Here's a friendly reminder of the policy on criticism at DU:

[Political Heretic]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5524913">Skinner: "all substantive criticism of Barack Obama and his policies is permitted"

• Any and all substantive criticism of Barack Obama and his policies is permitted. And by "any and all substantive criticism" we mean all of it -- no issue is off limits.
  
• Expressions of dismay, disappointment or disagreement with Barack Obama or his policies are permitted.
  

Wow. Even expressions of dismay and disappointment with Barack Obama, not just subsative policy disagreement is permitted. That means I can say that I feel this administration is going in the wrong direction, running further into the arms of the financial elite across a large number of issues (economic recovery policy, economic tax policy, economic stimulus policy, health care, climate change policy) and I can also talk about how angry that makes me, who much I protest such an alignment.

I can be upset, I can be dismayed, I can be disappointed, and I can disagree all in addition to making specific policy analysis and be welcome (I use that term loosely) here.

But there is this:

• But insults, name-calling, or other expressions of contempt toward Barack Obama or his supporters are not welcome.
  

If you think you see me doing this, instead of expressing dismay, then tell me and/or alert me. The thing is, there's a lot of people talking around here that simply don't want to hear dismay, disagreement or criticism and wish it were silenced. Thus any disagreement or feelings of dismay are treated as a personal insult against Barack Obama. That's not fair, and thankfully that's not how DU is moderated.

Until the policy laid out by Skinner changes, I will continue to advocate for this administration and the Democrats in Congress to prioritize the needs of the poor and working class ahead of the wants and whims of the financial elite, and abandon their current "trickle-down" approach to public policy.

One more quote from Skinner:

"Just as DUers should be able to support and defend Barack Obama here on DU without being attacked or having their motives questioned, DUers should also be able to share legitimate criticism of Barack Obama without being attacked or having their motives questioned."

That means that people who strongly agree with policy and actions from this administration shouldn't be called kool-aid drinkers, or whatever other insults there are. I've talked about administrative cheerleaders at times, and even that probably crosses the line.

On the other hand, its also not appropriate to shout about "ponies" to people that disagree. Or call them haters, or whatever else. Fair's fair, eh?

We both have a right to exist here and to raise our passionate concerns.

[anonymous171]

1. President Palin thanks you

-










:sarcasm:

[Political Heretic]

3. Heh, I don't even know what that means, but whatever.

:)

[Bluebear]

6. Because if you criticize ANYTHING about this President, you must want Palin to be President.

It's the most juvenile and vapid "comeback" yet.

[Political Heretic]

12. OOoooooooooooh - that went right under my head.

[Echo In Light]

37. It's always the obvious stuff, ain't it?

;) Rec

[patrice]

72. Note the somewhat belated reference to sarcasm. Odd.

Is it sarcasm or isn't it?

Is this a triple entendre?

[closeupready]

40. So does Barack Obama himself ---

"We must form grass-root structures that would hold me and other elected officials more accountable for their actions."

And if DU isn't grass roots, I don't know what grass roots IS.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. So It's *Democratic* Underground, Not *Obama* Underground?

Fancy that.

[michreject]

59. Not Progressive Underground

Liberal Underground or Progressive Independent.

It's Democratic Underground. A place for all Democrats.

Some don't understand that.

[Cerridwen]

99. "...Democrats and other progressives."

Yeah, it really says that. It also says, "...to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas.

<snip>

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

<snip>

DU represents a variety of progressive viewpoints. We have a particular appreciation for satire and humor.

<snip>

members of the political left to share ideas and discuss the issues."

[bobburgster]

4. Whoa! You just brought my brain to a screeching halt....

or maybe it was too much turkey clogging it up.

As long as I have the right to tell those whose opinions I disagree with "see box number 1 above" how I feel about their thoughts I do not see any problems.

[Political Heretic]

5. I agree.

[JohnnyLib2]

7. Refreshingly reasonable.

:thumbsup:

[Better Today]

8. I really hate DU threads about DU rules, but after reading fully.... KnR

[Political Heretic]

9. This one in particular, merits a periodic revisiting.

[Bjorn Against]

11. I think this is the first time I gave a K&R to a thread about rules

The difference between this one and the other threads about the DU rules of course is that this one points out that we have freedom to discuss issues, the other ones usually tell us that discussion should be restricted. Also it seems that many of the other threads about the rules seem to give a much more strict definition of those rules than what is actually written. It seems the most popular rule to quote is the one that requires us to be generally supportive of Democratic candidates, these posts usually either do not point out that constructive criticism is allowed however or if they do point it out they use an extremely narrow definition of what constitutes constructive criticism that is far more restrictive than the definition the mods use. The mods decide what is and is not constructive, and I can not stand when people who are not mods try to play hall monitor.

[berni_mccoy]

10. Does that also mean that people can support Obama without being called Cheerleaders?

Something has really got under your skin man. Take it easy.

[Political Heretic]

13. Did you read my post? Since I answered precisely that question:

"That means that people who strongly agree with policy and actions from this administration shouldn't be called kool-aid drinkers, or whatever other insults there are. I've talked about administrative cheerleaders at times, and even that probably crosses the line.

On the other hand, its also not appropriate to shout about "ponies" to people that disagree. Or call them haters, or whatever else. Fair's fair, eh?

We both have a right to exist here and to raise our passionate concerns."

As much as you might wish it, I won't be taking it easy any time soon. :)

[berni_mccoy]

15. You said calling people cheerleaders "probably" crosses the line. I'm asking you to clarify

[Political Heretic]

27. Clarify what??

[bvar22]

41. Another thing that should be against the rules:

Posting a knee jerk reply without reading the OP.

[berni_mccoy]

44. Like your response? I did read his OP and he said calling ppl a cheerleader is "probably"

against the rules. Nothing like a double standard.

[timeforpeace]

14. "...legitimate criticism of Barack Obama without being attacked or having their motives questioned."

Looking forward to that day.

[berni_mccoy]

16. +1

So far, it's all hype.

I'd love to see some of DU's finest critics *not* vote for Obama in the next Election when it's Palin/<Insert Military Figure Here>

[Better Today]

17. Thing is .. . I can be completely frustrated and angry at Obama for what he is or isn't

accomplishing, and yet still vote for him based on the FACT that until this election, I felt I was always voting for the lesser of two evils. I guess I was stupid to have hoped that he would be worth being voted FOR.

I have to say if you go back and read my posts, up till this week, I've been all "give the guy a chance," "he can't solve all problems right away," and so on, but for some reason this week my attitude regarding him is taking a really serious downturn. Perhaps it's the pre-holiday humbugs nibbling at me.

[davidwparker]

79. The (R)'s will prevent Palin from winning the nomination is 2012 just

as the (D)'s worked to keep Dean from getting it is 2004.

Ms. Palin is undermining her own chances on a daily basis.

[tblue]

86. The question isn't whether they'll vote for him

but whether they'll work their tails off to get others to the polls for him like we all did in '08. Will they donate money, travel to swing states, phone bank? Most members of DU will probably vote for the Democrat in any General Election. I know I will. But it takes more than just diehard Democrats' votes to win. That's what worries me.

[pam4water]

92. Me too

[treestar]

18. The Disappointed are given great latitude

Some days they seem to dominate the board.

[Political Heretic]

24. Perhaps there's a reason for that other than what you might assume

[Lyric]

28. You see ever-increasing numbers of disappointed Democrats

and your first reaction is that the problem is with them? Does it not seem possible to you that perhaps a dramatic rise in the number of upset Dems might mean that there's something seriously, deeply wrong?

To use a quick and dirty analogy--if while dining out, I hear someone griping about an unpleasant flavor in their food, I might get a little annoyed at what appears to be bad manners. If I see twenty people from different tables making the same complaint, I'd start to wonder what's wrong with the food--not the people. And if I see a hundred people who all swear that their food tastes terrible, but I can't taste anything particularly awful about it, well then in addition to wondering about the food, I'd likely wonder if perhaps there's also something wrong with me.

Just a thought.

[treestar]

33. DU is not a good barometer

It's really only a very few people.

I can count the DU complainers on one hand.

[kiva]

58. You just complained thatsome daysthe Disappointed "dominate"

DU. Now you say that you can count them on one hand - so fewer than 5 people manage to dominate DU?

[DontTreadOnMe]

74. How many fingers do you have on that one hand?

Have you sailed the river of Denial?

[martymar64]

94. And many times complaints are in regard to certain issues

I like Obama as a person and think that he is fundamentally a decent man. However, I am dead set against escalating and staying in A-Stan and I think he has surrounded himself with too many people that are too invested in the status quo.

I always hope for him to make the right decision, but if I feel it is wrong, I will say so and loudly. As he has said, he wants us to do so.

[ChiciB1]

76. Lyric... I Can Ascribe To Your Analogy, Not Only Because It Makes

some real sense, but also because I've noticed that there is a shift in attitudes lately. Some who were very willing to let everything play out, the wait and see what happens people have started to fall by the wayside.

I have posted my opposition to issues and am perhaps more in tune with the "liberal types" who have been called out for disagreement with what has been happening. But I have tried to stay open minded enough to say that should I see MORE that I AGREE with than I will say so too. Just not seeing it much.

It's NOT PERSONAL for me, it's what I believe in and what I had thought was going to happen with a new Administration AND a Congress that so many of us helped to elect. If we find ourselves disillusioned I prefer to say so and not just "follow along" just because I'm a registered Democrat.

The same is true for those who adore Obama... I'm sure they have sincere strong opinions and thoughts from which they base their posting. I may not agree, and I may know many of the names instantly, but I try very hard NOT to pinpoint them directly or to tell them to F--k Off!

Just recently "someone" singled me out and basically said to go pound salt! I "could" have reported the obvious breaking of a rule, but hey, to me I think it said more about he/she than me!

But am I disappointed? Yeppers, I am... but wish I wasn't!
JMHO

[spiritual_gunfighter]

35. What Political Heretic said

If you are seeing "the disappointed" dominate the board, does that tell you something about the way those on DU are viewing the actions of our President? Or do you think we are just being loud and saying nothing. It is a legit. question and maybe one you wont like the answer to.

[Ms. Toad]

42. Spoken by someone who must never have been among

the vocal disappointed.

I have been among the disappointed with respect to his lack of action (and in some cases action in the wrong direction ) on GLBT issues. "Great latitude" is not a phrase it would cross my mind to use as a description of how my expression of that disappointment has been received on DU.

[WilliamPitt]

53. Some days?

[Bette Noir]

64. E.J. Dionne wrote a great column on that a couple of days ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/25/AR2009112502906.html

"His enemies are on the march, and his friends are grumpy."

[pscot]

84. Color me grumpy

Dopey and Sleepy too after yesterday's festival of over-indulgence.

[waiting for hope]

90. Perhaps because there are more

disappointing things going on at the time. I voted for him but I haven't been thrilled with some of his decisions, mainly his cabinet picks (Geithner and Duncan especially) and the direction education and health care reform are going. As a mother of two kids, both under the age of 10, what happens now is going to affect them for a long time - and as a parent, I am deeply concerned about their future and what it will hold for them.

[louis c]

19. I love President Obama

but I still have some criticism.

I don't like sending more troops to Afghanistan. I disagree with his strategy of compromise with Republicans or moderates in Congress. we elected him and a Democratic Congress to advance a progressive agenda. i don't mind tweaking around the edges (like substituting a public option for single payer), but when a group is publicly rooting for you to fail, then win without them. in other words advance our agenda through reconciliation in the Senate (51 votes). After all, we will never see a Democratic majority of this size for a long time. if we can't do it now, it won't be done in my life-tome (57 yrs. old).

In the end, though, he's the best President I can expect, so no matter what, I'm for Obama. There is no other alternative.

[mopinko]

20. expressions of contempt

imho, would include people whining about state dinners, michelle's dress, and turkey jokes.
NOT WELCOME

[geek tragedy]

23. Well supposedly it would include 'apologist' and 'cheerleader' references.

Apparently it's limited to otherwise banned conduct, because expressions of contempt are common.

[Political Heretic]

29. That hasn't stopped "pony" references from being around either

[Political Heretic]

25. Don't know if it's contempt, but it's lame

[paulsby]

21. so, according to this policy, one can call a marriage equality opponent

a bigot, as long as that opponent doesn't happen to be barack obama

lol

(fwiw, i am for marriage equality, but do not think obama is a bigot, or are many other (not all) marriage equality opponents)

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Um, no. I can call Obama a bigot is that fits his actions

And a person who claims that some minorities are not deserving of equal rights is engaging in bigotry. But it is not bigotry that I am concerned with on the issue of equality for all. It is hypocrisy. For Obama claims to base his anti equality position on the writings of two Biblical authors, both of whom wrote strongly in favor of slavery, and taught that the Master is God's proxy on earth to the slave. Those verses are right next to his 'God hates gays' verses. Same authors. Same page. So. Do he and Michelle believe the rest of the 'Word of God' is valid, the things about slavery, about women remaining silent and modestly adorned? Do they only believe the anti gay verses, or do they also teach their daughters that as adults they must be summissive to their husbands and subservient to all men? These are all equal teachings of the anti gay authors of the Bible. Yet is seems to me that the Obama Family rejects all of the verses they clearly see as atavistic and hate filled, while clinging to the verses that they like to use to explain their personal prejudices.

[QC]

43. Obama is only influenced by the Bible when it comes to gay stuff.

For some reason, none of the scripture about peace and justice ever seems to influence him, though, just the stuff about homos.

[tblue]

87. I have no idea what's in his heart. All I can go by are his actions.

But it seems to me his choices on these issues are driven by politics rather than religion, though the net result is the same and just as bad.

[QC]

89. Oh, I agree. I think his nonstop religious talk is pure politics.

It's funny how we around here used to hate Bush's endless god bothering, but it's OK when Obama does the very same thing. But then that's true of a lot of things: Patriot Act, coddling bankers, wars, etc/ They aren't so bad when our guy does them.

[geek tragedy]

22. Expressions of contempt against Obama and his supporters is disallowed?

It's a good idea to allow substance but disallow the contempt. Now if only such a rule could be enforced.

[Political Heretic]

26. It is enforced. Along with and in balance with the rest you didn't quote.

The part that say dismay is allowed, dissapointment is allowed, and substantive criticism is alllowed.

Perfectly? Well were talking about human beings so no. But on both "sides?". Yes.

Neither "side" is decernably more offensive, both "sides" are regularly subject to moderation and discipline.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[notesdev]

30. All hail the Great Leader

Just kidding.

[pscot]

85. That's irony

And it will get you in trouble every time.

[pundaint]

31. Thanks, that is useful information

Now I understand why some of my posts were deleted. I shall stop thinking moderators are drinking kool-aid too, and I will no longer point out alleged kook-aid drinking.

[Bette Noir]

66. "Kook-aid drinking" is practiced solely on the other side of the aisle.

[niceypoo]

69. I dont think many people know what Kool-Aid drinking is...

Kool-Aid drinkers tout policies that go against their own best interest. Billionaires for Wealth-care exploit the foolishness of the kool-aid drinking tea partiers.

[winyanstaz]

32. thank you...K & R

[Hatchling]

36. k and r

[NJmaverick]

39. What a shock you dishonestly omitted his most important rule

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

[OnyxCollie]

45. Does that include posters who ridicule Dennis Kucinich?

Who call him "Moonbeam" and "woo-woo" and say he is the left's version of Sarah Palin, and try to organize a campaign to run against him in the primary?

'Cause if I wanted to hear that shit, I'd go talk to my asshole right wing cousin.

[QC]

47. +1

[kenfrequed]

50. I completely agree

The complaints and name calling towards Kucinich usually has no actual substance to it. I usually have to call people out that are thowing out ad hominem attacks on the man BEFORE they will say what they think is wrong with him. Even in those cases it all ends up being silly generalities.

[QC]

52. But...but...but...he's short! And funny looking!

Not all dreeeeeeeeeeeamy like a certain other politician! (swoon)

[Echo In Light]

57. DK is a symbol rightward leaning types use as a vehicle for smearing "loony" Left

I've noticed that there are a handful of such buzz-topics, or people, that some at DU use as a means of point of entry to engage in their favored hate-spew.

For example, any objective look at the two Name Brands is a major taboo for them (hence the brazen hostility against any criticism of the U.S. now that there's a Dem admin), and the entire flu vaccine topic at DU centered almost exclusively on that angle.

Several yrs ago there were other such topics, granted more Bush related, that the same types of posters would rally strongly against, usually dismissing those asking or sourcing material that was considered 'too' unfavorable to the overall system, and sense of grandiose 'professionalism,' as being a CT that only the crazy and/or stupid would lend credence to ... that is, until yr after yr, many of those very topics/incidents/issues became so obvious that tips of the iceberg were impossible to even completely omit from M$M.

[WillyT]

55. That's Part Of The Problem...

To some here, Progressives and Liberals are seen as the Democrat's political opponents.

I'm here to push, prod, cajole, pressure, etc. Democrats into standing up for the working class.

And if we need to Primary some ConservaDem... so be it.

Curiously, we will most likely be Primarrying (sp?) one Democrat with another, and boy will the sparks fly then!

:shrug:

I can't wait.

:evilgrin:

[CTLawGuy]

88. boo yah!

that's the key. Good Post!

[excess_3]

46. name-calling,... who is off-limits? .nt

[KharmaTrain]

48. Ad Hominem Attacks Of Members...

So many of these threads turn into personal pissing matches that quickly lose the original point and turn into a name calling and insult festival.

I keep any name calling to public figures and organizations...not to a private individual. Once someone starts to project or assume my position or starts going personal, the discussion is over...

[blindpig]

51. Gee....

I wonder if 'traitor' and 'stalinist' applies?

[KharmaTrain]

54. Depends On Whom Calls Whom What...

I can think of plenty of public officials where those terms apply...but not specific DU members.

[dixiegrrrrl]

49. Thanks for the reminder.

I used to cut and paste that in my replies when appropriate, but got mouse hand cramp, so now I find
the ignore button is my friend.
Of course, now the threads I read are becoming filled with someone's replies to comments I no longer can see.

[clear eye]

63. Same here. For instance almost all the attacks on the OP of this thread

are missing but I can read the defenders. I kind of like it this way.

[eleny]

56. K&R

[PatrynXX]

60. contempt?

well I do have contempt Obama is supporting the Patriot Act. Which is about as unamerican as one can get.

Hopefully on skinner's opinion it's a case by case bases.

like oi .... the kkk is better than Obama.... that probably won't do.


I could compare this to .... whether to say the n word vs actually saying ni**er. it's the same insult.

like calling Obama a Muslim, what they really mean is he's a ni**er.

Frankly just typing it out as Ni**er is better than saying it's the N word. Even better is just saying a racial epitaph or slur. But even the left insist on saying it's the N word. No that's Not Nice.Nowhere Nor me could Not say that.

(and unfortunately I didn't have a happy thanksgiving because my extreme right wingnut dad started things off by ripping a beagle picture down that had been there all year (in the middle of the dinner) which led to this morning him calling me an Atheist. So if your an atheist and someone simply throws that name as an insult how do you feel? :( ) I'm stuck in the middle of a severe depression, I don't think I needed that sort of statement..... Maybe some cheering up... but really don't have that right now. Clearly the church he's going to isn't quite the right one. I don't think Jesus would have approved of Churches really.

[Bette Noir]

68. Sorry the holiday was bad for you.

I hope you feel better, soon.

[mistertrickster]

61. Nothing fascinates the Fighting 181st Keyboard Brigade like posting about THEMSELVES. nt

[MissDeeds]

62. K&R

Personal attacks and name calling have been way over the top. We should be able to discuss and disagree in a civil manner.

[ecstatic]

65. How does that fit in with your endless posts about class

or what you think the class level is of Obama supporters? :shrug:

[glitch]

67. Well done! Good reminder which I needed. K & R nt

[billh58]

70. K&R!

I totally agree, and thanks for pointing out the difference between debate and flaming. The former is the adult way of discussing a disputed topic, and the latter is for school children who don't know any better.

[liberal N proud]

71. That said, lets remember one thing...

The right is continually bashing the President. Every move he makes is ridiculed and attacked. So with every attack from the right coupled with the dismay the left shows for Obama, we are setting up the GOP to retake Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012.

So remember as you express your opinion, it is done with the probability that it will aid and abet the enemy.

You think Palin has no chance in 2012, keep knocking down the only hope we have and she will be right there sooner than you think.


But that is just my opinion and I have the right to express it.

[Political Heretic]

81. I really don't care about political elections.

I care about whether or not our leaders will prioritize the needs of the poor and working class before the wants and whims of the financial elite.

If they won't, then it doesn't matter really who gets elected - no one unwilling to do that will prevent the eventual economic collapse of our country under the weight of its own ridiculous excess.

If Palin wins in 2012, the only one to blame will be Obama. The problem isn't legitimate criticism - the problem is the issues being criticized; those are what threaten reelection.

And as far as I'm concerned, its just as bad if not worse to re-elect an administration that is unwilling to put the needs of ordinary Americans before the wants and whims of the elite. What ever "colossal bad" a more honest pawn of the elite (such as palin) might have, is really muted by the reality of the bad done by anyone unwilling to make the prioritization I just described.

[johnaries]

73. I have no problem with objective and/or constructive criticism

or even expressions of dismay.

HOWEVER the vast majority of criticism of Obama I have personally encountered on DU has been far from objective and has crossed the line into out-and-out bashing.

Worse, much of the bashing is based on misinformation, or at the very least "cherry-picked" pieces of information. And, as is mentioned upthread, a large portion of the bashing seems to reflect Republican talking points - which is against DU Rules.

I would love to engage in some intelligent criticism of Obama's policies, but that has become impossible in the current atmosphere at DU. I am not pleased with some of his policies and I disagree with the way he has implemented some of the policies I agree with. However, I think overall he has done an excellent job in the relatively short time he has been in office.

edit to add: As for what the rules do or do not say - remember, "just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD!"

[LiberalLovinLug]

75. This kind of discussion could only happen on a "librul" site

Be thankful for at least that.

Can you even imagine a freeper site where every other day there is a long and anguished thread about how far they should be allowed to go in criticizing Rush, or Hannity, or Beck? (The leaders of the GOP)

I find these types of threads kind of amusing, but somewhat distracting.

IMO, the vast majority here believe the same. Basically that they support the Democratic choice no matter who it is, because its the best choice we have. And once we get that choice in office, we should have the right to criticize any policies put forth, just as we have the right to do that under a Republican administration.

Only a tiny fraction believe Obama is Ramses III and can do no wrong.
Only a tiny fraction believe Obama is Bush III and a totally corrupt corporate whore

These ouroboros threads are boring me.

[Cha]

77. Yeah, nobody's questioning your right to exist.

Just make sure these parts of the rules are followed too.

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

"But insults, name-calling, or other expressions of contempt toward Barack Obama or his supporters are not welcome."

[Political Heretic]

80. Yeah, pretty sure I went to great lengths to cover that in my OP.

Thanks

[Cha]

82. Covering it again..I think it's worth repeating.

[Political Heretic]

83. Well in that case, I agree with you - it is worth repeating.

[davidwparker]

78. K&R

Good post. Here's to holding Obama to his campaign promises. :toast:

Running his campaign promises against his 4 years in office will determine whether I vote for him in 2012 or if I write in a Democrat like Dean, Whitehouse, or Dennis.

[waiting for hope]

91. Nicely done PH - and a K&R n/t

[Lindsey]

93. I've been very frustrated with the Obama bashing...

I'm glad that the Obama supporters group has resurfaced. That's where I'll be spending my time.

[Supply Side Jesus]

95. But....

Insulting, name calling, derogatory statements of a person's profession is permitted.

[Political Heretic]

96. Reference, please?

What are you talking about?

[gleaner]

97. Thanks for the post .....

I have been writing that I disagree with Obama's policies and that I don't think he is keeping the promises he made when he was campaigning, all over DU. Many people don't want to hear it at all. They don't want to block it, or not read the posts, they don't want to have it written. I have no personal animus against Obama. I supported his election, and I had hope that he would do more for us than he has. I have simply become convinced that he will not and I feel betrayed, frustrated and more than a little bewildered, because I don't understand why he is not doing more for us. I also don't understand how or why anything is going to change for the worse if I write this.

In a Democracy, the leader is supposed to be able to hear all shades of opinion, not just agreement. You can oppose the leader's actions without shattering the whole fabric of government, in fact diversity is healthy for governments. And the people who live under governments are supposed to give feedback, or what is the point.

Anyhow, to end, I tried to rec the post but it told me it was more than 24 hours and I couldn't, so I wrote this reply to kick it again. I am so tired of reposting the things that you wrote (minus Skinner's quotes because I am relatively new here and didn't know about them) and the things that I have been writing, that I keep telling all and sundry that I will prepare a Robo post with all of my concerns and just keep posting that. I have blisters on my fingers from typing essentially the same things all the time.

[Political Heretic]

98. Thanks, and well said. Also -

You could always put skinners quote in your signature line, so its there for every post. :)

[gleaner]

100. Thanks ....

If I ever get around to that Robo Post, I just might.