Cogent discussion of political issues, in solidarity.

[Robb]

Yo. :hi:

Took some time away to think it over, first real "break" from my beloved DU in 9 years, and it's rather sharpened my focus. I joined Democratic Underground in 2001, not just because I was angry about Bush, but because I support Democrats. That's the idea.

Progressives who don't happen to be Democrats, but who want to work with the Democratic Party have always been especially awesome in my book. Free thinkers who don't want to sign the dotted line, but "get it." Awesome. There are always problems in the party that can best be solved by increasing the diversity of opinion.

But. I'm not going to let myself get slowly scooted out the door at DU because I believe in the original mission here.

• I'm not getting bullied out of DU for the blasphemy of supporting Democrats in Congress, or a Democratic President, or Democratic candidates or the goddamn Democratic platform and policies.

• I'm not getting bullied out of DU for refusing to assume the light at the end of the Reagan/Bush tunnel is an oncoming train.

• And I'm not getting bullied out of DU by a minority pack of supercilious fools who sit around all day posting every goddamn negative nontroversy about Democrats they can get their hands on.

You don't like the color of the carpet, you can leave. Looks like some of you have, many with the help of the big hook. Good. Everyone will be happier about it, in the long run.

Lately I've seen a lot of folks talk about "DU back when it began." My favorite part is how most really have no idea, because they weren't here. You know what you'd miss most today if you had been here in 2001? The same thing I do. Cogent discussion of political issues, in solidarity. See if you can find that on DU today. Good luck. It appears today to be about scoring points. (Notably, those points can't be traded in for Democratic victories. Which makes them worthless, by the by. Because that happens to be what it's all about.)

As a meme-encrusted DU old fart, there's just a handful of you out there left I don't consider "new to DU." That doesn't make your opinions automatically any less valid, or make you a GOP mole, or any of that crap. You're just "new." Like many of you are clearly "new" to politics. Hell, a lot of you are "new" to the planet, from where I'm sitting. Welcome. That newness gets you lots of rope, so go ahead and use all you need.

You want to post stupid stuff, post stupid stuff. There's no rules against stupid. You want to dance around the edge of the rules, fine. Whatever floats your boat.

But consider this:

- If you spend most of your thread thread kicking it yourself and complaining about how some evil force is unreccing your post, and refusing to give your opinion the recognition it deserves?

It ain't DU, baby, it's you.

- If you spend a lot of time pointing out that if you said what you really think, you'd get banned?

It ain't DU, baby, it's you.

The internets are a big series of tubes, there's a spot for you somewhere -- even if your particular pathology is trying to piss good people off for no reason. Go sit under a tree and discuss amongst yourselves about how it's the rest of the country, not your calamity clique, that's screwed up.

I'm not calling for lockstep agreement on all points at DU. Hell, no. Accusing me of such is a weak argument to justify unreasonable and destructive talking-point jingoism masquerading as reasonable criticism. As I mentioned, we're Democrats, most of us. I'd be worried if we didn't argue. We always have here, from Day One. But the understanding has been we come together, if nowhere else, on a single uncomplicated point: supporting the Democrats.

Cogent discussion of political issues, in solidarity. That felt so good to write, I did it again.

There are more than 72 million Democrats registered in these United States. You want to work against any of them and you draw my ire. Because it ain't about you, it ain't about me, it's about them.

I will never forget the night we won, after 8 years of darkness we old-timers DUed through. And it was so dark in the beginning. I never want to go back there, ever. You'd be amazed what I'll do to prevent it, too. But. We. Won. Democrats. From sheer goddamn work. GOTV. Phone banks. Door-to-door. Fucking bakesales. Unprecedented.

You want to work for real change? You want to work with Democrats for change? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6676499">Hold their feet to the fire? Cool. You want to move the party in a particular direction? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all=389x6855602">Awesome. There are real issues within the party, lots of ways we can do better. Lots.

But you want to nip at any heel you can, because of a loose wire in your head or some misguided sense of "let everything fail and we'll build a utopia together"? You want to gnash your teeth and claim you'll never vote for another Democrat as long as you live? You just want to hurl insults, name call, jingo your way into getting attention from your fellow dittoheads? You want to write post after post after post with the single goal of denigrating Democrats? You want to kvetch about how you're going to stay home next time because all the Democrats are the same as Republicans?

Fine. Start now. Quit posting. Save yourself the headache.

If you're not into cogent discussion of political issues, in solidarity, the problem ain't DU, baby, it's you.

...Now let's go get those GOP bastards.

-R

[babylonsister]

1. Whoa, that needed to be said, and you said it so well! Thanks! nt

[yowzayowzayowza]

12. 2nd that.

Thx Robb.

:bounce:

[AtomicKitten]

20. +1

[olegramps]

220. Okay. Let's have a "Cogent Discussion." Is the Obama administration representing labor's concerns?

[Robb]

226. Thank you. nt

[hlthe2b]

2. Now that's not coming from any "dingbat...."

Welcome back, Robb... :toast:

[Robb]

227. Thank you.

It is, however, coming from a dingbat. It always does. :)

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Jennicut]

4. Sometimes offering an opinion gets you labeled...as something.

I don't get it, we are all Dems or liberals/progressives here. Many have the same goal. Sometimes we have different approaches to that goal. I think that is something we can all forget.

[boston bean]

18. Jennicut, sometimes a principle is more important than being part of the team

This is not just a disagreement of how to reach a goal.

There are some on this board who are willing to support the opposite of a principle they say they support.

It is glaringly hypocritical.

It's hard to get past, it's hard to understand.

[Jennicut]

22. I said many have the same goals. Not all.

I am willing to criticize Obama when he needs to be criticized, like on Afghanistan or letting a WH official put down labor. Anyone who cannot take simple criticism of the President does not belong on DU. People who can't handle simple praise or fighting for Dems, really don't seem to enjoy DU either.

[boston bean]

23. Don't get so mad,

I was trying to have a cogent discussion with you.

If I were to say Obama sucks because he expanded offshore drilling would that relegate me to the can't handle simple praise or fight for dems camp?

Factually, Obama does suck on a good many issues. Hard to find much to be praiseworthy about. Lilly Ledbetter Act, so so, it was a compromise on the Equal Pay Act. It does not provide equal pay for women, only gives them the right to sue if they happen to find out that they were getting less than men.

I do praise him for allowing the caskets to be photographed. For stem cells research, yeah.

But on big issues he has really dropped the ball. How do you expect someone to find something to praise when it feels like their entire ideology is under attack?

If someone believes in less war, labor, women's rights, lgbt rights, what is there to praise?

Someone could say and always does, give him more time. Well, when is enough enough? How much time?

[Jennicut]

43. I didn't say you had to praise him.

I was talking about the kind of infighting here where there is accusations of what people's motives are for both praising and criticizing Obama. I think DUers spend more time attacking each other then anything else. I don't like call outs in general and don't totally agree with this OP. But, it is just a message board. DU is great, I come here all the time. But we can evaluate it now and then.

[boston bean]

51. Do you think this OP is the type of post that will help stop the infighting?

If you don't, then don't agree with the OP in any fashion.

[Jennicut]

64. This is how I feel....

DU is Democratic Underground, there is nothing wrong with supporting Dems when you as a person feel you want to. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with criticizing them either. I think there are a few people who don't know how to balance that on DU. All this back and forth stuff is kind of nonsense, isn't it? We are never going to get purely moderate or just progressive Dems to totally agree on everything. That might be the biggest problem on DU. All Dems are welcome, hence the disagreements and the calling outs. I guess it is only natural on board like this. One main thing we all have to remember is this is a place for discussion and to not take it all so personally.

[freddie mertz]

85. What you say here is wonderful Jennicut, and true to your actions on DU.

But the OP is clearly trying to provoke a fire-fight, and doing so right after we were all told to "F-off" by the "anonymous WH official" and less brutally by Mr. Gibbs.

It is a vulnerable time, and this person is trying to exploit and deepen our divisions.

I have enjoyed your posts here, really, and many posts by others in the so-called "Obama camp".

But I am sincerely troubled by the way it has gone down here today....

[Jennicut]

89. Thanks. Sometimes we do go too far with each other.

It is something we need to learn, I think. Our own boundaries.

[freddie mertz]

93. Agreed. And thanks!

I've been trying to be more thoughtful myself.

Not in a phony way, of course.

I hope!

[Bryn]

183. I owe you an apology

for my posts to you the other day. :hug: I was fuming about Lincoln winning in the runoff here in Arkansas.

p.s. I'm a cat lover, too

[Blue-Jay]

105. Begs the question: What have YOU done to stop the infighting?

Anything?

[freddie mertz]

106. We all could do more.

An equal playing field would be a good place to start.

This thread tells me we are not even close to that here.

[Blue-Jay]

107. Agreed, Agreed, & Agreed (with a caveat)

Your third point - I assume by "thread", you're referring to the entire thread, not just the OP.

The "us vs. them" mentality that is getting ready to boil over is troubling. It's gotten to the point that any real dialog is becoming impossible. Now, I'm sure each "camp" is ready to lay the blame for this situation at the feet of the "others" (Not us! They started it!).

I'll tell you one thing for sure. I can see the ban-hammer descending on both sides if the rhetoric doesn't get toned down a bit.

[freddie mertz]

108. Yes. I meant the thread. Not all of it of course.

There is some thoughtful stuff here from both "sides," but also too much flame-throwing and snark.

I also have issues with how the whole thing has "played out," but I can't go into detail about that.

[spoony]

153. Like the label, "pack of supercilious fools"? nt

[Robb]

228. I think you're mostly correct.

I don't, however, believe much of the criticism "from the left" here is sincere. It's too stereotypical.

But that's just a guess. Regardless, it's not helpful to Democrats, and that's the issue here.

[Richardo]

5. Well done, Robb

Kudos! :applause: :patriot:

:kick: and :rec:

[Robb]

229. Thank you. nt

[Laelth]

6. Solidarity was easy when the Republicans were in charge.

It's not easy at all when the Democratic Party controls the executive and legislative branches of government. I believe in and support a liberal Democratic Party. The Democratic Party I see now, while more liberal than the Republican Party, is disappointing (to put it mildly), and I am compelled on principle to resist its corporate and conservative impulses.

Thus, my sig line. As such, you will see no "solidarity" here until Democrats consistently act like Democrats (or until the Democratic Party no longer has the power to do anything, in which case we will be united again).

:dem:

-Laelth

[Lerkfish]

7. If I could recommend a single post, I would this one.

well stated.

[yowzayowzayowza]

14. No "solidarity" til we're yer kinda Democrat.

Got it.

:hi:

[Laelth]

24. I hear you, and I recognize that the Party is a big tent.

But your analysis is, essentially, correct. If the R's are in power, there will be solidarity among us. If we're in power, it appears that there will be no solidarity because we can not agree on the Party's direction.

Those do seem to be our only options. If there's another alternative besides "liberals just STFU," then I don't see it and would appreciate enlightenment.

:dem:

-Laelth

[yowzayowzayowza]

32. A Democrat of convenience, I guess? n/t

[treestar]

38. When the Rs are in, they do not luxuriate in this

The ones on the far, far, right at least know how to put it aside and not cry about being told to STFU. They know it's the direction that matters. That's why they have prevailed so much over the past 30 years. And how they might get back into power. We don't have the luxury of being "disappointed." That's just a reality. If we don't get over it, we will end up with Rs in power again, taking things backwards again. I just do not understand DUers who do not get this and think we have the luxury of holding even the Blue Dogs' feet to the fire. The only way I can explain it is that the "protect" themselves from the reality of the number of right wingers by filtering out all opposing opinions, thus they think 48% of the population does not exist and that they can afford to fight with centrists.

[boston bean]

48. Oh really, why did the looney right stayed home in 2008?

They didn't like McCain!

[treestar]

55. 48% of them voted for him, right?

that's not all of them staying home. The looney 33% were right there to vote for him! Saying he is not conservative enough, no less, but they stood behind him and Palin, of course. Because they know they don't have the luxury of demanding every single thing they want NOW with all them libruls out there.

They have more common sense, and I have to grudgingly give them that.

[boston bean]

57. That is not true, many of them stayed home. I will go look it up for you.

Those people do not vote party first. They vote principle.

[treestar]

61. You'd have to. Every one of them I know went and voted for McPalin

and never insulted them and made excuses for every negative factor about Palin.

[boston bean]

69. I know that the evangelical voting decreased in 2008.

I can't get my fingers on it right now, but many stayed home.

I'll keep trying.

[Laelth]

53. Perhaps. But their leadership doesn't insult them regularly.

And they don't STFU, either. They keep blovating.

:dem:

-Laelth

[treestar]

56. They do not insult McCain or whoever

constantly, and attack him for "betraying" them. they know the risk of the goddamed Libruls winning. They aren't unrealistic there, and I have to give them that.

[Laelth]

62. You're right about that. They are much better at applying Reagan's 11th Commandment.

For better or for worse, we have more diversity of opinion and we value diverse opinions (or, most of us do, I think). Thus, as I said to the OP, it is unlikely that there will be solidarity among us unless and until the Republicans return to power.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Jakes Progress]

264. There's the key. We are being asked to be

more like the republicans. To ignore our principles for the greater good which is beating the other guy. Makes no difference what that winning will get you, just so you win.

[TheKentuckian]

84. Direction IS the issue. We don't think the corporate Democrats are going to slowly

but that they are just going more slowly than the TeaPubliKlans toward the Reich.

The country can't take Republican policies even if someone with a (D) next to their name executes them.

Working for the economic Royalists is just plain not going to fly, if you believe in Reaganomics their is a Republican party eager for voters as their's are getting long in the tooth.

[Robb]

230. That's a reasonable position to take.

I don't think anyone who genuinely feels that way is the target of my OP, and certainly not with the thoughtfulness you've shown in this thread.

I do wish, however, we didn't simply have to have a siege mentality before we work together.

[newthinking]

8. Solidarity does not = "my way or the highway"

Post like this are as disruptive as the negative ones that you want to fight. DU is an opinion forum. As such it is going to have a wide variety of opinions. Some people forget that and see it as more of a place to enforce message discipline. That is by far the divisive factor at DU.

At least that is they way it looks from my time reading this board.

[Mithreal]

63. +1 Well said, succinct and right on.

[Laelth]

70. Hear, hear!

This is not a forum for the enforcement of Party message discipline.

Well said.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Robb]

231. You're partially correct.

DU is an opinion forum, but it is an opinion forum to support Democrats.

I believe my OP made it quite clear, all opinion is welcome -- but advocating against Democrats is not. It's not a matter of "message discipline," it's a matter of Democrats not wanting to make a place welcoming for people working against Democrats.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Blue-Jay]

11. A thread which will be met with much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[Robb]

232. Prescient, and astute. nt

[boston bean]

13. I would love to have a "Cogent discussion of political issues, in solidarity"

but whenever I bring something up, people take it as a personal offense against them and the POTUS.

The usual response is, what do you want a pony?

What you want obama to swim to the bottom of the ocean and plug the hole himself?

Gets sort of difficult to have a cogent discussion when that's the first thing out of one's mouth.

As a matter of fact you have just about said those things in your OP.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Robb]

233. Not at all.

If you feel you fall into the categories I've mentioned, you're not characterizing your contributions here honestly. And you're certainly not representing what I've said in the OP accurately.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Prism]

17. "I love the masses, but I can't stand people."

This OP reminded me of that phrase. A nebulous, romantic attachment to amorphous designated groups while simultaneously exhibiting a strange intolerance when encountered with specific examples of them. It reminds me of people who, when asked, will vigorously state they are pro equality, but when faced with an LGBT individual critical of the administration, they sharpen their claws and immediately go on the attack against the gay community.

"I love gay people! Just not you. Or the sentiments you represent. Or your community's general behavior. But I love gay people!" Yeah, I know.

So it is with liberals, progressives, and Democrats with this OP. "I love Democrats and liberals! Except when they start actually believing in their own principles. Then I can't stand them! But I love progressives!" Yeah, I know. The general, non-specific, never critical Democrats that exist only in a large, conceptual group within descriptive rhetorical passages.

Those people are pretty easy to love, it requires no effort, and best of all, no one has to examine their own ideology when addressing them.

I also don't understand the recent march of the martyr brigades. Lots of liberal critics of the administration have gone out the door, voluntarily or not, and yet with each prominent exit of a critic of the administration, the bleating only grows louder and wilder about bullies and DU going down the tubes, and I will not go gently into that good cyberspace!

What on earth . . . so what people claim they want to happen is happening with the TSing and exits of liberal critics, and yet, in so many of their minds, things are just worse than ever! I mean, there's no pleasing some people, and then there's a willful inability to ever be happy until the earth is wreathed in flame. Spot the difference.

Also, this is a massive call-out, a lecture on "how-to-post" which is normally frowned upon, but not here for some reason.

And btw, we're "them". The sooner you understand that, the better you'll get along.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[pecwae]

67. At least this response was left standing.

Excellent!

[chill_wind]

162. As it certainly should be.

It gets right to it. :applause:

[tekisui]

127. This should be its own OP.

Well said. Spot on.

[laughingliberal]

176. Wow! +1000. nt

[Robb]

234. That's a nice speech, but I've said nothing of the sort.

Also, when you say you're "them," which one are you?

From my OP:

- Do you want to nip at any heel you can, because of a loose wire in your head or some misguided sense of "let everything fail and we'll build a utopia together"?

- Do you want to gnash your teeth and claim you'll never vote for another Democrat as long as you live?

- You just want to hurl insults, name call, jingo your way into getting attention from your fellow dittoheads?

- You want to write post after post after post with the single goal of denigrating Democrats?

- You want to kvetch about how you're going to stay home next time because all the Democrats are the same as Republicans?

Please, let me know which one of these you feel you are, and we'll figure out the best way to help you.

[Prism]

274. To condescend effectively, one must actually be in an elevated position

So you can pass on the "help" offer until you're in a place to give it.

From your OP:

There are more than 72 million Democrats registered in these United States. You want to work against any of them and you draw my ire. Because it ain't about you, it ain't about me, it's about them.

Teachers worried about the direction of public education under this administration are them.

Unions wondering if they've a true friend in the White House are them.

LGBTers whose very equality depends on a Democratic President keeping his promises are them.

Environmentalists and all citizens who are counting on this Congress and administration to be good stewards of the earth so that future generations will not face a cataclysm are them.

Working class citizens who have seen their jobs disappear under poor trade agreements, their savings eroded in Wall Street's schemes, and their homes lost thanks to bank deregulation are them.

Citizens who are sick or dying and who need health care and not just health insurance are them.

Mine was not a pretty "speech" but a direct rebuttal to your untestable assertion. You claim to feel empathy and solidarity with them. And yet, when discontent, disagreement, or frustration from them arises in the form of ventings or posts you dislike, you suddenly find their voices without merit or deserving of sympathy, much less this vaunted solidarity you are claiming in your OP. As I said, you like the idea of Democrats, but when faced with individual Democrats with their own ideas and strong beliefs, your convictions fail and stated solidarity withers in the need and desire to protect the concept of Party instead of the individual people who encompass it.

You may not like the tone here - I certainly don't. But the people you claim to love, the people you claim you're interested in, this "them" you have in your head are those people. Their discontent is born of frustration, hurt, and grief. They want and need help from a government that has allowed to many issues to spin wildly out of control.

You can either stand with them, assuage their hurt, express your solidarity, or you can purse your lips and peer down your nose like the most tedious of school marms, and explain to them why you didn't really mean any of what you said; that you were just making conversation; that these people who the Democratic Party champions should actually watch their mouths lest they rain on the glossy, gilded parade of power and harsh the mellow that comes with the satisfaction that my team is winning, the actual people affected be damned.

That's what your OP meant to say, but you wanted a gauzy, paternalistic "I love Democrats and liberals!" as your cover fire. Well, no, you must not. Because when faced with actual ones, rather than the conceptual ones in your head, you don't seem to get on well, and you really don't seem to like what any of them have to say.

Maybe you should have the courage of your expressed convictions and serve them rather than expending so much effort trying to make sure they STFU so the Party doesn't suffer. It's not all about the party, you know.

[Robb]

276. What you've done is answer the question you were prepared for, but not the one asked.

Long and indignant, as well. Claiming to be the "real" voice of the people. Well done.

...But it's still a dodge. And I ain't Katie Couric. :hi:

[Prism]

278. Yours is a failure of categorization

You categorize discontent into various posting styles then wrap it all up in "tearing down the Democratic Party."

It's a neat trick, but a transparent one. It's a trick you figure allows you to wiggle out of having to now back up what you are so palpably unable.

And it's interesting. You see a house on fire, and while ostensibly explaining how to put it out, you're running around with gasoline and a pump.

Funny way of putting it out, I should think.

[Robb]

279. Ah, the magician's feint. Sorry, not falling for it.

You want everyone to look at the pretty lady on stage, but I've got my eyes on your hands, to see where the doves really go.

In other words, you're still not answering the question -- which, in its way, answers it. I'll try again: why are you defending posters on DU who work against Democrats?

Or, a better question: if you hate DU so much, why stick around? :D

[Prism]

280. Your categorization is invalid.

People who don't post in the way you like with opinions you prefer = working against Democrats in your mind.

I reject your categorization and its boorish attempt to silence discussion.

Of the two of us, I think it was you who claimed he was leaving. Not that anyone seemed to notice or care at the time.

[Robb]

283. That's three tries now. Next you'll try to hurt my feelings?

..."Boorish?" :rofl: Keep digging, college. :hi:

[Prism]

286. A'right, you're trying too hard

Excessive smilies always give it away.

June is too nice a month to spend lots of time hanging about a trashcan fire. Enjoy the rest of the alley you've created.

[Robb]

287. Does that mean you're leaving?

I can so rarely decipher these imagery things. Don't answer if I'm right, no time like the present, eh? Daylight's burning. :hi:

[Prism]

289. Zomg, no! I get the last word!

You no can has.

[Name removed]

297. Deleted message

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

[Robb]

300. I'm not certain.

I get them mixed up, I'll have to do some reading before I agree with you.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Eyerish]

25. If you were really looking for solidarity...

you wouldn’t be telling people you disagree with to “quit posting”
That makes it sound like you just want one opinion/point of view to be heard or seen. That’s doesn’t seem very democratic to me.

“I will never forget the night we won, after 8 years of darkness we old-timers DUed through. And it was so dark in the beginning. I never want to go back there, ever. You'd be amazed what I'll do to prevent it, too. But. We. Won. Democrats. From sheer goddamn work. GOTV. Phone banks. Door-to-door. Fucking bakesales. Unprecedented.”

Yes I remember that night and even though I'm not an old timer around here I had the same feeling. For that one night we were all truly united. But it’s hard to hold on to that feeling when the groups that supported him begin to be insulted, ignored or mocked. Who do you think the majority of Door knockers, phone bankers, and GOTV teams were??? The same people this administration and some on this site continue to belittle. So much for solidarity.

[boston bean]

26. please make this part of your post an op:

"Yes I remember that night and even though I'm not an old timer around here I had the same feeling. For that one night we were all truly united. But it’s hard to hold on to that feeling when the groups that supported him begin to be insulted, ignored or mocked. Who do you think the majority of Door knockers, phone bankers, and GOTV teams were??? The same people this administration and some on this site continue to belittle. So much for solidarity."

let's see what happens....

and maybe add to it, And if someone doesn't agree with this please just leave, cause DU aint for you.

[treestar]

40. It is not being insulted, ignored or mocked to say you have to be

practical.

The President could not do what the far left wants and survive politically.

this country has 48% willing to vote for fuckin' Sarah Palin.

I cannot believe the far left can think we have the luxury of acting like we get everything we want right fuckin' now!

It is not be ignored or mocked. It is recognizing reality that we have to move incrementally or we risk getting back to moving backwards under Republicans.

Geez, why is that so hard to see? You'd have to be blind to think the left has that much power. Especially since they luxuriate in standing on a high horse at the slightest disagreement.

[freddie mertz]

42. What YOU wrote is not insulting or mockery at all.

The OP is another matter altogether.

[boston bean]

45. This is where there is i want to pull my hair out.

Is Good ole Sarah practicing incrementalism?

Do you really think the country wasn't longing for something different after 8 long years of Bush?

They way he treaded ever so lightly and the capitulation bipartisanship is what causes her a force to be reckoned with.

If Obama had a populist agenda (not just message) the country would be flocking to him.

[treestar]

59. This is a country where isn't it something like 33% would STILL vote

for Palin, even after she quit?

48% is a lot of people. The soft middle can flip easily.

Voters would not flock to a progressive, much as I might like that to be so, I have to face that it is not so.

There are idiots out there who spout Rush Limbaugh's garbage and believe it. They are not going to vote for a progressive. They call Obama a communist!

The also have disproportionate power due to being spread out in the red states - they have disproportionate power in the Senate.

We have way more work to do than would be the case if we could have the luxury of trashing Obama, even if you call him a centrist.

[Eyerish]

74. If you don't think the actions of the administration...

regarding the LGBT community and the labor community aren't insulting of mocking than I just don't know what to say to you.

I cannot believe the far left can think we have the luxury of acting like we get everything we want right fuckin' now!
You forgot to mention my lack of pony....

I understand things take time to reverse, but as I've seen written on this website many times, it is the DIRECTIONS & ACTIONS this admin has taken in the past 18 months that lead many people who worked for him to believe that he isn't going to keep to the promises he made.

What I don't get is how blind some people are that think the admin we have now is going to do the right things without a little bit of pressure. It's not about doing what the "far left" wants, it's about doing the right thing for the american people...all of us.

[freddie mertz]

47. [phone].

I remember that night too, and big effort we made to keep PA blue, and TURN our county blue, that night.

Things have not worked out so well since, that seems to be clear.

The OP and others seem to think it is a simple matter of blaming the critics, of blaming the messengers for pointing out inconvenient truths.

And they are also apparently willing to do so in the most insulting and divisive manner possible.

It's tragic, really.

[mitchtv]

217. I remember it too

Gays stabbed in the back by Dems. in calif . No celebration at this house. Farm chickens were given rights, minors rights to abortion protected, but a chance to shit on Gay Americans how could the Dems pass it up?

[Robb]

235. Again, it's not a matter of disagreement, but rather disruption.

First, please let me know which of these groups you self-identify with:

But you want to nip at any heel you can, because of a loose wire in your head or some misguided sense of "let everything fail and we'll build a utopia together"? You want to gnash your teeth and claim you'll never vote for another Democrat as long as you live? You just want to hurl insults, name call, jingo your way into getting attention from your fellow dittoheads? You want to write post after post after post with the single goal of denigrating Democrats? You want to kvetch about how you're going to stay home next time because all the Democrats are the same as Republicans?

Second, please let me know how, exactly, with an 81% approval among Democrats, that other 19% did all the campaigning for him? Nonsense.

[Drops_not_Dope]

27. But. We. Won. Democrats.

but, it feels. like. we. lost. You forgot that part so I thought I'd add it for you instead of calling you out on your mistake. :hi:

[Robb]

242. Not to all of us, clearly. nt

[freddie mertz]

28. Since you brought it up, could you describe this "minority pack of supercilious fools"...

..."who sit around all day posting every goddamn negative nontroversy about Democrats they can get their hands on" in more detail?

WHO are the members of this group?

Got names?

Do they include the authors and respondents to the threads currently on the greatest page (which are certainly critical of the current drift of the party)?

You also say a lot about bullying.

Could you give an example of the bullying you feel you have been subjected to?

Who are the DUers you claim are doing this bullying?

Then you call out anyone "working against any one" of the Democrats anywhere in the nation.

Does that include working for ANY Democrat's primary opponents, like Halter or Sestak?

I worked for SESTAK "against" the so-called "Democrat", Arlen Specter. Does that make me a target of your "ire"?

You go on to recommend that these unnamed "bullies" and "supercilious fools" should go elsewhere and STOP POSTING at DU.

Am I a member of this "supercilious minority" who you believe should STOP POSTING, because I supported Sestak in my own state, and Halter in another one, AGAINST another Democrat?

Or because I have expressed serious disagreements with the current policy direction of the White House?

It is not clear how anything resembling a broad coalition or "solidarity" can come out of what must, by any definition, be characterized as an appallingly divisive and unhelpful post.

I think you should be ashamed of it.

[freddie mertz]

31. PS. I don't expect an answer.

But I had to ask.

[JTFrog]

102. Because answering is against the rules and as such would just be deleted.

But then you already knew this.

[freddie mertz]

133. Actually, I don't (after today). nt.

[Raineyb]

330. Hard to answer truthfully when one is making shit up anyway so it's just as well

that the rules are used to hide behind as the OP couldn't answer that question anyway.

Bullying because one supports the president? What a painfully obvious load of bull.

[Drops_not_Dope]

33. +1

[Bobbie Jo]

92. It would appear you've answered your own questions.

[freddie mertz]

95. Howzat?

:eyes:

[Bobbie Jo]

96. Do I really have to use this prop again?

Your sense of irony is more impaired than I originally thought.


Oh, and...:eyes: indeed.

[freddie mertz]

97. OH, I thought you might have something useful to offer.

Forgot about the mirror.

and the useless snark.

I can make it go away, however, like magic.

Thanks for reminding me though


On edit: Pest removal worked.

Bye Bobbie Jo.

:nuke:

[Bobbie Jo]

104. Yes, that's probably best.

...but as long as I'm on a roll.



That echo chamber gets a little smaller every day, no? But hey, at least it's comfy and shady.

[donco6]

115. It was pretty dumb the first time you used it.

But if you must. :eyes:

[freddie mertz]

118. "Ignored" seems to be a bit of a one-trick pony.

Don't miss it at all.

[donco6]

120. Definitely not worth the click. n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

149. If you're going to ignore, ignore.

I didn't think you could do it. :rofl:

[Bobbie Jo]

150. This shoe fits more than one size.

I don't recall talking to you.

[spoony]

154. Shouldn't you be furiously hitting the alert button somewhere? nt

[Bobbie Jo]

170. Shouldn't you be pissing on a thread somewhere?

Oh wait.

[Cha]

178. ..

:rofl::)

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[Robb]

236. I described them quite explicitly.

As I said above, if you self-identify with one or more of the groups I'm talking about, the problem lies with you, not DU.

[Peacetrain]

29. Hi Robb!!

I hope people read your entire op in context and not pick it apart to either Cheer my side.. Or Jeer your side.

:hi:

[boston bean]

30. If you don't like the jeering, just leave DU, no biggie really, it might just not be for you.

[Peacetrain]

34. I like jeering sometimes,, but I like to look at things in complete context

All of us are guilty of this, myself as well.. in not reading an op in complete context. A persons thought processes as they type lead them from one statement to another to give a complete idea of what they are trying to say.

If you just pick and choose from a long op without looking at it completely..no one is ever going to be able to say anything.

I find myself now posting much much shorter ops than I would like to just to avoid that.

[boston bean]

35. Well then, I guess you can stay, you're alright by me, but you might

have to worry about Robb. He thinks he gets to dictate what's right and wrong and what's good and bad about DU. Maybe he does, because his post still stands. Usually threads like that get locked pronto.

His whole entire post was kicking liberals in the jimmies.

[freddie mertz]

41. Jimmies! That's one I haven't encountered before.

I assume it means, you know...

[yowzayowzayowza]

46. This lifelong liberal doesn't feel 'kicked in the jimmies" by the OP. n/t

[boston bean]

49. Bully for you! ;-)

I meant a liberal who fights based on principle, which is what I assume Robb was referring to as well.

[yowzayowzayowza]

50. Thanks!!!

:hi:

[Flying Dream Blues]

73. I'm a liberal but I don't feel kicked in the jimmies. nt

[boston bean]

75. You weren't the kind of liberal Robb was talking about..... nt

[Flying Dream Blues]

81. And how would you know that? Just curious...nt

[boston bean]

82. If you don't feel he was speaking of you, then you are not the type of liberal or

supercilious fool he was speaking of.

Make sense?

[donco6]

140. I hid my jimmies but good before I started reading.

And it was a really good thing.

[Mithreal]

65. Funny thing about drawing lines in sand.

Is it a Progressive forum, a Big "D" forum or somewhere in between?

Who needs to make it all about sides? Why would they do that?

I can't believe everyone isn't happy.

[Jennicut]

66. I see it as a Big D Forum though DLC types are not really welcome.

More moderates are here then in General Discussion. But I never saw it as purely a board for one type of Dem.

[Mithreal]

71. When "moderates" and DLC types sound so alike

hard to convince others there is a difference.

Some folks refuse to even acknowledge the DLC exists, strange that, but rebranding is effective or people wouldn't do it.

[Jennicut]

72. Not really, there is a difference.

Not every Dem that is not Dennis Kuninich is a DLCer. There are small differences along a political spectrum scale.

[Mithreal]

78. But, of course

[cornermouse]

116. ?

:spray: :rofl:

[Robb]

237. Hi Peacetrain.

...So, how do you think people did?

[treestar]

36. Great post

Rec'd. It is tiresome to be made fun of for supporting Democrats by people who aren't Republicans.

[Robb]

238. Thank you. nt

[boston bean]

37. I'm not getting bullied out of DU by a minority pack of supercilious fools who sit around all day

with their fingers in their ears. They got em lodged so tight in there that if Obama set off a nuclear bomb in Canada, they would bury their heads in the sand about it. Try to find a way to make it look good.

[freddie mertz]

39. I am with you on that one! nt.

[Mithreal]

52. Indeed

[Robb]

239. Again

...If you feel you were targeted in my OP, perhaps you should examine your contributions here, to see if they really fall under what I'm talking about. If so, again, you should consider whether it's the right place for you.

[stevenleser]

299. Agreed, and I think that poster said a lot when he basically compared Obama's actions to

setting off a nuclear bomb in Canada. That's the hallmark of the Obama haters. Hyperbole.

[pecwae]

44. This thread looks like swiss cheese.

[freddie mertz]

58. OP hasn't weighed in since, I notice.

Guess the opener had its intended effect.

[pecwae]

60. You may be on to something ;-)

[freddie mertz]

88. Still not a word from the author of the OP.

Drive-by fire toss.

[QC]

145. Him gone bye bye.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=9385300&mesg_id=9385300

[chill_wind]

160. And yet..... he's still "there". I mean

jake left a very civil and classy 5-sentence goodbye yesterday explaining he'd been asked to turn down the heat in his commentary and he was vaporized before I could even express my surprise or wish him well. The whole short thread wasn't just locked- it was disappeared into the ether.

What's the deal, here?

[freddie mertz]

163. "Different strokes" I guess.

Depending on your politics.

[QC]

167. All animals are equal

but some are more equal than others.

[yowzayowzayowza]

168. Deal is he posted and had deleted...

multiple 'dems/Obama are fascist' garbage and then acted all innocent after being confronted by moderation. I was quite happy to hold the door open for 'em on the way out as I dont come to this site for that kinda shit. I can read that crap anywhere on the net.

[Mithreal]

54. I like solidarity. Who's "denigrating Democrats" with a single goal?

Not like anyone knew there was a split between principled and party first types.

[Robb]

241. If you think working against electing Democrats is "principled,"

...you've got too narrow of a view of the word, IMO. Or perhaps you misread the OP.

[Flying Dream Blues]

68. Beautfully said!

Looks like your post is serving more than one purpose, from all the "name removed" posts...well done. :toast:

Now, how do we keep the conversation on cogent discussion of political issues, in solidarity? I think we have to unite against it, because I for one am sick to death of it. And it DOES feel like bullying, which gets so tiresome.

:hi:

:yourock:

[Robb]

243. Thank you. nt

[depakid]

76. You'll find that to be unpersuasive with members of constituencies

that have been backhanded, backstabbed and gratuitously insulted.

[Robb]

244. Indeed.

However, if these people are as disillusioned as you suggest, they are no longer supportive of Democrats. And, as such, really have little place on a board which is dedicated, at least partially, to doing so.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

77. When students in Chicago in 1968 were beaten by pigs,

er, excuse me, by "police officers," were they in solidarity with the Democratic Party? When McCarthy, Muskie and Bobby Kennedy ran in primaries against LBJ, were they in solidarity with the Democratic Party?

LBJ passed some of the most progressive domestic legislation in American history. Medicare, for example, was a financial asset to my family (it helped my grandparents). Yet because he greatly escalated ground-troop involvement in a third world country, he was challenged politically.

Obama has definitely not passed anything as progressive as LBJ, domestically. His health care "reform" is a financial liability to my family (I am compelled to pay premiums to murdering thieving "health insurance" companies). Obama has greatly escalated ground-troop involvement in a third world country.

So I have two questions:

1) Was Bobby Kennedy wrong to run against LBJ in 1968?

2) Would it be wrong to run in the Democratic primaries against Obama in 2012?

[Blue-Jay]

79. No and No.

I don't think anyone would argue against primaries.

[freddie mertz]

99. Would those protesters have been welcomed here at DU today?

Would RFK?

Would Gene McCarthy?

Shirley Chisolm?

Abbie Hoffman?

The Berrigans?

Dr. Martin Luther King, after he broke with LBJ over the war?

Daniel Ellsberg (who was attacked pretty seriously here today--by a few)?

The answer is clear:

They would be welcomed and celebrated by many.

I would even say, by the majority.

But not by everybody.

[donco6]

126. Deleted Message

You tell me.

[yowzayowzayowza]

194. Abbie Hoffman woulda been served a granite pizza over...

a lack of absolute free speech on DU before the birth of another roach. Past pols like current ones prolly wouldnt wanna have anything to do with DU cuz they're pretty much guaranteed to be treated like shit.

[saracat]

146. Brilliant post! Needs to be an OP. No and No.

But those that think diffently have a sense of "history" that began in 2008. Nothing before that matters to some.

[Robb]

245. Interesting questions.

What they have to do with the OP, I'm not entirely certain. Bobby was a party loyalist to the core, and his primary challenge was entirely within the Democratic apparatus. I don't see how that's the same as what I'm talking about in the OP, specifically "let everything fail and we'll build a utopia together" / you'll never vote for another Democrat as long as you live / hurl insults, name call, jingo your way into getting attention from your fellow dittoheads / post after post after post with the single goal of denigrating Democrats / stay home next time because all the Democrats are the same as Republicans nonsense.

Had Bobby done any of that, we'd have a reasonable discussion here.

[azmouse]

80. You can't turn back the clock, or unspill the milk

and don't tug on Superman's cape or spit into the wind either.

I'm tired of the fighting for control of DU. If the nay-sayers want it, they can have it.
It'll be a Pyrrhic victory for them as they sit around seeing who can hate the most and tear themselves apart.

[freddie mertz]

83. I saw a lot more "hate" and resentment in the OP than I have in any of the responses...

Pro or con.

Until this one.

[Robb]

246. Obviously I disagree.

...And were I a betting man, I'd bet the naysayers won't stick around for long if it's made clear the hate is unwelcome.

[Raineyb]

331. Seems to me that your hate is plenty welcomed.

So I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[freddie mertz]

87. +1000000000000001.

And the OP has still not re-entered the thread.

A sure sign of dump-and-run flamebait.

[yowzayowzayowza]

90. Oh, yea!!! We expect "utter capitulation to the corporate agenda"!

You must kneel before Zod!!!

:eyes:

supercilious

Main Entry: su·per·cil·ious
Pronunciation: \-ˈsi-lē-əs, -ˈsil-yəs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin superciliosus, from supercilium eyebrow, haughtiness, from super- + -cilium eyelid (akin to celare to hide) — more at hell
Date: 1614

: coolly and patronizingly haughty

[freddie mertz]

94. Funny! Your definition makes it seem more attractive than the OP probably intended.

A bit of Oscar Wilde, seasoned with George Sanders as Addison De Witt.

[TheKentuckian]

98. Can't forget the rehashed Republican policies...from their failed ideology

Reagan was wrong. He wasn't close but off target, he was wrong.

So was Poppy. So was Dole. So was Newt.

All wrong, all false, all deceivers, all crooked.

Wrong on civil rights, wrong on civil liberties, wrong on imperialism, wrong about the safety net, wrong on taxes, wrong on deficits, wrong on science, wrong on mental health, wrong on vegetables, wrong on the military, wrong on infrastructure investment, wrong on race,wrong on immigration, wrong on South America, wrong on economics, and you about name it and they are wrong on it.

Every vile and failed policy should be repudiated rather than accepted, tolerated, and certainly never emulated.

[yowzayowzayowza]

103. Being a fistfull of Dem US Senators short of par with FDR/LBJ...

blanket repudiation is not in the offing now, is it?

[CreekDog]

157. Zod was a riot

:rofl:

[pecwae]

121. Damn!

Kentuckians sure don't mince words. :thumbsup:

[donco6]

125. And it's even better when you can see them! n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

91. Kick-Ass post, Robb

K&R :kick:

[Robb]

247. Thank you. nt

[JTFrog]

100. K&f'nR!

Go sit under a tree and discuss amongst yourselves about how it's the rest of the country, not your calamity clique, that's screwed up.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[freddie mertz]

110. What is wrong with a nice shady tree and some friendly conversation on a warm summer day?

[donco6]

113. Is that a glass of wine on that bench there.

It looks so inviting.

[freddie mertz]

117. Yes, it is. Have a great weekend!

[JTFrog]

158. Reminds me of the trees on capitalhill for some reason.

:shrug:

[Robb]

248. Thank you. nt

[Patsy Stone]

101. Who's with me?!? Let's DO IT!!!!!

Excellent post, Robb. From a still new, and always learning, DUer. :)

[Robb]

249. LOL

...Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor??? NO!!!111! :D

[CreekDog]

109. I don't know if my post helped inspire this but mine was more inclusive than yours

because I lamented losing DUers who leave because they can't express their anger that certain liberal principles are not making any progress, and some apparently without attempt.

if DU is somehow less representative of progressive, not just Democratic thought, than it was before, then that makes this board less valuable and it makes certain types of nuanced, enlightening discussion less possible or maybe even impossible.

and the fact that you notice less "cogent" political discussion may be related to that. maybe.

i've been a total team player throughout my whole time at DU, but one thing i'm not going to do is to defend a Democrat who attacks what we stand for, in order to help them win. and nobody here should be required to do that in order to stay --or else you'll be left with only those people willing to either make that sacrifice or be silent about the topic in general.

if what you miss is cogent political discussion, i would love somebody to think about what makes that type of discussion more common and what makes it less common in a place like this.

[Robb]

250. I missed your post

...but judging by your comments in this thread, I'm uncertain if you're characterizing either it, or this OP, accurately.

[Scurrilous]

111. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[arcadian]

119. I'm confused.

Are you leaving DU? You posted something in the Lounge indicating that this thread was your swansong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9385300

[QC]

131. I've never seen a GBCW thread drop as quickly as Robb's did.

Amazing. (Amusing, too.)

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

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

[QC]

142. It really dropped like a rock, didn't it? n/t

[freddie mertz]

152. I guess Robb is getting more attention now. nt.

[Joey Kidd]

159. But,but...

In his OP,Robb clearly says that he "Took some time away to think it over".He was not really leaving his beloved DU forever.He needed a break,you see ? :P

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

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

[Robb]

251. I'm not surprised.

[arcadian]

318. That was neither cogent nor solid.

[NanceGreggs]

122. Hear, hear!!!

Fabulous post!!!

:applause:

[CreekDog]

123. DU love them or leave it

or am i misunderstanding?

[donco6]

124. Not at all. n/t

[freddie mertz]

135. You are not misunderstanding.

It will be a Pyrrhic victory, or so it seems.

[Robb]

252. Thank you. nt

[demtenjeep]

128. well said

it is getting rather tiring to see the constant bitching about Obama!

[donco6]

129. But this isn't an STFU thread.

Don't forget.

[tekisui]

130. .

:rofl:

This thread is self-righteous, condescending tripe. It is an attack on liberal DUers, flame bait and should be locked.

[donco6]

132. Y'think?

And with all the deleted messages, you'd think that would be a message to somebody. But I'm thinking that IS the message.

[tekisui]

134. Yep.

Loud and clear. And, don't think it hasn't been alerted on.

[CreekDog]

156. i expressed a disappointment that a lot of people leave

this OP invites tells a bunch of current members how to get out.

[freddie mertz]

136. [phone].

Someone must really like it.

[Robb]

253. Bitching is fine. I welcome bitching.

It's the disruption intended to undermine support for Democrats I won't tolerate.

[hulka38]

317. Stop acting like you run the place

[tekisui]

321. .

:rofl:

:toast:

[pecwae]

327. Unless it's true.

[Raineyb]

332. Your OP belies your claim.

You can't write a STFU post then claim you welcome bitching. It's way too demonstrably false to pass the sniff test.

[Number23]

137. K&R And serious props to those able to contain themselves and keep their posting

in this thread to less than 3 posts. :) I see that many of the main ones with nothing good (or intelligent or interesting) to say about this President are the "hit dogs hollering" in this thread posting over and over and over again. Good stuff. ;)

[Robb]

254. LOL Thanks.

...although in an attempt to respond to what I can, I've written myself off that list. :D

[Tailormyst]

139. So basically you want people to rsepect your right to your own opinion

and are totally willing to allow people to have different opinions without becoming irate or making snarky comments towards them? Great!!! We are all adults and should be able to discuss without behaving like children towards one another.

[tekisui]

141. You may be an adult, but you are probably still "new".

"You're just "new." Like many of you are clearly "new" to politics. Hell, a lot of you are "new" to the planet, from where I'm sitting. Welcome. That newness gets you lots of rope, so go ahead and use all you need."

I guess that can be just about everyone. Except the stellar and awesome Robb, of course.

[Robb]

255. If that's what you take from it, I'll settle for that.

Not quite where the OP goes, but if that's what you get, I'm down. It's a good message.

[Cha]

143. You said you'd be

back! :D

[Robb]

256. Heh. nt

[CreekDog]

144. Well my message was a lot nicer than this

and inspired fewer flames.

but apparently this discussion is within the rules. )

[donco6]

151. Apparently.

Hmmmm . . .

[chill_wind]

164. Hmmmm

I was going to do one of those IBTL with that popcorn thing you so often see, but after noticing it's noticibly nigh 24 hours, that would almost seem sort of supercillious.

[donco6]

165. Yes, this is here for the duration.

And after it's all over, the wheat will be separated from the chaff. Notice this a.m. the assault on GD: P

[freddie mertz]

174. And other things.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[chill_wind]

196. ..

Link from ealier seems not working-- maybe this one fixes it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x22047

[Political Tiger]

147. Damn right! K n' R! n/t

:toast:

[Robb]

257. Thank you. nt

[Diamonique]

148. Bravo!!

:toast:

[Robb]

258. Thank you. nt

[uncle ray]

155. the juxtaposition of the replies vs. the OP illustrates well the OP's point.

i've been a lurker since day 2 on DU. back then i felt too ignorant to post much. now i feel too smart to waste my time posting.

i recced when there were about a dozen replies and zero recs. i had hoped the newish rec function would work as planned. i guess it did. which says a lot about the current population of this board.

[Bobbie Jo]

171. This thread an exercise in irony, no?

[spoony]

181. You don't seem to understand what irony means

judging by your usage. Maybe you'd care to explain further.

[Bobbie Jo]

195. This post makes no sense.

Try reading the post I actually responded to instead of throwing out random attacks. You might make more sense.

[spoony]

218. Yeah, I didn't figure you'd be able to.

It's fine. A lot of people should avoid irony, particularly a segment of DUers.

[Bobbie Jo]

219. Yet....

You seem to demonstrate the very definition of this "irony." Again, read the post I actually responded to, and get back to me. :boring:

[Robb]

259. Indeed it did. nt

[Robb]

166. I'm glad I didn't take the bets.

I'll admit I didn't expect the usual suspects to go as far as they did in this thread, I would've lost money. :rofl:

Glad to see this wind up so strongly in the positive rec category. IMO it's internal laundry and doesn't belong on the Greatest page, but I get what the function is about these days. Thanks for that. For the rest, stay classy. Don't let your paranoia get the better of you. :yoiks:

Finally, a few of you posted repeatedly looking for answers. Give me the time, I'll be certain your comments get the attention they deserve. :hi:

[freddie mertz]

169. Hmm.

Nice of you to drop by.

I guess.

21 net votes "decent," but hardly enough for the Greatest Page, if that was your goal.

Which makes me want to ask: What was your goal anyway?

And who did you make the bets with (do tell)?

[CreekDog]

175. Look man, you can't say "that"

but you can say "this".

:shrug:

[racaulk]

177. "I'll be certain your comments get the attention they deserve."

"For the rest, stay classy. Don't let your paranoia get the better of you."

Wow. Great job being thoroughly dismissive of some of those that chose to respond to your OP.

But that's solidarity, I suppose.

[Cha]

179. They choose to piss on his thread..not the

same.

[tekisui]

187. This thread should be locked, and deserves much more pissing.

It is condescending and an attack on liberal DUers. It got the response the OP was looking for. Flames for flame bait. Simple really.

[Cha]

273. I don't really give a shit

what ignored has to say.

[Bluenorthwest]

190. Your call for cogent discussion seems pretty weak

You call for discussion, then leave for two days? I just caught up with this thread. Robb, to call for cogent discussion, then refuse to participate in such discussion, is very hypocritical, and just lame. You made a long winded OP asking for discussion, refuse to discuss, then taunt people who posted questions to you? They were not 'looking for answers' Robb, they were looking for your part of the cogent discussion you had asked for. And you failed to deliver. The 'joy buzzer' gag is old and tired, Robb. Get some new material. This stuff is farting dust.

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

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

[firedupdem]

180. Wow...too late to REC....Great Post! n/t

[Robb]

260. Thank you. nt

[boppers]

182. Nice Post. +1. eom

[Robb]

261. Thank you. nt

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

184. The OP is anything BUT a "cogent discussion of political issues in solidarity"

It's an incogent personal assualt on posters who attempt to discuss political policies and not personalities, in fact the opposite of what it claims to be.

The solidarity part is explained perhaps by the swiss cheese elimination of dissenting commentary to a very simple STFU OP.

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

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

[Robb]

262. Nonsense.

It's an assault on the following categories, people who answer "yes" to the following questions (from the OP):

- Do you want to nip at any heel you can, because of a loose wire in your head or some misguided sense of "let everything fail and we'll build a utopia together"?

- Do you want to gnash your teeth and claim you'll never vote for another Democrat as long as you live?

- You just want to hurl insults, name call, jingo your way into getting attention from your fellow dittoheads?

- You want to write post after post after post with the single goal of denigrating Democrats?

- You want to kvetch about how you're going to stay home next time because all the Democrats are the same as Republicans?

...How, exactly, do you interpret any of that to mean "posters who attempt to discuss political policies and not personalities"??

[ecstatic]

185. What gets me--someone posts a half truth that paints Obama (or his admin) in a bad light

No critical thought whatsoever goes into the responses. Nobody even checks to see if the story is true. And the main response is something along the lines of: Obama sucks! He's worse than Bush!

So while I wouldn't say I've been bullied off of DU, I would say that the level of discourse is so awful that it's not really worth my time anymore. Threads like yours are great to see, but they are rare (and of course, tucked away in GDP).

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

186. If you see a post like that, why don't you post a substantiated rebuttal

to the half truth? That is how you sway political debate. That is how you engage.

There are two types of threads usually: those that attempt to have actual real discussions about a specific event or policy.
The back and forth on these is usually pretty good. Sometimes those discussions seem negative because people may perceive the policy outcomes as being negative. Not too much to do about that except to get into our usual arguements about 1/2 loaves being preferable to no loaves, etc. and there will ALWAYS be some people who prefer no loaf, some who prefer a half loaf and some who prefer whole loaf. So what? We're all adults and should be able to accept that.

The other kind of post is the perception post that is all about emotions and feelings. And again, some people are going to share the emotion and perception and some will not. There is no debate or swaying or moving viewpoints in those threads because it's all emotion anyway and anyone who throws in should understand that.

I object to posts that make a statement and than tell anyone who feels differently that if they disagree they can stop posting and leave the site, like the OP we are both responding to does with impunity.

[tekisui]

189. What I hate is when posters don't debate the criticism

but only denigrate the poster or the author of the original article. Many of the absolute loyal Obama supporters choose not to debate the issues, but instead to tear down the person offering the criticisms. It exposes the weakness of their position. As does this pathetic OP.

[stevenleser]

302. I don't think you get that this is not why most of us are here.

We're here to find reasons to be supportive of Obama/Democrats, not to find reasons to withdraw support from Obama and Democrats.

I don't need to come on DU to hear reasons to be upset at Obama. Surely you can get that? I hope?

[tekisui]

304. Sorry, steven. You do not know why people post here.

You know why you post here. No doubt many are here to find reasons to support Dems and Obama.

But, many are here to discuss the most important issues of the day. We are here to challenge the status quo, which for better or worse is now defined by the Dems in DC. We are here to debate what should or should not be done in the name of our country and our party. We are here to gather, assimilate and disseminate information. Not just the stories that paint Dems in a glowing light.

If you come to DU solely to learn the latest talking points, I can understand why DU often makes you upset. That is NOT what it is about. Or it least not solely.

It is not about withdrawing support or looking for reasons to withdraw support. It is about being honestly informed and aware about what direction we are heading. I certainly am not trying to give you reasons to be upset at Obama. But, he has definitely given me reasons to be upset at him. I am not going to ignore it. You are welcome to. And, if you need to, put anyone who posts a criticism of an Administration policy on ignore. Hide the threads that taint you view. But, if DU lost all of the posters who post criticisms of policy, it would be a mind-numbingly boring place and worthless.

[stevenleser]

306. I know why I and Robb and many folks from the BOG group post here

those of us on BOG discuss this quite a bit. That is good enough for me.

[tekisui]

309. Then it is good you have the BOG.

If criticisms of the President's policies offend you, stay in the BOG. That is what it is for. Other DUers post for different reasons, as previously mentioned. We are not a fan club in GD or GDP. There is not a thing wrong with coming to DU for the reasons that you do. Nor is there a thing wrong with me and others coming for our reasons.

[stevenleser]

324. Whooooosshhhhhhhh

.... that is the sound of what I said going right over your head.

No, we are not going to stay in BOG. We are going to fight people like you here until we win.

[tekisui]

328. Define 'win'.

And, please define 'people like me'.

Like I said, if you can't take criticisms of the President's policies, you are on the wrong board. That will never stop. Why would you want it to?

I think it may be your head it is going over.

[Robb]

307. "I came here for an argument. Sorry, this is abuse." nt

[tekisui]

310. Who are you quoting?

[chill_wind]

197. Very nicely said, Phoebe. nt

[janx]

191. So true!

The level of discourse is pathetic in many cases. Throw in some expletives and conspiracy theories to go with the lack of critical thought, and you've got a toxic stew indeed.

[Robb]

263. Thank you.

The level of discourse is always fluctuating, but I agree it's been especially childish lately.

However, that's not what the OP is about. It's about disruption, and posters that want to undermine the Democratic Party on DU.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

192. In this "discussion" the front page says 241 replies and yet one of the last was # 198

What kind of a "discussion" has 1/3 of it missing?

This is a "discussion"? A two or more way discourse? I think not.

Ok, I'm newly enlightened about the ground rules for discussion. I get it. No problem.

The most interesting forums on the internet have some back and forth of opposing legitimate viewpoints. This is becoming the Cheeze Whiz of political forums.

[CreekDog]

193. but it's not flamebait

no, no...

[freddie mertz]

212. I think it is more like flypaper.

Intended to catch people and set them up.

[Uzybone]

200. illustrates the point IMO

most posts on DU are now either attacks, lies, snark or outrage. Discussion is on the back burner.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

201. Most of the missing comments were not attacks, lies, snark or outrage

I know because I read them before they were disappeared. The vast majority were questioning why the OP which blatently tells people to STFU, go away, or stop posting if they don't agree with him was left open.

I think this post would have been fine if it had been posted where it should have been in the first place - the BOG. Since it wasn't posted there, it should have been moved there. If it wasn't moved there, it should have been locked.

My opinion on forbidden topics. But moderation of this kind is joining the sentiment of the OP and telling people to piss off if they don't agree with the person demanding the conformity. If this is the kind of moderation a political board is going to enforce, it will be a tepid backwater in just a little while.

[janx]

203. Phoebe, how is this a forbidden topic?

?

And why should it be moved to the Barack Obama Group? The post concerns itself with Dems in general, it seems to me.

[tekisui]

204. It is a call-out and flame bait.

It should have been locked. The forbidden topic is why is it allowed to stay open. And, why so many posts asking just that were deleted.

[janx]

206. A call out of whom?

This looks like an appeal to individual posters, to me--and that's how it should be. There's too much group think around here: this group, that group...I've posted about this before on DU over the years.

I have been around long enough to witness and take part in two primary seasons at DU, when group think rises to a fevered pitch. That's bad enough. Even then, individual posters should keep in mind that they alone are responsible for their behaviors. I am responsible for mine, you for yours, Robb's for his, etc. If you think of it that way, you're much less likely to succumb to the kind of sophomoric group behavior that renders a political message board to something like groups of excrement-throwing baboons.

The primary season of 2004 was especially contentious. That was when some of us Deaniacs, feeling put upon, decided to make our own home in a place instead of or in addition to DU. And you know what happened? Most of us didn't leave DU. Individually, we're still here.

Do you understand what I am trying to get across here?

[tekisui]

207. I get what you are saying.

But, that is not what the OP is saying. He is denigrating posters for the reasons they post. He is telling them to quit posting. It is pure flamebait. The call-out is of those who defend liberal positions rather than office-holders.

[janx]

213. I appreciate that you understand.

This is an individual who is pushing back (or so it seems to me). It was bound to happen at some point. Robb has been around for ages, and I think he would like it that we're discussing things as we are now in this thread. (Where the heck he is now, though, is anybody's guess!) :rofl:

I don't know about liberal positions vs. office holders. That kind of talk makes me wonder if people haven't lost a little logic on their journey through the "internets." ;-) And it wouldn't be surprising, given the amount of misinformation there.

He is telling people to quit posting things that denigrate Democrats. That is not surprising given the fact that he was one of the original members of this place. I say we let it stand. At least it has given you and me the opportunity to begin to hash things out in a mutually respectful way, no? In any case, though I might not agree with you all the time, I respect you very much. If that sounds cheesy or pedantic, I apologize, but I mean it.

[tekisui]

215. Thanks, janx.

The respect is mutual. :hi:

A slight clarification on positions vs. office holders. Many times the positions that I (or others) support will also be supportive of the office holders with the same position. When the officials split from the positions we hold, when the two are opposing each other, some will always chose to support the person. Some will maintain their positions. There are, of course, a variety of reasons for each approach.

Unfortunately, all too often, the debate over the issues and the positions of Democrats that we support devolve into personal bickering. This is exaggerated by long histories of discussions on this board.

[janx]

216. Got it--

I am very supportive of the Obama administration, for instance, but I'm looking hard at Salazar. I don't know that he was prepared for this (as if anyone was), but oversight of regulations regarding the interior is his job. I have questions about what he has been doing; the oil industry should have been his first investigation, given the Cheney/Bush record.

On the subject of personal bickering, you are right on. The long histories of discussions on this board can change dynamics though. As politics evolve and opinions change, you can find that people you thought shared your specific ideologies really don't in some respects, or you feel that they're misinformed, etc.

P.S. And thank YOU.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

205. The post doesn't concern Dems in general, it is very specific to Dems who post HERE

personally attacking some posters "a minority pack of supercilious fools who sit around all day posting every goddamn negative nontroversy about Democrats they can get their hands on."

follwed up with the exhortation to leave

"You don't like the color of the carpet, you can leave. Looks like some of you have, many with the help of the big hook. Good. Everyone will be happier about it, in the long run."

Then calls imperiously for supporting ALL Democrats:

"There are more than 72 million Democrats registered in these United States. You want to work against any of themand you draw my ire. Because it ain't about you, it ain't about me, it's about them"

ALL Democrats, mind you - even those like Blanche Lincoln who actively work against the desires of the great majority of Democratic voters.

Now, the OP definitely DOES NOT follow the "civil discourse" guidelines we were asked to follow. Pre-emptively calling people you disagree with supercilious fools" is no invitation to discuss differences in a non-hostile environment. Neither is inviting them to leave. But, is was my understanding that people who wanted to discuss and encourage each other about President Obama without brooking any distressing negativity were free to do so in the Barack Obama Group and that others should respect that.

But you're right that that doesn't cover the part of the OP that forbids any negativity about any and all Dems, the Party, the Platform, etc.

It just basically proves that ALL STFU threads from either viewpoint promoting an "us against them" mentality are just pointless and destructive and that is why they USUALLY get deleted rather quickly as flamebait. Just not this thread for some reason.

The "forbidden topic" is discussing the moderation of threads in the open, but when it becomes as brazenly one sided as this one, I don't see how rational people can help themselves from commenting.

[inna]

208. +1,000

[janx]

209. Well you probably know how I feel about the

"us versus them" mentality; I detest it. But read my reply to tekisui.

Phoebe, people--individual DUers-- are starting to push back. It's hardly surprising.

As for this:

"It just basically proves that ALL STFU threads from either viewpoint promoting an "us against them" mentality are just pointless and destructive and that is why they USUALLY get deleted rather quickly as flamebait. Just not this thread for some reason."

This is not a "STFU" (by the way, can we get away from that expression, please?) thread. It's an appeal to each individual DUer to be responsible. That, no doubt, is why it was not locked or moved.

Edited because I misspelled tekisui's name!

[tekisui]

210. C'mon

"But you want to nip at any heel you can, because of a loose wire in your head or some misguided sense of "let everything fail and we'll build a utopia together"? You want to gnash your teeth and claim you'll never vote for another Democrat as long as you live? You just want to hurl insults, name call, jingo your way into getting attention from your fellow dittoheads? You want to write post after post after post with the single goal of denigrating Democrats? You want to kvetch about how you're going to stay home next time because all the Democrats are the same as Republicans?

Fine. Start now. Quit posting. "

Blatantly calling for posters that he disagrees with to quit posting. The entire OP is a fucking attack.

[janx]

214. He's pissed off, no doubt!

But think of him as a guy who has been around DU since its inception and who has contributed here during those dark and hideous Bush years, because that's who and what he is. It probably isn't easy for him to see "newbies" posting what he might regard as misinformation or negative links from other political parties.

[Raineyb]

333. So the fuck what? A lot of people are pissed off why the hell should he get a pass?

Who the fuck is he to say what anyone can post? If he wants a forum where no one ever says a word in disagreement with the president there's an entire forum dedicated just to that. Apparently that's not positive enough for him so he has to go and post an attack, and that's what the hell it is, a blatant attack, anyone who might post anything that criticizes the president? I don't care if he's pissed. A lot of people are pissed yet when they go off their posts get deleted why the fuck should this OP be any bloody different?

I don't know how the hell anyone expects anything to be fixed if all you ever do is say how great you think the President is, improvement never came from ignoring what's wrong and noticing and saying what one believes is wrong doesn't make them a supercilious fool.

But I can tell you who the damn fool is in this situation. It's your friend with the flame bait OP and I don't give a shit how fucking pissed he is, this OP was uncalled for and there's no excuse for it whatsoever. And frankly it's pissed me off. But more likely than not MY post will be deleted while this piece of shit OP remains because I haven't crawled up the party's ass.

[CreekDog]

224. It's pretty simple really: the more of a Democrat Obama is, the less threads against him

the less Democratic his policies are, especially on ones likely to anger liberals (the wars, financial policies, etc.) the more threads against him.

though the written rules have been the same throughout, it was different because we never had one leader in charge.

now if people want to express enough anger, they are going to say, "I won't vote for Obama, I'll vote for another party" which is against the rules.

Before they could simply say they support Kucinich and not be taking on a Democratic president.

so under the current circumstances, applying the rule as before leaves you with a less progressive community.

and the new wrinkle is that criticizing Obama, even carefully (as I have always been careful in my criticism) gets you flamed something terrible. as i've pointed out, even in a thread about opposing expanded offshore oil drilling, i was excoriated by several posters. i was excoriated for taking a position that DUers mostly would've shared.

but i was taking on the president and doing that even ever so mildly gets you flamed around here now.

they say its because criticism of him is over the top but in practice ANY criticism gets you treated this way --but mild criticism means some DUers will jump in and say that you're right, but a parade will jump on you as if you haven't gotten your pony.

[TheKentuckian]

295. It clearly should have been moved, locked, or deleted (as many posts within it have been)

for a defined purpose of message discipline and to intimidate liberals by showing favoritism toward a clearly passive aggressive flamebait of an OP.

Edit/delete is ALWAYS a sign of weakness from a position of fear, seen it since the old BBS days.

Edit/delete will sometimes live but it loses legitimacy. If a poster is a fool, disruptive, or plain wrong daylight will bare it out.

[freddie mertz]

211. +1,00000.

It was and is a deliberate provocation.

[Hekate]

198. Kick

:kick:

[Uzybone]

199. Too late to rec....but damn that was good

as another old time DUer (2001), I applaud this OP as hard as I can.

[Robb]

265. Thank you. nt

[tekisui]

202. Kicking this flamebait.

[Robb]

267. Which of these groups are you a part of?

From my OP:

- Do you want to nip at any heel you can, because of a loose wire in your head or some misguided sense of "let everything fail and we'll build a utopia together"?

- Do you want to gnash your teeth and claim you'll never vote for another Democrat as long as you live?

- You just want to hurl insults, name call, jingo your way into getting attention from your fellow dittoheads?

- You want to write post after post after post with the single goal of denigrating Democrats?

- You want to kvetch about how you're going to stay home next time because all the Democrats are the same as Republicans?

Please, let me know which one of these you feel you are, and we'll figure out the best way to help you.

[tekisui]

271. None.

[Robb]

277. Yet you are offended, what, *for* those groups?

Again, if you hate it so much here, why stick around? I wouldn't.

[tekisui]

281. God, you are tedious. I don't hate it here.

I am not offended by your strawman groups. No need to play cute, now. Your OP is obvious in its intentions. It is flame bait and is not constructive. It is self-righteous tripe, as if you are the arbiter of what qualifies to be posted. You are not. It is unfortunate you take criticisms of Democrats and the Administration so personal.

If you get your panties in such a wad that you felt so compelled to post this for all of DU. It ain't DU, baby. It's you.

And, that is all I have to say to you.

[Robb]

282. Heh. I should be so lucky. nt

[spoony]

288. Er, you DIDN'T. You left. Lotta nerve telling someone else to leave

when you failed so miserably doing so yourself.

[tekisui]

291. I WISH I COULD QUIT YOU DU!!11!!!!

:rofl:

[Robb]

298. Merely a suggestion, although it should be considered carefully.

Your claim to fame -- and really, you should take some credit for this, if you can -- is that is was largely because of the kind of static you bring that I took the break I mention in the OP.

The whole static thing kinda backfired, though. You have my full attention, although you may not want it.

There is, of course, someone in this thread who did post an honest-to-god "goodbye, cruel world" post. It would be continuing an argument from another thread, however, and thus against the rules (and poor style) to mention it. :D

[spoony]

319. "It ain't DU, baby, it's you."

I hope to God that at the end of my life my 'claim to fame' isn't that I helped a thin-skinned message disciplinarian decide to take a week off from an internet forum. For your sake, I hope it isn't yours either.

You made the right decision coming back, though. You ought to be smart enough (more than your companions, anyway) to know the trend is decidedly in your favour. The "static" (read: dissent) interfering with your site-wide BOG flowing with photo thread after photo thread is rapidly disappearing.

[Robb]

320. Flattery will get you everywhere.

But you're still confusing "dissent" with "unreasonable and destructive talking-point jingoism masquerading as reasonable criticism."

I'm a lifelong fan of dissent. My bullshit tolerance is less legendary.

[Name removed]

322. Deleted message

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

[Robb]

323. Why? Why just respond with a personal attack you know will be deleted?

You don't want to actually discuss, do you? Just lob nonsense. You've got nothing to stand on, or for, do you?

[spoony]

325. Whoops, someone's throwing around big words they don't understand.

Tell you what why don't you go look up jingoism, compare it to your foreign policy views, contrast it with our criticisms, and get back to us.

(Why do the "apologists" have such a hard time with dictionaries?)

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

296. The Grand Inquisitioner: Anyone who disagrees with this OP must belong to one of the

5 Forbidden Groups as defined by the author. Anyone who has disagreed with this OP has revealed themself as a "disruptor" or a "disruptor sympathizer"! Which WON'T BE TOLERATED by him! Which village square should I report to, to have my head publicly shaved?

[Name removed]

221. Deleted message

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

[racaulk]

222. OK, I'm curious.

How could you possibly know about the private voting histories of people you have never met?

:shrug:

[tekisui]

223. The have super-spidey senses when it comes to pulling things

out of their ass.

[Blue_Tires]

225. kick

[Rosa Luxemburg]

240. Yo!

:toast:

[Soylent Brice]

266. quit posting?

if we can't successfully argue our own issues with fellow lib/dem/progressives here on this board, how are we to do it successfully against the GOP?

you mention "That newness gets you lots of rope, so go ahead and use all you need."

why not just stick with that approach?

you had me right up to "Fine. Start now. Quit posting. Save yourself the headache."

i'm not really sure what to make of this post. maybe i'm not paying attention enough, but i don't see anyone bullying anyone out. i just see seasoned debaters vs. amatuers. no different than any other day.

[Robb]

268. Not debaters. Debate is always welcome.

Disruption is another matter, and attempting to use DU to undermine support for the Democratic Party is something I can't sit still for.

Move the party, sure. Influence the party, go for it. But bring it down? No way. :)

[yowzayowzayowza]

270. Well done. n/t

[Soylent Brice]

292. what would an internet discussion board be without disruption?

that's like republicans with no scandals.
can't have one without the other.

i don't think anyone on this board is trying to bring down the Democratic Party, nor would anyone on this board have the power to do so. disruptors get flushed out, eventually, and life on DU goes on.

anyone on this board advocating for the demise of the Democratic Party doesn't mesh well with the rules, and clearly won't be allowed to stay. in the mean time it might be worthwhile to examine the complaints that people have about our leaders of our Democratic Party, and have as you say "cogent discussion".

i am a proud Democrat, and i am a vocal opponent of the escalation of the Afghan war, and the ongoing Iraq war.

does this make me a disruptor? i'd like to believe i am not.

[tekisui]

305. I think some give DU way too much credit.

And, in turn take criticisms of Obama's policies personally. I do not criticize Obama, the person. I will always criticize policies or positions that I disagree with.

The OP, and others, want to think that disagreement with a policy is disruption. I am not sure what they want in a site.

[Robb]

308. Disagreement with *all* or *most* Democratic policy *is* disruption.

You, for example, and because you brought yourself into the discussion, are consistently unsupportive of Democrats and Democratic policies.

If I am wrong, I apologize, but I haven't seen a single post from you that supported Democrats. Happy if you could prove me wrong and point me to one. :shrug:

[tekisui]

312. I am consistently unsupportive of Democratic foreign policies.

I will give you that. Because I think it is wrong.

I have been supportive of many of the Democratic efforts, both in real life and on DU.

I don't have to put up supportive posts. Those are always covered. A recommend or knr of the ones I agree with are enough, and there are many. I worked my ass off for Obama in 2008. He had my full support. Decisions that his administration have made, particularly in the Wars, have left me less than enamored.

I have very little complaints about most domestic issues. GLBT issues and opening offshore drilling are my main complaints there. But I appreciate much of what has been done. And, most important, we do not have a Republican in the WH.

It is not disruption to disagree specifically with policies, even on a regular basis. The ones I disagree with haven't improved. Sorry you think that is disruption. Thicker skin may be in order.

[Robb]

313. "I don't have to put up supportive posts." No, you don't.

...But surely you'd excuse the assumption that you don't care much for Democrats if you've never said a good word about a Democrat on Democratic Underground, right?

Am I missing something? You're saying because you post fewer negative things about Democrats' domestic policy, that somehow puts you in the "I support Democrats" column?

[Name removed]

314. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

316. Deleted message

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

[arcadian]

303. Yeah, but you are sitting still right now.

Well, I guess your fingers are moving, warrior.

[Robb]

311. ?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

269. KICK & Fucking RECOMMENDED!!!

:kick::kick:

[Robb]

284. Thank you. nt

[kjackson227]

272. Great post, Robb...

I haven't been around as long as you, but I totally understand where you're coming from. But, I think some progressives absolutely did not listen to the President when he was campaigning. For the most part, this President has kept his promises as to what he was going to accomplish during his first four years. Also, I don't think Obama should be held accountable because some of us clearly misconstrued or misunderstood what he said while campaigning. And, just because he hasn't fully addressed my particular issue(s), shouldn't negate the fact that he has addressed other issues that are equally important. Unless there is a catastrophic event within this party, I'll be voting Democrat.

[Robb]

285. Thank you. But:

...I don't agree that this President shouldn't be criticized.

I'm speaking to a pattern of criticism here that has no constructive component. That has no place, IMO, on a board that supports Democrats.

There's nothing wrong with questioning where the boat is headed, but there's a difference between leaning on the tiller and putting a bomb in the hold, if you follow. :hi:

[kjackson227]

290. I didn't say he couldn't be criticized either...

but just make sure that the criticism is fair and honest.

[Robb]

301. Good deal. nt

[Born_A_Truman]

275. Kick

Thanks! I love reading discussions here of the issues and learn so much.

[Number23]

293. Wow, this is still going? Great work, Robb!

And I've noticed that the main ones calling this thread "horrible" and "flame bait" have posted 632 times in this OP. I mean, that sh*t would be laughable if it weren't so damned pathetic and inexplicable.

I take that back. It is laughable. :rofl:

[Robb]

315. I wrote what, 1,000 words. Long for any post on anything.

...And I leave people to comment on it, because lord knows I had my say in 1,000 words -- and a few complain I didn't want to discuss it.

So I come back and discuss it in earnest, and I'm told I'm trying to stifle discussion.

I can count on one hand the posters who self-identify with the target of the OP -- not supportive of Democrats -- and yet, as you point out, freakin' monster of a thread.

[Spazito]

294. WOW! Great OP!

I totally agree with everything you wrote!

(Would give a rec if I could but saw this too late unfortunately)

[WCGreen]

326. From one of the nubies over here...

I came over sometime in 2002 when I discovered that there was a lot more movement and involvement than over at BArt Cop...

Been here ever since. The place really does full fill most of my political needs and also has a tremendous resource; the people who post here seriously.

Up until 2002, I was the treasurer of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party here in Cleveland, Ohio. I got to see the inner workings of politics up close and personal.

Six years later, I saw the whole thing come tumbling down because of a feeling that they were invincible. I learned of hubris and I also thanked my lucky stars that I parted company with the party when I did.

But that is beside the point.

DU has been a second home for me. Especially after I was diagnosed with a degenerative lung disease that is finally taking it's toll on me.

The last time I was in the hospital, I took my laptop with me and stayed in touch with the world through DU.

This is a great place. A wonderful place for those who share an interest in good government and progressive policy.

That this atmosphere is almost always nourished by the democratic party is why I have pulled the lever for democrats almost every time since 1976. In an off year election I voted for a republican simply because there were no democrats running.

Robb, I appreciate your post.

Over the last few years I have seen a decided move against mainstream Dem's.

what these people don't understand is that most of the country is mainstream. We who live out here on the edge have to accept the fact that we either play with the mainstream political figure or we relegate ourselves to the fringes of the political world.

Well, I have said more than I needed to say.

Thanks again Robb, you made my trip over to GDP far more enlightening than I imagined.

[Bobbie Jo]

329. Great post!

:toast: