama gets blamed for every little thing he does and gets credit for nothing. Has he been the exact president I wanted? No, but I knew he wouldn't be when I voted for him. I had to choose the president who would be closest to what I wanted, and I'm satisfied with him.

[NNN0LHI]

86. Your impression is the same as I have

I have never seen anything like this before in my entire life.

Don

[patrice]

149. That's my position. + People are pretending the process isn't what it IS. Also that the

President is SUPPOSED to do it for us, instead of us committing to our own roles in an ongoing process that we govern for our own goals independently from others.

[SpiralHawk]

87. Occultism - a core republicon family value

Republicons work in the shadows ceaselessly...

[mattclearing]

88. The worst part is that many of us are falling for it.

Even totally well-meaning DU'ers are jumping on the bandwagon.

President Obama's difference-splitting, take-what-he-can-get strategy has still been more effective than any Democratic President since at least LBJ, but that progress isn't appreciated because he hasn't completely reversed course.

Lately I've been considering the following:

Maybe President Obama doesn't want America to be where it was before President Bush. Maybe he thinks there's a way to a better place that is through that storm, not away from it.

Maybe President Obama doesn't want to use the Federal Government to prop up the economy further because ultimately the American people need to build an economy that works on its own, not take a false economy imposed by the Federal Government that ultimately kicks the can of real productivity further down the road.

Maybe President Obama knows what he's doing.

[ibegurpard]

89. the view that government has no role to play used to be a Republican view

which is why so many people are upset with Democrats in general right now and Obama in particular

[mattclearing]

228. I'm not saying that government has no role to play.

I've always thought that direct stimulus via investments in infrastructure were the way through the crisis, and certainly preferable to throwing a pile of money at the banks.

However, I do acknowledge that an infrastructure building stimulus program does not solve the underlying issue, which is that the U.S. has no real functioning economy.

[lamp_shade]

91. The first intelligent "discussion" I've read on DU (a discussion board after all) in months.

GREAT post, TheWraith. K&R

[Fumesucker]

92. Yeah, an individual mandate for private insurance is sooooo fucking "progressive"..

I had a loved one murdered by an insurance company that wouldn't pay for their care after receiving premiums for years and years.

Hate is not nearly a strong enough word to describe how I feel about them.

And now I'm going to be forced to buy their shitty and overpriced product?

I'm utterly fucking livid about this.

[woo me with science]

94. Here we go again.

Vague, indignant accusations, utterly disconnected from the actual policies that this President has been pursuing.

The problem with this drumbeat of indignation is the fact that we have been here the whole time and have witnessed with our own eyes where this President has actually stood firm and where he draws his lines in the sand.

All these empty words do not change the facts: that this President is expanding the war budget, put 650 BILLION DOLLARS in cuts in Social Security and Medicare on the table, extended tax cuts for billionaires, seeks immunity for corrupt banks, and is overseeing and arguing for draconian spending cuts during the worst economy in recent memory.

Once again, this is the problem the Third Way has in messaging, and why the President has cautioned his campaign people to talk about big ideas rather than policy details. It is very difficult to convince people that you support the same values and goals they do, when REALITY AND YOUR BEHAVIOR amply demonstrate that you are working in a different direction.

[malaise]

96. Excellent post

Rec

[Bonobo]

97. This belongs in the dungeon. nt

[sabrina 1]

157. Seems that way to me too. In fact I said the exact same thing.

Conspiracy theory with nothing to back it up. Maybe a list of the 'undercover agents' on DU would help, otherwise it has as much validity as any other conspiracy theory.

[inna]

198. no kidding.

[bvar22]

269. I disagree. It doesn't belong in the dungeon.

This belongs in the TRASH.

Thats my problem with Centrists.
They agree with Republicans too often.
When Mainstream-Center FDR/LBJ Democrats are labeled "The Far left",
WHO is really doing the talking?


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed

[MadHound]

99. Well, that's a load of happy horseshit

Trying to imply that we're all victims of propaganda, try to imply that we racist, that we're operatives, or that we're dupes is simply another way of making excuses for a weak, ineffectual president.

[MrScorpio]

100. It's an excellent strategy to use against a sitting president in order to work his base against him

It's the basis of all propaganda. Merely create the illusion that someone else's ideas are really your own.

A perfect example was yesterday's post with a cartoon of the Obama volunteer telling a family on the street that the President was responsible for less competition for the family's panhandling.

The target of that cartoon wouldn't be Obama's detractors on the right, they don't give a damn about the poor and homeless, it was specifically tailored to sow discord on people who adopt a liberal ideology.

Many liberals and progressives are being played... Hard. And given the penchant of most people to never admit that they are being played by others, or the possibility that they've been convinced to shift to a wrong direction via propaganda, the "I-Know-That-I'm-Right" syndrome, you're going to see and hear a lot of people on the left spouting right wing propaganda against Obama, while all the while denying that they're in fact spouting right wing propaganda against Obama.

Excellent post.

[flamingdem]

114. Good catch with that cartoon Mr. Scorpio nt

[LWolf]

101. Against Obama, or against Democratic values and programs?

They aren't the same thing at all.

[Waiting For Everyman]

102. One example: the ginned-up opposition by the Left to the Libyan rebels.

So many liberals on the side of a sick dictator, and against the common people is MINDBLOWING. And all of it started all of a sudden when some lefty "opinion makers" started writing articles, at exactly the same time that it emerged that Gadaffi's PR machine was wooing the very same writers. When that was pointed out here on DU over and over again, it was simply brushed off... just like the RW does.

Seeing that, as it came about in real time, I have learned that (a percentage of) the Left is very gullible about itself, and just as irrationally opinionated as the Right.

Another totally weird example - the "media hype" issue about the Irene hurricane... the most trivial and baseless super-gripe ever.

So, yeah, we're blind to the poison in our own pipeline alright. I'd have to agree with that. Since it's clear in two examples that have nothing to do with Obama, it would be silly to think that the same thing doesn't happen in issues that DO have to do with him. Of course it's part of the mix. Critical thinking and an open mind is still necessary, all the time, about everything, no matter the information source.

[MadHound]

105. Love the way you frame that, almost Rovian in its beauty

The anti-war left, protesting against another expensive war for oil and empire, is, in your eyes, now on the side of a dictator.

Classic, just classic.

[Waiting For Everyman]

111. Oh, I see, so you think I'm making that up?

By its own words the "anti-war Left" IS on the side of Gaddafi.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1857153&mesg_id=1862054

There is no debate about that, even here on DU, the anti-war left doesn't disguise its backing of Gaddafi at all. It's shameful, but no one doing it seems to care. Any pretext for an anti-war rant will do, facts be damned. Never let the real world interfere with an attitude.

[MadHound]

121. Ah, so you are saying that Juan Cole is the anti-war left?

Nice way to broadbrush smear using the words of one man.

[Waiting For Everyman]

123. No, the anti-war left is smearing Juan Cole.

The anti-war left needs to take a hard look at itself. And it's the anti-war left which is engaging in broadbrush smear - anybody who disagrees with its views is a "neocon" by definition now.

[flamingdem]

112. Great points. People on the left who I admire take the bait and are myopic

I could not believe people I know sticking up for Quaddafi just to be "left". GULLIBLE is the word.


>>>Seeing that, as it came about in real time, I have learned that (a percentage of) the Left is very gullible about itself, and just as irrationally opinionated as the Right.

[sabrina 1]

161. Just like 'so many liberals were on the side of Saddam Hussein;'.

remember that? You have a point. People accusing Democrats of 'loving Saddam Hussein' are now using the same rightwing strategy, failed though it was, regarding those who oppose yet another war in another oil rich country in the ME or Africa.

I'm beginning to think that there are plants around, but they're not who this OP thinks they are. When you so much of the same garbage, like this comment, you have to wonder. It is so Rovian and so familiar from the Bush years.

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

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

[QC]

205. I remember when Bush said we thought "brown people" didn't deserve democracy.

It's amazing how many of the arguments that were used to defend Bush are now being trotted out to defend Obama.

They have even revived Krauthammer's "derangement" slander from way back then.

[Number23]

260. You really did hit the nail on the head.

I have learned that (a percentage of) the Left is very gullible about itself, and just as irrationally opinionated as the Right.

Nailed it. And both sides, left or right, think that their thinking is based on "knowledge" and "wisdom" and not gullible stupidity or laziness.

So many liberals on the side of a sick dictator, and against the common people is MINDBLOWING.

It's not only mindblowing. It's disgusting. The idea that some have that ANYTHING this president does must automatically be minimized/criticized is revolting even if that means siding with a dictator who stole from his own damn people. The depths some will sink in order to discredit this administration is no longer surprising to me, but it's revolting all the same.

[cliffordu]

103. Been saying this for the last couple of years.

The more hateful outrage in the post, the more I suspect that person....

[flamingdem]

104. +1 with the outrage poured on the real discussion and facts are obscured

I've never been as quickly insulted by strangers than on DU. Am I to believe they are just so out of control emotionally that this is "passion"? Or is it a paycheck.

[cliffordu]

106. I'm getting the feeling it is a paycheck.

[patrice]

151. Me too. + There are so many obvious hypotheticals: #1 Not everyone on the internet is who/whatever

they claim to be.

It's amazing to me that anyone continues to pretend that everything that is going on should be taken at face value. Simply. Amazing.

[blindpig]

107. lol

I repeat

lol

[Zorra]

110. No doubt. It's horrible. It started during Reagan, and has

increased incrementally until it has become the norm - anti-Democratic propaganda has become enculturated in our media and within our society itself.

This has been a great success for the organizers of the "vast right wing conspiracy" that Hillary tried to warn us about.

[flamingdem]

113. Exactly. This post needs to be a Sticky at DU to remind people what we're

up against.

It's not even a conspiracy anymore. We know about the Koch Brothers, Rove's organizations. The rethugs who support these forces have clearly stated their goal, get rid of the president.

We see this enacted on the MSM and in forums such as DU and it's truly difficult to know who is who.

[woo me with science]

115. Sorry, it's not that complicated.

If he acted like a progressive, progressives would not be so upset.

Occam's Law and all that. :eyes:

[flamingdem]

117. Nice attempt to disguise what's going on that goes beyond your displeasure with policies nt

[woo me with science]

122. Mmmmm. Word salad!

Naw, I am totally down with the OP. You know who said all that stuff in the OP, right?

I am SURE it was a quote from Russ Feingold! :rofl:

[patrice]

136. The Scientific perspective takes responsibility for understanding upon itself by asking

appropriate questions about whatever, i.e. "word salad" in this instance.

[patrice]

138. Since ridicule is a hallmark of fascism, do you think it would be interesting to count

how often some netizens depend upon "LOL/ROFL" and their variants instead of actual thoughts?

[woo me with science]

139. I'm a fascist! ...Again!

And I see by your other posts that we are on the next philosophy chapter already!
:yourock:

My dear patrice, you just need to do a search to see that I have posted many, many thoughts here, many of them with extensive background and links. You always seem drawn instead to my comedy, which I will take as a compliment.

It is not my fault that some posts warrant a response with substance and gravity approximately commensurate to their own content. I would include in that category repetitive posts accusing other DUers of being fascists.
:rofl:

[patrice]

143. The basic point is that you ridicule others and have at least a somewhat sketchy idea of what

science is.

[woo me with science]

145. LOL.

At least.

Have a nice day, Ms. patrice.

[patrice]

150. Please read up on diversity & collaborative thinking. nt

[woo me with science]

249. ...

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html


.

[patrice]

272. Nice!

So, why so many unfounded generalizations of only one certain type (Obama = evil) here at the DU?

A little balance goes a long way towards convincing some of us, because we worry about summarily throwing away potential advantages that could be useful and substituting new regimes of oppression that just wears different labels, i.e. net change = 0, or even very possibly -n, which is, as I understand it, your criticism of the status quo.

[Maven]

168. Yes, we're just out to disguise what "THEY" are doing

to brainwash feeble-minded liberals into hating their best ally, Obama! MIND CONTROL! :tinfoil:

[flamingdem]

118. Do you agree with this Obama bashing post? This is right wing talking points winning on DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1858372

[woo me with science]

125. ROFL!

Since when are anti-Bush policy, anti-surveillance state, and anti-war talking points considered "Right Wing"?!

:rofl:

[patrice]

137. Since when is there only one semantic construct, OWNED by only one perspective, which oh so

co - incidentally happens to also be yours?

Please tell me how that works, especially when the basis for whatever rhetorical claims are made is that there ARE multiple perspectives.

[patrice]

134. You're assuming that you're referring to 100% authentic Progressives, a VERY unscientific assumption

indeed.

[patrice]

146. You're assuming that because people on the internet call themselves progressives they are IN FACT

progressives . . . another very un-scientific assumption.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

120. If he doesn't want the criticism of the left he could try not caving to the right.

But, being a professional centrist pol he believes he can ignore the left and continue moving the party to the right to win "moderate" votes. The only problem with that strategy is that it isn't working.

[WDIM]

127. I beginning to think Obama is a "right-wing ideological plant"

There is only one party in Washington the corporate party!

All the stuff that sets them apart is the wedge issues they use to distract us from the real issue.

The Haves are still controlling the Have nots!

[alarimer]

128. He is not a failure; he is deliberately continuing Bush policies

On wiretapping, on rendition, on the "state secrets" argument. Google Thomas Drake, the whistleblower for how Obama is treating people who tell the truth about what his government is doing.

The OP is full of shit.

Blind hero worship will get you or other people killed.

[Marr]

131. Yet another sales pitch for "critics on the left are actually right-wing stooges".

It's asinine.

[amborin]

132. Obama did the convincing, starting w/ devoting 40% of the stimulus to useless tax cuts

starting with appointing Rahm Emanuel, who has a history as a Wall Street corporate raider

starting with choosing Pastor Rick Warren....

and it continued from there

[county worker]

140. You are grasping at straws! We say Dems are smarter than Repubs and that we think for ourselves,

yet you come here and say that if you feel Obama has let us down it is because of some propaganda you've bought into.

What a load of crap! We have eyes and brains. We are not lead by propaganda.

Obama has not lived up to the presidency he described during the 2008 campaign.

People are no better off then when Bush was President most are worse off. There is no hope or change in sight. Social Security and Medicare are about to be cut. There is no jobs programs in sight.

Unions are being decimated. Right wing Governors are doing the bidding of corporations. I could go on. This administration has let us down. If you can't understand that you are the one led by propaganda!

Why are you so afraid to admit reality?

[TwilightGardener]

142. Good post--it's more than just Republicans who have in interest in seeing Obama defeated.

[librechik]

148. the media is so completely infiltrated, it will be hard for whistleblowers to call out offenders

They are all in on it. So who is going to give the whistleblowers a platform? I already know the answer: nobody, because they don't get a platform now.

[JuniperLea]

152. And I hope they hate themselves for the tools they have become...

There is plenty to hold Obama's feet to the fire for, but you never really hear about that. "Dategate" is the horror du jour, a petty, meaningless bit of fluff that has been whipped to a bloody froth. The reaction by people is more telling of them than it is of Obama, and they don't see themselves as the tools that they are.

Pathetic.

[patrice]

174. That is the SADDEST thing about it. Bullshit damages the REAL issues. & Seeking

support for an Obama loss on the basis of INFERENCES, which are NOT logically necessary btw, even further mortally damages substantive positions. Netizens are treating speculation like it is facts. That makes others wonder about their competence and/or motives.

[JuniperLea]

177. He wants to, he plans on, he is going to...

Yep. I've been saying that for a long time. There are threads upon threads of inference-induced rants. All week we've been reading here how Obama's jobs plan doesn't go far enough, yet the speech on said plan isn't until next week.

[patrice]

184. I can't understand how our schools have failed so miserably in teaching the basic principles of

rational thought.

[JuniperLea]

212. The idiocracy is upon us...

Hopeless, helpless, undereducated, and only concerned with reality shows and the latest gadgetry. The dumbing down of America has been on the agenda for decades.

[patrice]

199. He's dealing with the situation as it IS. If someone wants something new to happen, they need to

Bring It. And in order to bring it, we need to understand how things work and telegraphing waaaaaaay in advance of any substantive movement that one will or will not vote for a candidate IS an instance of literally walking away from the table. You're out. And you're blaming THEM for your own choice. It's clueless. And most especially so if you're saying "I won't vote for you" before you have actually even become enough of a factor to possibly be a functional part of negotiations.

Any pie in the sky idea of how all of that is going to change and NOT be the way it is, quickly and cleanly without major social and physical upheaval, high probabilities of violence, and, hence, FORCE, are just that, PIE IN THE SKY. It's interesting that those who point this out are considered to be wearing rose colored Obama glasses.

P.S. that's the rhetorical "you", of course.

[JuniperLea]

210. "...considered to be wearing rose colored Obama glasses"

Amen to that!

And on being way in advance... this is what chaps my hide about the whole debt ceiling debate! There is no debate! The debt ceiling doesn't get raised for future spending, it gets raised because the calendar says new sections of law are coming into play and in order to pay for these decisions... made a LONG time ago, and most of the time by PRIOR incarnations of Congress... we need to raise the debt ceiling. Holding it hostage was a low and smarmy, lie based idiotic thing to do.

[patrice]

215. Debt ceiling "debate": It WAS astounding wasn't it! I fear the crazy will achieve critical mass! nt

[Bobbie Jo]

159. Excellent post.

:kick:

[LondonReign2]

160. Your Bullshit is Tiresome

Those of us woefully disappointed in Obama's continuous caving and espousing of Republican plans are all GOP operatives, eh? Just need to hop on that Third Way bandwagon, do we?

[patrice]

163. I really am curious. Where do you find justification for the word "all" in your reply to OP? Please.

[LondonReign2]

182. You want to play word games with the definition of "all"? Really?

OK then...what percentage of us are "right wing plants"? The OP doesn't really say, does he/she? Just states what a vast number there are and intimates anyone expressing disappointment in Obama's policies could very well be one. Nice innuendo.

[patrice]

189. Indeterminant is neither one way or the other, a 50:50 probability, one's CHOICE in determining

whether it's 51 or < : 49 or > reveals one's bias.

Simply put, we frequently choose what things mean - ALL OF THE TIME - and those choices reveal things about us, e.g. in effect, "It's more THEIR fault than it is mine, because 'the truth' belongs to me, not them. They have no truth whatsoever."

It is interesting that in an ambivalent situation, people are refusing to admit that meaning is a CHOICE.

[LondonReign2]

192. No, what is interesting in the OP's innuendo

that anyone voicing frustration with Obama is a right wing plant.

[patrice]

204. That statement is not inherent to OP itself. It is your semantic choice. Please answer:

If I say, "There are people who have red hair who are great musicians" do you assume that I said "All people with red hair are great musicians"?

Or

"There are people who can write who write only fiction" do you assume that I said "All people who write, write only fiction"?

[LondonReign2]

219. The statement is completely inherent

and no amount of semantic gymnastics on your part is going to change the fact that the OP is stating that those that criticize Obama's policies are "right wing plants".

buh bye

[patrice]

221. You are the one inserting the word "all" by personal choice. nt

[patrice]

222. Why don't you answer my questions? nt

[patrice]

223. No problem with the word "all"? Tell me ALL who criticize Obama do so with good intentions.

[patrice]

206. So, anyone who criticizes Obama does so out of the purest of motives. This is the converse of

your own reasoning, that anyone who criticizes those who criticize Obama does so out of the most nefarious motives.

[LondonReign2]

194. So they OP only meant to insult 50% of us then?

OK.

:wtf:

[patrice]

202. No whether you take it as an insult or not is your CHOICE, it is not inherent to OP itself.

[dgibby]

246. I'm curious.

What do you mean by the use of the word ALL?

[patrice]

270. Many of the declarations around here either actually include that word explicitly or it can be

inferred, and remember that inferences are not logical NECESSITIES, unlike valid deductive reasoning inference is not logically necessary, inferences CAN be one way or another, and around here, given any kind of ambivalent form (which is probably the most common form statements take), DU-ers almost always CHOOSE the inference "All X is Y" when it is just as logically possible to infer from the same statement that "Some X is Y". DU-ers read posts from which it is possible to infer either "All ... " or "Some ... " and almost invariably CHOOSE "All ... " and then start raging at and insulting one another on the basis of statements that are NOT logically what they claim they are.

To me, this counter-rational trait is soooooooooooo obvious. It's an error that people DO NOT MAKE IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, e.g. do we go around assuming when someone says something like "Cars are blue" that they mean "ALL cars are blue" no we don't, so WHY WHY WHY is that particular error in logic sooooooooooooooooo common on the DU? Answer: People CHOOSE the "All ... " interpretation from ambivalent inferences BECAUSE THEY WANT TO. This could mean that they are disrupters or they are attention addicts.

[patrice]

275. #160 = "all", #192 = "anyone" & Both by INFERENCE from OP which does not explicitly make

those claims. See my post #154 for my observations regarding relevant aspects of OP.

[patrice]

169. Doesn't "sow a sense of futility and failure in voters on the left" refer to those on the Left who

are NOT of the ilk which is the subject of OP?

Doesn't "... propagandizing some people and not others?" refer, again, to those supporters or possible-supporters who are NOT of the black-ops type?

"... how many right-wing ideological plants ..." and "... from a 'left wing' source ..." both imply limitations on the reference.

[Maven]

164. You're the one who insults our intelligence.

Nothing new I realize. But no one is listening.

[patrice]

170. My experience = Not if I don't ALLOW him/her to insult me. This is the internet. If I go around maki

ng important aspects of myself AVAILABLE - on the frakking internet!!! - to be "insulted" by strangers with PHONY names, I'm just not sure how functional that is.

Perhaps there is a difference between me and some; if "the shoe doesn't fit" I not only do NOT wear it, I also refuse to even try it on, BECAUSE I AM IN CHARGE OF ME, not random others.

[Maven]

176. I don't allow it.

I'm simply noting the attempt, by a serial offender.

[patrice]

191. People make mistakes. How shall we get them/ourselves to admit that? nt

[Sugarcoated]

181. Not true at all.

There's a lot of people who come here, don't post much, who are listening and agree with this. Or people who used to post more, but just shake their head and don't bother because it doesn't matter what is said to people like you. I'm not thrilled with Obama's policies, but I don't trash talk him.

[Maven]

292. Well, I don't know you, but allow me to direct you to the Dungeon.

Because that is where this insulting claptrap belongs, along with people like you, apparently.

[Demonaut]

175. insidiously apparent

pessimists belong on FreeRepublic

make it easy for them
http://www.freerepublic.com
have fun!

[Sugarcoated]

183. Snap

Why are they even here . . . go start a website to trash talk him.

[Bobbie Jo]

294. +1

[Doctor_J]

178. Can you please link to a DU post that says

"he's only president because he's black"?

TIA

[B Calm]

179. I think I know when I'm being fucked over!

[robdogbucky]

185. Actually....

A few people recognize the scope of the deliberate anti-progressive propaganda in the last Presidential campaign by Obama in action today.

[Sugarcoated]

187. And Prick Perry would be so much better

[robdogbucky]

195. Huh?

What are you asserting? Any links to anything you are asserting? Try to focus on the discussion at hand;


"I will promise you this: that if we haven't gotten our troops out by the time I'm president it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. I will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama, October 27, 2007 And yet 50,000 US troops remain to this day - along with 100,000 civilian "security contractors"

"Close down Guantanamo, restore habeas corpus, say no to renditions, no to wireless wiretaps..." - Barack Obama, November 14, 2007 Guantanamo is still open, while habeas corpus has been restored by Executive Order, renditions and wireless wiretaps continue. In addition, President Obama has given himself the power to assassinate a US citizen overseas in the name of national security.

"When I promise that I... we are going to bring this war in Iraq to a close in 2009, I want the American people to understand that I opposed this war in 2002, 2003, 4, 5, 6 and 7 -- so you can have confidence that I will be serious about ending this war." - Barack Obama, 2008

"Iran, they spend 1/100 of what we spend on the military. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us." - Barack Obama, May 18, 2008

"I think it's time for us to end the embargo on Cuba. I think this because, if you think about what is happening internationally, our planet is shrinking. And our biggest foreign policy challenge -- and it feeds into the battle on terrorism and it feeds into issues of trade and our economy -- is how do you make sure that other countries and developing nations are providing sustenance for their people, human rights for their people and the basic structure of government for their people and are stable and secure so that they can be partners in a bright future for the entire planet." - Barack Obama, 2008

"I've said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo and I will follow through on that. I've said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm going to make sure we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world." - Barack Obama, 60 Minutes (2008) Guantanamo is still open, the US is using foreign nations to carry out torture, when it isn't committing it itself.


"And as President I'm going to make it impossible for Congressmen or lobbyists to slip pork barrel projects or corporate welfare into laws while no one's looking. Because when I'm President meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public - no more secrecy - that's a commitment I make to you as President. When there's a tax bill being debated in Congress, you will know the names of the corporations that would benefit and how much money they would get. And we will put every corporate tax break and every pork barrel project online for every American to see. You'll know who asked for them and you can decide whether your representative is actually representing you." - Barack Obama, 2008

"....create jobs building solar panels and wind turbines and the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow. Jobs that will help us end our dependence on foreign oil and may save the planet in the process. Rebuilding our crumbling roads and schools and bridges...." "....so we can have a new electricity grid and bring renewable energy to population centers here in Indiana and across America. Build an American infrastructure for the 21st century." - Barack Obama, 2008

"....that tired, worn-out old theory that says, that says we should give more to billionaires and big corporations and hope that prosperity will trickle-down on everybody else. The last thing... the last thing we can afford is four more years where no one in Washington is watching anyone on Wall Street because politicians and lobbyists killed common-sense regulations. Those are the theories that got us into this mess. They haven't worked and it is time for change, and that's why I'm running for President of the United States of America." - Barack Obama, 2008

"...bailout Wall Street banks. As President I will insure the financial rescue plan helps stop foreclosures and protects your money, instead of enriching CEOs. And I'll put in place the common-sense regulations that I've been calling for throughout this campaign. So that Wall Street can never cause a crisis like this again. That's the change we need." - Barack Obama, 2008

"It is absolutely true that NAFTA was a mistake." - Barack Obama, 2008

"It's been a long time coming. But tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election at this defining moment, change has come to America." - Barack Obama, November 4, 2008

Quotes excerpted from Barack Obama campaign speeches and interviews as shown in the documentary "Lifting the Veil: Obama and the Failure of Capitalist Democracy"

At a news conference Monday in Chile, President Barack Obama stated about his order to fire 110 Tomahawk missiles into Libya: "this was not an attempt at regime change, but a humanitarian effort to save civilian and rebel lives from Gaddafi’s threat to annihilate anyone who threatened his rule." March 21, 2011

"You will have your choice of a number of plans that offer a few different packages, but every plan would offer an affordable, basic package… And I believe one of these options needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market, so that we can force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest." ~President Barack Obama

“We do not expect harmful levels of radiation to reach the United States, whether it’s the West Coast, Hawaii, Alaska, or U.S. territories in the Pacific. That is the judgment of our Nuclear Regulatory Commission and many other experts.”- President Barack Obama


Referring to the Bush Administration's use of phone companies to illegally spy on Americans: "We only know these crimes took place because insiders blew the whistle at great personal risk ... Government whistleblowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal." ~ Presidential Candidate & U.S. Senator Barack Obama, 2008
"The President does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation
that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." ~Barack Obama, December 2007



"I believe that gay couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in this country,"
http://www.mercurynews.com/presidentelect/ci_18344166?n...
"What I'm not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue,
simply because I want folks to be investigating violent crimes and potential terrorism." ~Barack Obama, 2008

[Sugarcoated]

200. Following just fine Bucky

[HipChick]

186. K&R!..amazed at how many folks are falling for it...they won't be happy until the Rethus slide

themselves back into the WH

[Broderick]

188. Everyone should be required to wear blinders

to plight, misfortune, unemployment, foreclosure, inflation, and eviction!!!!!!


We need to supply these blinders and/or rose colored glasses to everyone!!!! NOW


Tell those at the job fairs that are desperate that everything is peachy keen!!!!

Hurry! It's all propaganda! It's all a lie. They are being misled on the shithole this country is in right now!

[patrice]

190. It is possible to support Obama without blinders. It is also possible to think/feel that it is the

Obama non-supporters who are predicting pretty ponies as the result of their course of action.

So, the real questions are about who does your most honest think/feeling for you? You? or Someone else?

[Broderick]

208. Not really following you

I just remarked with sarcasm cause some want to say there are pretty ponies and everything is hunky dory. It is not. I see pain and misery every freakin day. All day. I am not leveling blame on anyone, certainly not Obama. But, the fact remains that this country is in the shitter. It is what it is. All this crap on jobs and foreclosures and underemployment and evictions and suffering is real, not some propaganda against anyone. Who does your thinking?

[patrice]

214. I misunderstood. Personally, I don't know of, and have not seen on this board, anyone saying

anything is hunky dory, maybe that's why I misunderstood your sarcasm.

Just from a casual survey of my closer relationships, I know 9 people who don't have jobs, who used to have them. There's drinking going on and last week someone in one non-working couple beat up the other.

I have had 3 jobs in the last 10 years. I'm using up all of my savings to stay afloat AND getting taxed on those resources.

Yesterday, I was stopped for going over the limit in an very busy multi-lane intersection, by a guy who has a guaranteed job forever paid for with my taxes, while the REAL criminals write books and get on tv.

I am truly learning that in this country you CANNOT win for losing.

[Broderick]

217. I think it is clear that many are under extreme

stress. Sounds like you are too.

[dgibby]

248. How much over the limit were you doing?

Why do you think the officer who stopped you has a guaranteed job forever, and what do you mean when you use the word "forever"?

Are you saying the officer shouldn't have stopped you? Are you somehow exempt from the laws the rest of us are supposed to obey? Had the officer not stopped you, wouldn't he/she have been derelict in his/her duties, and thereby, guilty of wasting your tax dollars?

Had the officer been derelict, would he/she still have his/her "forever" job?

[patrice]

280. I'm not saying it wasn't my fault, nor that he shouldn't do his job, however imperfectly

that may be.

I haven't actually read the ticket yet, it made me feel so bad. I don't use that intersection very often, so I'm unsure what the limit was, but I can say I wasn't going so fast that I had absolutely any idea I was speeding at all. I was VERY surprised. Oh Well.

It just doesn't seem right that there is so much diligence, so much invested, in dealing with this kind of thing and so LITTLE invested in dealing with war criminals and financial fraud.

It's also a new thought for me to think about how such a thing can affect my future because I am so on the edge of the economic cliff, a position I've never been in before, so I have in the past somewhat discounted people who say things like "You can't win for losing in this country". That statement has new, more authentic, meaning for me now.

[ismnotwasm]

197. I agree

I have no energy to argue with it either. Those average not particularly political people I talk to like Obama and understand he was handed a shit sandwich. Elements of the Left and all of the crazy Right hate him ---for opposite reasons.

[Douglas Carpenter]

201. I suppose it is painful to face the reality that we have a center-right President with only a far

right alternative. In fact far-right are very mild terms to describe the only available alternative. Most likely the Republican nominee will be an apocalyptic extremist that would make George W. Bush look like a liberal. Most likely the alternative is someone who is determined to completely undo what little remains of the New Deal. Most likely the only actual alternative will be someone who subscribes to a foreign policy that would put America into a level of permanent war and conflict never before seen in our history leading to genuinely chilling consequences and further breaking the budget and making future progressive initiatives completely out of reach and perhaps even impossible for at least a generation to come.

It is also painful to face that reality that not only is Obama no progressive - the political situation is configured in such a way that it is not even plausible to see any progressive elected now or at any time in the foreseeable future. Yes it probably is true that Obama is about as good as it gets - at least for now and in the foreseeable future. This is why I'm certainly not someone to advocate primarying the President. Because I'm reasonably certain that the results of such an effort will not produce a more progressive alternative and may very likely only set the stage for a Rick Perry presidency or some other tea-party, right-wing fundamentalist approved reactionary. This is something with perhaps even more dire consequences that how a Ted Kennedy primary campaign weakened President Carter and set the stage for the dark forces of Reaganism to not only win the Presidency but to dominate the political scene for at least a generation.

I'm not terribly disappointed in President Obama because it is pretty much what I expected. Wall Street interest and the corporate-controlled mainstream media would never, never, never have talked Obama up so much - if they were not certain that he would have their backs. Then again Wall Street interest and the corporate-controlled mainstream media would never, never, never have refrained from marginalizing any candidate or potential candidate even a shade more economically progressive than Obama. But I knew this at the time and feel sorry for all of those who actually believed all this "Hope and Change" nonsense.

Yes I know the Obama Administration has done this and that and this and that progressive sounding actions that are things that no Republican President of these days would do. But this does not a progressive make. This is not the New Deal or the Great Society. On economic matters these are positions that pre-Reagan Republicans would have simply viewed as being responsible. To represent this as proof of a progressive Administration simply demonstrates just how far to the right the paradigm has shifted.

Yes it is true that there is no progressive alternative to Obama. Yes it probably is true that the only actual alternative capable of winning and running a government are forces so reactionary that they are really chilling. But President Obama did have the opportunity in the wake of the 2008 Wall Street meltdown and in the wake of an overwhelming election mandate for change to move the country in a genuinely more progressive direction and shift the paradigm and broaden the range of alternatives rather than simply a less reactionary direction than the alternative. But he didn't do it. He didn't try to do it. He didn't want to do it.

[scarletwoman]

231. Bravo, excellent post!

What you said:

But President Obama did have the opportunity in the wake of the 2008 Wall Street meltdown and in the wake of an overwhelming election mandate for change to move the country in a genuinely more progressive direction and shift the paradigm and broaden the range of alternatives rather than simply a less reactionary direction than the alternative. But he didn't do it. He didn't try to do it. He didn't want to do it. (my bold)

That is exactly what has disheartened me the most. When what this country needed most was a leader who would boldly seize the moment and say, "This will not stand!" to a financial sector gone completely rogue, we instead got a year of dicking around on a stupid health care bill that solved nothing in the big picture.

After 8 long years of Bush, we finally get a Democrat in the White House who turns out to be barely a Democrat at all. It's maddening as hell.

sw

[Bonobo]

239. This really should be an OP. Fabulous post. nt

[dgibby]

250. Truly outstanding post!

Thank you.

[JoeyT]

207. Oh look, it's this thread again.

More conspiracy theories aimed at people who are critical.

Edited to add: If this doesn't count as a callout thread, what does?

[patrice]

209. There are communication dynamics that do not require the slightest conspiracy theory to validate.

If that were not so, there are vast amounts of communication that would have no effect at all.

There can/could be some people around who take advantage of basic human reflexes/reactions that build feedback to the point of critical mass, requiring little else to maintain its own, and even build, inertia. Conspiracy? That's indeterminant, but given the limited number necessary to keep things going, not outside of the realm of possibilities.

That doesn't mean, and OP does not say, that everyone who is critical is nefarious, but surely you would not want to posit that in an anonymous environment such as the internet, everyone who says that they are a progressive IS in fact a progressive and anyone who criticizes Obama does so out of the purest of motives, right? Or do you? Are those your claims?

[JoeyT]

226. While I don't think anyone is paid to attack Obama,

I don't deny the possibility. I also don't deny the possibility that there are people paid to defend him. I don't say I think people are paid to defend him because I don't like automatically dismissing people. I'd rather assume good faith and take it as if the person really means what they say. I'm not a fan of the shill card, no matter who's playing it. It just leads to two people on opposite sides of a field insisting that the other is so insensible that they could have only come to that conclusion if they were paid to do so.

Paid posters are probably going to be completely one dimensional, and I haven't actually seen any one dimensional posters here from either supporters or critics of the Obama administration. I'd think they would tend to stick with the one topic they were paid to post about and ignore all others. They probably wouldn't turn up in threads about someone's dog dying or their computer screwing up or their kid graduating college or whatever because they wouldn't get paid for it. Right wing trolls wouldn't like us, and wouldn't view us as part of "their" tribe in any way, so they'd have no real desire to interact with any of us on a personal level.

So I won't say it's impossible there are paid posters in either camp, I'd say it's far easier, simpler, and nicer to just assume there aren't, since it isn't very likely. If we assume there are paid posters on the other side we either end up with a massive ignore list or completely paranoid.

[patrice]

238. You are very rational. That's a little unusual. What sets me off are wild

mischaracterizations of what other people say; it seems so obvious to me and yet it happens all of the time.

There is also all kinds of errors in logic: huge absolute predictions made on extremely limited and selective "facts" without even admitting the possibility there's something that a poster might not know that might be important; logic statements to the effect "X has not happened, ergo X will not happen"; lots of over-generalizations, "All A are B. Period." Cliches repeated as though they are actually analysis.

These obvious errors in rational thought cause me to wonder about the motives of posters and if it really is more of a cognitive competence issue, think of the concrete political damage caused by the incompetent going to war over somethings they apparently don't understand.

[sofa king]

267. I've been taking a different approach.

In a former life, I was a pretty good tea-leaf reader in Washington. I often make fairly absolute predictions based on limited and shaky evidence (and I'm often wrong, too!). I have this sorcerer's secret that the Republicans and many of the posters here apparently know nothing about, that allows me to accurately predict the future: I actually read the legislation.

There is still a lot of art and arcana in legislative analysis, which is why people like to argue about it so much. But the point is I actually made a living making huge absolute predictions based on limited facts, if you can believe that!

I also firmly believe, stressing that word, that this place in particular is packed with a very wide array of paid posters, their unpaid allies, and the converts they make. Many of them will be Republican staffers and campaign workers who have little to do right now, but the GOP has effectively unlimited incoming cash to pay them. One person can maintain many different identities. See Newt Gingrich's Twitter scam, for example.

I think that like sharks to chum, they gravitate toward negative threads, amplify them through concurring, dismiss rational arguments against them with well-greased one-liners, and so on. It may be only one or two people with an array of identities "pushing" a subject, or it could be hundreds or thousands of them.

But last night, I think I helped the President wreck a few vacations, and killed a thread that looked to me like it was attracting... a particular crowd that ain't gonna have time to post here this weekend, if I'm right.

(Edit: I wrote that above-linked post with a tone of absolutism and authority particularly in mind, because that's the tone that scares those folks the most. I also deliberately left out any linked citations, so that nobody could get a head start on verifying what I said. But I'm also "pretty sure" that what I said in that post is correct, which is about as high as I go in this line of work.)

[yurbud]

211. if so, Obama has rarely used the means at his disposal to counteract them.

Giving the jobs speech as a Joint Session of Congress is a good example of what he needs to do to overcome the right wing noise machine.

But the other is to start playing hardball with the GOP and especially the conservative members of his own party.

Let's face it, when he came in with a Democratic House and Senate with a massive mandate and public support, he squandered it by diluting his proposals to win Republican support that would never come, filling his cabinet nearly exclusively with the right wing of the Democratic Party and Wall Street toadies, and alienating or at least confusing key allies like teachers by appointing a Secretary of Education that the right praised for having fought for their education ''reforms'' like wholesale firing of teachers, union-busting, and privatizing schools.

My wife is a K-12 teacher and I teach community college. I have no doubt that Obama is better than McCain or whoever the next GOP nominee will be, but Obama is still undermining public education, making us wonder about the viability of my wife's job if we don't have Democrats at the top who will fight to make the job worth having.

[Fearless]

213. +1

[MaeScott]

224. K and R. nt

[bvar22]

229. I don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Unrec.

There my be propagandists at work here,
but it ain't who you are pointing your finger at.

The propagandists will be supporting or making excuses for policy that diverts more money FROM the Working Class & The Poor into the pockets of Wall Street, the Rich Global Corporations, the Top 2%, and the Perpetual WAR Machine. They will be assisting the forces that lust for the Privatization of The Commons,
like the Public Schools and the successful Safety Net programs of FDR & LBJ.
They will be making excuses for Cutting Government Spending during a Recession,
and Austerity for the Working Class & the Poor.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Shining Jack]

242. +1

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[dgibby]

251. Bravo!

Well played!

[inna]

257. Could not agree with you more. So well said, it needs to be repeated:

"The propagandists will be supporting or making excuses for policy that diverts more money FROM the Working Class & The Poor into the pockets of Wall Street, the Rich Global Corporations, the Top 2%, and the Perpetual WAR Machine. They will be assisting the forces that lust for the Privatization of The Commons,
like the Public Schools and the successful Safety Net programs of FDR & LBJ.
They will be making excuses for Cutting Government Spending during a Recession,
and Austerity for the Working Class & the Poor."

[demmiblue]

247. I am more worried about the people that constantly strive to push the Dem party to the right. n/t

[Phlem]

253. +1

word.

-p

[Stinky The Clown]

252. So Mr. Wraith. are you saying some who post here on DU are paid right wing undercover operatives?

"Someday, someone is going to break the story about how many right-wing ideological plants there are spinning in the broader "reliable" media, and even in the "left wing" blogosphere. And people will be fucking shocked. Every day, we have Republican plants and employees exploiting "left wing" media to spin and slander everything they can to try and demean or discredit Obama."

Wouldn't DU qualify as the "left wing" blogosphere? Couldn't I infer from that phrase that you might see some DUers as the target of your accusation?

By the way, as to the substance of your OP, I pretty much agree.

[Avalux]

255. I'll say it - some here ARE paid right wing undercover operatives.

I think those of us who have been here forever know that; we've seen how this stuff works.

[MadHound]

264. I've been here forever,

And I think that people here entirely overreact on this "right wing operatives" meme. It is a convenient scapegoat.

Seriously, think about this. We have less than 200,000 total members. At any one time we have a couple of hundred on at once, at most. DU is nowhere near as well known as Kos or Huffington Post, we are small time.

I think that people are overreacting.

[bvar22]

289. It is mind boggling that those on DU....

...who advocate FOR the Traditional Democratic party Values of FDR & LBJ
are being labeled as Paid Right Wing Operatives and even "Fascists" (see upthread ^).
Now THAT is "Rovian".


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Avalux]

254. This is a fantastic perspective....and TRUE. Thank you. n/t

[markpkessinger]

262. One could just as easily make the case ....

...that there is a vast conspiracy by DINO supporters of President Obama to suppress opposition in order to force the party to accept a center-right agenda. I'm not saying that's the case, but this is an internecine conflict in which BOTH sides can play that game.

[B Calm]

263. Why did Arizona wait until Bush was out of office before passing

a NEW IMIGRATION LAW that they knew was against the US constitution?

They had to know Obama would have to look into it, thus thus making republicans look like they really care about Mexicans taking away American jobs.

If republicans were serious about immigration all they have to do is start putting behind bars the cheap labor conservatives that hire these illegal Mexicans. If they have no jobs to come to, they will stay home. . Pretty simple. . .

Like I said, this is the time when republicans are doing their dirty tricks and pointing their finger.

[Tennessee Gal]

266. Excellent post!

[blindpig]

273. The only critism of the president that is valid is that he is.....

a tool of American capitalism. But that is true of any president. Now that the capitalists were removing the kid gloves(a necessity in their view and allowable in their view due to historical circumstances) who better to implement such a program than a Democrat, throwing mainstream opposition into disarray and confusion.

That ain't conspiracy, it's all out in the open, it's how business is done.

[patrice]

278. And, unless we're actually ready to actually do something that is actually new, this is all about

another iteration of the same thing, just wearing different labels.

[Rex]

279. Oh, I dunno...most people see right through the bullshit.

Must hurt a lot for the fucking scumbag trolls to see people are not as easily fooled as when GWB was in office. Sucks to be them!

[saras]

291. You can't "realize" something that ISN'T REAL

Yep, the entire left-wing blogosphere worldwide, not just in America, is a secret Koch Brothers plot to convince the whole world, not just America, that Bachmann would genuinely be a better president. Got it.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Scurrilous]

293. Kick

:kick: