Now I have seen it all

[Andy823]

We have a group her on DU who accuse anyone who supports president Obama names like, authoritarians, Obamabots, hero worshipers, blind followers, etc. Seeing how this is a discussion board called "Democratic Underground" that alone says a lot about those who seem to "always" be attacking the president and blaming him for things that go bad. Now this same group also has supported comments that said the president was "nothing more than a used car salesman", and then said "F you Mr. president.

The problem I have had for some time is that the same group supports two libertarians, Greenwald and Snowden "blindly" I might add, and defend them anytime someone speaks out against these two libertarians. Now when I though I had seen it all they have started the meme that anyone using Greenwalds initials to refer to him are "homophobic"!

So it's OK, according to them, to bash the president, and democrats in congress, defend rude comments made about the president as fair game, and yet they have the nerve to start some lame ass meme that using the initials GG makes you "homophobic"? Can they not see the hypocrisy in what they are doing?

I support president Obama. I don't agree with everything he does, but I still think he has done more good for this country than any president in a long long time. I don't care if people want to disagree with them, hell that's their right, but I think some here have pushed it to far, and I have a hard time understanding how so many libertarian taking points are being used around here by those claiming to be democrats. Maybe it's just me, but it sure seems weird!

[hobbit709]

1. You left out the group that calls you a hater if you do not cheer 150% for Obama.

[lamp_shade]

3. ^ Not true. Only those who clearly hate Obama are called haters.

[hobbit709]

9. Want to put money on it.

[lamp_shade]

11. You heard me.

[hobbit709]

19. And you heard me.

[lamp_shade]

21. That I did.

[albino65]

110. Am not! Are too! Am not! Are too! n/t

[yuiyoshida]

139. DON'T MAKE ME COME BACK THERE YOU TWO!!!

[JayhawkSD]

28. I love that "did too, did not" back and forth

Made me laugh.

For what it's worth, I voted for Obama and have never said I regret that, and have said more than once that I approved of something he did. Notwithstanding that, every time that I am critical of something he has done I am called an "Obama hater," and I have been permanently banned from the Obama discussion group.

So I believe hobbit may have a point.

[treestar]

78. I don't see a lot of that

They may not know you. The group is for supporters, since there are so many bashers - they have the rest of the board. But if generally you are a supporter and get known as that, nobody is going to call you a hater. The BOG only has a problems with criticisms in the BOG, since there's enough elsewhere.

[mazzarro]

218. So you are saying that there is a group in DU where conformity is enforced?

I have not been part of the experience of pro-and-contra Obama postings. But I have been critical in some regards when I deem it necessary and I clearly do not consider myself to be 100% Obama follower in all regards. However, the idea of a section of DU being reserved for 100% followership is rather strange to me - no matter what!

[Cha]

114. The Barack Obama Group is for those members who are there to

give support to the President. The rest of the board is here to criticize Obama.

You shouldn't be called a "hater" because you're critical of something you don't like of the President's.

[cui bono]

174. Oh come on. The BOG is there to be a teen zine forum for Obama.

No critical thinking is allowed at all. I got banned for what can barely be called a criticism of the president. The pic threads in there are embarrassing and something no one over the age of 13 should want to participate in.

And the term "hater" is thrown around a hell of a lot, at people who are merely criticizing policy.

[Cha]

185. The rest of the board to available to criticize the President. Not in the BOG. Straight up rules

just can't be followed by some so they are blocked.

[hobbit709]

196. But the denizens of the morass never hesitate to come out and jump anyone who does criticize.

[Cha]

266. There's legitimate "criticize" and there's fucking "used pos cars salesman".. some don't

know the fucking difference.

[Cha]

113. You're are so correct, lamp_shade.. The ODSers are obvious. I've been around here

a long time and I can tell the difference between entrenched hate and those who are a criticizing a policy of President Obama's.

[cui bono]

175. The only people suffering from ODS are the BOGgers. n/t

[Cha]

187. Yes, up is down and down is up.. straight is crooked and crooked is straight.. you poor thing.

[cui bono]

173. Absolutely not true.

Prove it if you can.

[quakerboy]

194. Such Bologna, it strains credulity.

Anyone who has ever expressed a concern is lumped with haters. Once is enough. Its especially handy when looking at whatever the current issue du jour may be.. "I dont agree with Obama on everything, but You haters just hate him, so we are going to dismiss any points of fact or substantial arguments on this given issue that you may have made". Never mind that the person being responded to may generally agree with the president, or that the person posting will literally go blue in the face before they could/would ever deign to name one single thing that they disagreed with the president on, ever.

[TransitJohn]

249. That's not the truth.

Disagree with Obama's policies of extra-judicial killing of American citizens? You're suffering from ODS. The hater label comes out fast and gets applied thickly when POTUS' policies are disagreed with.

[840high]

6. ....

[Andy823]

10. Really?

As has been stated, only those who show by their posts that their only goal here is to bash the president would fit into that group. They are not really that hard to spot.

Sure a lot of posters here feel strongly about supporting our president, but then again this "is" a board for Democrats to show their support, isn't it? And do you think spouting libertarian talking points, or defending known libertarians is OK?

[hobbit709]

17. Funny how some accuse you of spouting libertarian talking points when you never said anything

[Andy823]

20. Didn't accuse you of anything.

Do you have a guilty conscience?

All I said is they are not that hard to spot I was not calling you one of them.

[sabrina 1]

22. Glenn Greenwald is not a Libertarian. You are confused. Democrats are not supporting

Greenwald/Snowden personally, they are supporting Whistle Blowers and Journalists. And Democrats do not march in lock step as we once accused the Right of doing, if they do not agree with policies, nominations etc, they are going to say so.

If you equate not marching in lockstep with 'spreading Libertarian talking points' I can't help you.

The problem is that those who will take no criticism of this administration, never address the ISSUES they merely go off on a rant about how anyone who cares about issues 'hates the President'. That's what the right did re Bush. Hell, I didn't even hate Bush, hate is a wasted emotion. But that didn't stop his supporters from insisting that it was all about 'hate' for 'my president'.

[Andy823]

71. Really?

Seems to me that he supported Rand Paul in the past, and if you do a search using his name and libertarian, you might be surprised.

As for the idea that those who attack the president are only supporting that they broke the NSA thing, well it sure looks like a lot of those "supporters" get pretty worked up when someone say's something negative about the two.

As for those who support the president only going off on some rant instead of addressing the issues, well that may be your view, but my view is that the Snowden Greenwald gang do that same thing you are accusing others of doing who back the president, and backing the president on "Democratic Underground" seems like what this site is for, or am I wrong?

The main point of my post is that the Greenwald supporters do the same thing they condemn others of doing with the president, and now going as far as to say those using GG, Greenwald's initials, means those people are "homophobic" is really taking things to far.

[madfloridian]

87. Here is something you should read. Greenwald's self defense against the "libertarian" label.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024994264

[Andy823]

138. I read it

Did you read Prosense's response toward the bottom of the page? Now maybe those who are "blindly" following Greenwald and have put him up on a pedestal with their "hero worship" of him might believe it when he makes those "claims" but than again the facts seem to suggest he doesn't always tell the truth.

[noiretextatique]

215. Well...that poster is so very objective

[Thespian2]

73. Thank you

for speaking truth. What Greenwald and Snowden did is truly brave and should be applauded by everyone. Who actually cares what "party" they are supposed to belong to? I am independent of all parties.

[VanillaRhapsody]

81. I care....this is Democratic Underground....

Libertarian Underground is thataway--->

[Thespian2]

183. Strange...

Independent somehow means libertarian? People are not allowed to speak unless they have taken an oath to support the democrats? Guess I'll just have to slink away into the darkness...not really going to do that...and you can't silence my words.

[treestar]

80. Democrats do march in lockstep

At least, the ones who are always up for a Democratic bashing.

And just because you call someone a whistleblower, you expect lockstep agreement that he is one.

[sabrina 1]

214. A majority of the American people believe he is a Whistle Blower now, only approx 30%

think he is a traitor. Since this is a democracy, the people decide, right?

Ellsberg was considered a traitor once also, but turned out he was exposing things that the people 'had a right to know'. See the SC decision on this.

No one is up for a 'democratic bashing', again with the false accusations. What Democrats are up for, is that their Party stick to the principles they claim to stand for. That is SUPPORTING the Party defending it from infiltrators who are desperately trying to drag all the way over to becoming nothing more than an annex of the Republican Party. THEY have their own party, my party is the party that represents the Working Class and I will continue to try to keep it that way.

[1StrongBlackMan]

200. You're right ...

DEMOCRATS are NOT supporting Greenwald and Snowden, DUers are.

[aquart]

209. Not me.

I do not mind my country spying on foreign leaders (more like I insist on it) and I am disgusted and enraged that self-important thief Snowden embarrassed us by revealing it.

[sabrina 1]

213. You are wrong, a majority of the American people, like most Democrats here, now support Journalists

and Whistle Blowers like Greenwald and Snowden, Drake, Binney, Ellsberg, keeping them informed on what rights are being violated by their government.

Most DU Democrats support this. Polls are going up regarding this issue. Do you seriously think Americans do not care about their rights?

Snowden was mentioned specifically in a recent poll with the question 'is he a Whistle Blower or a Traitor'. Only approx 30% responded 'traitor'. I assume that would be the far right, since they are generally the ones whose views are so 'nationalistic' that they tend to despise anyone who isn't yelling 'USA, USA' blindly.

[1StrongBlackMan]

216. First ...

The majority of the American people that you wish to claim, is a majority that does not exist. The fact is, a/the majority of Americans don't give a crap about whistle blowers or journalists. It is only a small segment that has the luxury of time, and/or interest to even think politics, the NSA, or Snowden.

But even understanding that, I think you have misread the sentiment of even that small segment of the American people ... Perhaps you'd be more convincing ...if you were to link to the poll you cite, because ... this:

https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/03/28/poll-results-snowden/


(It's amazing how the left chides the right for their "Everyone thinks like/agrees with me" mentality, only to fall prey to it)

[Lancero]

25. Jury Results

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

trolling again.
can we put this on his permanent record, please?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat May 24, 2014, 10:51 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Yeah, we've got some people on DU who do that. Anyway, you haven't explained how this is alert worthy. So, leave.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alerter.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "0 posts hidden in 90 days: -0" alerter is full of shit
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[hobbit709]

27. Kinda proves my point.

[Lancero]

29. Alert in 5... 4... 3...

2...

Since this on wasn't a full 7 leave, the person who alerted still has alerting privilages.

1...

[hobbit709]

31. Let him. I have a reasonable guess as to who from the wording

Which makes it even funnier.

[Andy823]

98. Kind of proves mine also

For someone to alert the post because they accuse me of being a "troll" just because I question the actions of those who want to label everyone who uses GG for Greenwald "homophobic" says it all.

Like I said the Greenwald Snowden crowd can sure dish it out, but they can't take it when the facts come out about their obvious hypocrisy.

[cui bono]

177. Where are the facts in your OP? Please provide citations. n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

68. Naw, they just ban you from the swamp,....I mean the bog.

[VanillaRhapsody]

79. I'm sorry is this NOT Democratic Underground? I should have checked the name on the door....

Is this a Democratic President? Then WTF are you going on about? OF COURSE you are expected to support the Democrats on a Democratic Forum and that includes the TWICE ELECTED by MAJORITY VOTE Democratic Presiden..this belief that Democratic Underground is somehow the place to go to criticize he and them is ridiculous...

[hobbit709]

94. There's a Teddy Roosevelt quote for you.

And if the President does something I don't agree with, just try and shut me up.

[VanillaRhapsody]

149. I don't care....this is NOT the forum to do NOTHING BUT criticize Democrats....

and THAT IS what some are here for.....

Like I said....By Majority Vote not once but twice.....do you understand how RARE that happens?

[hobbit709]

166. I'm not a constant cheerleader. If I see something that I feel is wrong I WILL say so

When I see something done right I will praise it. But who are you to tell me I can't criticize?

[okaawhatever]

148. +100 nt

[cui bono]

178. He's a Democratic president who says he is akin to Reagan in policy.

So... I don't know. Is he a Democrat? Depends on what the meaning of Democrat is.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

189. You're making up bullshit again, cui

Obama has never said he is akin to Reagan in policy. At least not in any way an actual Democrat would object to. The closest he ever came was to talk about returning to a "traditional realistic" foreign policy backed by presidents back to Reagan, instead of Bush Jr's insane adventurism.

And, by the way, this is my main problem with you, cui. Haters I can deal with. Self-deceptive liars who make up bullshit and then believe the lies they just made up, no one can.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[lamp_shade]

2. They've been here for years... doing their thing. Most of us pay them no attention.

[Andy823]

12. Yes I know

I usually pay no attention to them, but it seems there are more and more of them showing up. Now they want to start saying anyone who uses GG for Greenwald is homophobic, and that just plain stupid in my book.

[Old Codger]

41. I bet

They would call BO for Obama as saying he stunk...

[treestar]

82. I've seen right wingers do that

I haven't seen it here. But never heard them call it racist when right wingers do it. But these are people who spend more time bashing Democrats than they do Republicans. All supposedly helpful constructive criticism.

[Number23]

150. Yep. For YEARS doing the "Obama sold us out," he's a "moderate Republican" and Dems and Pubs are the

same song and dance.

But it's not easy to no longer ignore them as they have been squatting and crapping over GD for years.

[Tikki]

4. I see it also Andy823...

Again, we need to speak up as aggressively as the libertarians and faux news watchers do.

We say 'Look what we as Democrats have accomplished' and then we get sideswiped by those
with a whole different agenda.

Tikki

[Andy823]

7. True

I have seen many posts "showing" how much the president has accomplished, and every time the thread gets hijacked by those who simply want to attack the president and paint him as a "do nothing president", no really the way democrats should be acting if you ask me. It's pretty obvious what the agenda is when the same people spew the same BS over and over again, day after day.

[VanillaRhapsody]

85. They are not Democrats...

If they never have a single thing to say positive about anyone in the party except Elizabeth Warren.....then they are suspect.

[Cha]

117. Exactly, Andy. They twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain why an

accomplishment of this admin ain't no thing.

[VanillaRhapsody]

84. As Randi Rhodes said...SHAME THEM!

We have got to stop letting the bullshit slide....

[RobertEarl]

5. Damn constitutionalists

It's just a piece of paper. Yet these people think it guarantees them some rights to free speech!

*********

Ok. I agree. There are some real whacked out people on DU who really do nothing more than hunt down people who they disagree with, and just try to make them mad. Those hunters make DU suck.

[Whisp]

8. someone got a hide for saying Fuck Ron Paul

I kid you not.

I know EarlG said that way back, but I guess the libertarians wouldn't DARE alert on EarlG.

Jury hides for calling Greenwald a ratfucker (some took it as a homophobic slur - that takes quite a hefty load of ignorance I'd say)

I had a post hidden because I called GG a scamming asshole but calling the President a piece of shit used car salesman, fuck you, is okay.

Quite the smell here.

[Comrade Grumpy]

14. It's the luck of the jury, I suppose. But one can avoid a lot of that by not being foul-mouthed.

[VanillaRhapsody]

88. Whaaaaat?????

are you shitting me? I cannot believe you just said that!

[1StrongBlackMan]

201. You heard him ...

it's your fault!

[Andy823]

18. Yep

Seems like more and more of the libertarians, or trolls, are getting on jury duty and make a mockery out of the system. I guess those who love their libertarian heroes, Snowden and Greenwald, can dish it out about the president and democrats in general, but can't take it when others don't agree that their heroes really all that great.

I think accusing people of being "homophobic" for calling Greenwald GG is really going over the top, even for them.

[sabrina 1]

23. Can you point out some of these libertarians and trolls? If they are here, all you have to do is

alert on them. Trolls and Libertarians don't last long here in my experience.

[Andy823]

76. Are you serious?

There are trolls posting daily, and if you can't see the libertarian talking points be spewed here, then you really need to pay more attention. I don't accuse people of being trolls. I think people can see who they are without me pointing them out. Actually some long time posters have been removed because they finally showed their true colors.

[sabrina 1]

212. What is a 'libertarian talking point'? I must be blind, or don't spend enough time here, so could

you give me some clues so I can see what you claim to be seeing?

Thanks in advance.

[Andy823]

231. OK here are a couple for you

Saying both parties are the same.

Saying president Obama has done nothing be carry on Bush policies.

Promoting voting for third party candidates.

[VanillaRhapsody]

89. subterfuge....

[Dragonfli]

106. They mean civil libertarians, if that clears things up for you

They have taken to associating civil liberties with Ayn Rand philosophy because to them, anything that might lessen big brothers comforting grip scares them, at least, it appears to me to be reactionary fear.

It appears to me also they need to believe that a father figure they might attach to "knows best", need not explain his actions and will protect them if only people would let daddy ignore liberties that are frightening to them (because liberty comes with responsibility).

I observed this reaction for years within a certain segment of the Republican party, it appears that the more rightward the party moves, the more it attracts similar anti-liberty authoritarian follower types, it is to be expected I suppose.

Now back to my banishment (self imposed until the hatred around here lessens a bit).

[VanillaRhapsody]

206. Are you saying that GG was a Civil Libertarian that supported George Bush?

the kind of Civil Libertarian that believes those that leak Govt Information should be "shot in the balls" that kind of "civil" Libertarian?

[Dragonfli]

219. No VR, If I were to "say" that, I would have written that now wouldn't I?

You actually "said" that, not me.

Please pay attention rather than making ridiculous assumptions. If you were paying attention, my meaning would have been easy to understand as a simple reply to this specific question. If you'd read the question and then my answer, there would have been no need to place the fictitious nonsense you imagined I should be writing where my actual words were as what the other poster and I were discussing was not Greenwald.


Now, if you would also like to respond to that post and that question, please feel free to do so using the words YOU like rather than placing those words of yours in my mouth, I find them bitter and uneducated and would rather they were in your mouth where they belong.

[greatauntoftriplets]

26. EarlG banned a member with that message.

MIRT uses it, too.

[Cha]

120. EarlG banned a member

with what message, greataunttotriplets?

[winter is coming]

121. "Fuck Ron Paul" is the PPR message that EarlG used and MIRTers often refer to. n/t

[greatauntoftriplets]

122. Fuck Ron Paul.

[Cha]

123. The member said "fuck ron paul" and EarlG banned them?! What!

That's just weird. Why would that be a basis for being banned from DU? Said it myself .. didn't get the hammer.

[greatauntoftriplets]

124. "Fuck Ron Paul" was EarlG's banning message.

It was some newly signed up troll.

[Cha]

127. OH!!! Sorry, I'm being

obtuse! I do have this headache.. it's affecting my cognitive abilities.

Thanks! Fuck Ron Paul!

[greatauntoftriplets]

128. You're welcome.

A number of MIRTers have taken EarlG's lead and used that as a ban message when appropriate. I am one of them.

[Cha]

129. Brawawaa, I thought it was the poster who had

the message "fuck ron paul" and EarlG banned him. couldn't wrap my 'ead around that one.

to you and the MIRT, greataunt!

Mahalo

P.S. EarlG

[greatauntoftriplets]

131. I forget what the message was...likely something to the effect of "Ron Paul for president"!!!

I'm not on MIRT right now, but that message definitely got the point across.

[Bobbie Jo]

161. Remember that one

Classic EarlG.

[greatauntoftriplets]

162. It was a good one!

[uponit7771]

32. +1

[treestar]

83. I wonder if a lot of them lurk and get on juries

How they can outnumber Democratic supporters on this board is amazing.

[Cha]

119. To be fair.. one of those "used care pos salesmen" comments did get hidden in

the thread.. just not the OP. But, the author self-deleted eventually.. after a couple of rw hate sites picked it up as fodder for themselves. Do not know if that had any bearing on the self deletion.

"Fuck Ron Paul"! but it seems there are those who think this is LU. Last I heard the Admins are still into the whole Democratic state of mind.

Hey Whisp

[Whisp]

133. Was that self delete done on April Fool's Day, same time as the 'apology'?

Ha, with such sincerity, how could you not forgive.

[redgreenandblue]

271. I remember that hidden post.

And as far as I remember, in that particular instance the post was hidden because it carried an accusation of being a Ron Paul supporter against another DUer.

Context. It matters. If you, out of the blue, respond to someone who is criticizing the NSA with "Fuck Ron Paul", without any indictation that that person is a Ron Paul supporter, it is a snark that people may correctly interpret as a personal attack.

I'd certainly vote to hide in such a specific situation, given the history of progressives being accused of supporting Ron Paul here on DU.

[Comrade Grumpy]

13. Having concerns about the breadth and depth of the national security state...

...is not "a libertarian talking point." Unless you mean civil libertarian. There are Democratic members of Congress who share those concerns.

And attempting to tar anyone who shares those concerns as a "libertarian" isn't particularly useful.

[quinnox]

16. +1

Every true patriotic American should be concerned to protect civil liberties.

Have these people who think this is "libertarian" stuff ever heard of the ACLU? I wonder. Do they know it is considered a Democratic/left leaning organization??

[VanillaRhapsody]

91. Oh now anyone that criticizes GG is not patriotic because Team GG conflates criticism with

Support of the NSA spying....THAT is WHY some are suspect.

[Andy823]

95. Looks that way

I know in the past I have seen posters say you can't be a "real" democrat if you don't see things the way they want you to see it when it comes to GG and Snowden.

[Whisp]

132. The Cat Food Commission is defunct -- they had such a jolly time with that one

and for so long -- twittering with glee that Obama was Sure As Hell going to starve old and poor people! I could hear the clacking through my monitor, the excitement that soon all will see the horrible man as he truly is - an evil heart with evil intentions for the poor and the weak. Why, can't anyone else See That?

That Cat toy was taken away when reality set in, and now they have this to play with: GG Good Hero, Obama Evil Corrupt Person.

Funny that so many names are the same from both subjects.

[Andy823]

145. Yes I remember those comments.

I even had people tell me the president was "useless" and had accomplished nothing his whole time in office. Pretty obvious what their agenda was. Yes the subject may change but the names change very little, except there seems to be more new names coming to join in the party.

[newthinking]

47. It gets tiring seeing people who believe that if you have any common ground (civil liberties etc)

with a group like the libertarians than you must "be one of them". It is really very shallow thinking, though that is certainly the type of thinking that the oligarchy wants us to have. Hatfields? or McCoys? Turn everything into a partisan fight where group identity matters more than values.

That keeps us all fighting instead of using the commonalities to create change. It also entrenches those we want to depolarize, like Republicans. There is plenty of scientific evidence that this kind of polarized thinking simply strengthens the chasm and results in less intellectual and more emotional reactions.

[VanillaRhapsody]

92. Well Team GG seems to think any criticism of HIM is a supporter of NSA Spying....

pot meet kettle!

[newthinking]

93. Thanks for proving my point

Will you be "Hatfield" or "McCoy?" this round?

[VanillaRhapsody]

207. I "be" Rhapsody.

first name Vanilla....nice to meet ya!

[VanillaRhapsody]

90. see that is where YOU conflate criticism of GG with the support of the "National Security State"

and THAT is exactly what they are talking about!

[Comrade Grumpy]

220. Well, I see a lot of the Greenwald criticism as an effort to deflect...

...from the issues his reporting has uncovered.

And as a stupidly reflexive "support the president" response to a festering issue that goes far beyond Obama. Obama is going to be gone in a couple of years; the national security state abides.

[Andy823]

264. I am curious

What issues has his reporting uncovered?

[Whisp]

273. The issue of checkbook journalism. n/t

[baldguy]

240. And to refuse to acknowledge that this problem predates the present admin by DECADES?

And to constantly refer to Obama as a dictator? How about that?

When someone uses RW libertarian talking points, I think it's fair to label them as RW libertarian talking points.

[The_Commonist]

15. We don't want to see it or admit it...

...because it's "our side," but DU is just as ridiculous at times as FR, and there are people "on the left" who are just as irrational as those "on the other side" who we love to mock and complain about.

Best to laugh at them, because they are laughable.

[Oilwellian]

38. Uh, FR supported Bush no matter what

and yes, those who support Obama no matter what, make this place just as ridiculous at times.

[Ikonoklast]

208. Yes, I agree. Just as those who can only criticise Democrats and this president.

It's odd that they can never seem to find the time to post a critical comment on any Republican or Libertarian, but easily find Democratic targets to gripe about.

Ridiculous indeed.

[hootinholler]

24. :

[karmkay]

40. perfect response.

To add further to the excremental smell. Enough of this crap!!!

[Helen Borg]

45. :

[hootinholler]

59. .

[Lugnut]

107. + infinity. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. It is the responsibility of the people in a democracy to hold public servants accountable.

As far as I know, neither Greenwald or Snowden are public servants. Obama is.

Both Snowden and Greenwald take what could be called "libertarian" positions on a number of issues. So do most Democrats. So do most liberals. So do most Socialists. So do most "Left Libertarians" aka Anarchists.

So what?

[truedelphi]

52. ^^^^^^^^^^^ n/t

[Andy823]

99. Maybe you didn't get my point

When the Snowden Greenwald crowd accuses others of being "blind followers, bots, marching in step, etc. yet they come out with something as stupid as saying those who us Greenwalds initials, GG, are "homophobic", it shows just how hypocritical they are.

If you want to be in the public eye as much as Greenwald and Snowden, then the same goes for the, as its does president Obama when it comes to holding he accountable for their actions.

[Enthusiast]

33. Completely unrecommended.

[madfloridian]

34. Could you list some of those "libertarian" talking points? It would help me understand.

Because right now I am not understanding your post much at all..

Do you mean that if we support whistle blowers who let us see how our very basic rights are being invaded...that we are libertarian?

I have never ever seen such vitriol toward people who speak out in sincerity as there is here now, and it worries me.

[JoeyT]

37. Ooh! I will!

Free Trade increases competition and is good for both workers and business!

Schools should be run like businesses and tested regularly, with funding linked to that testing, to ensure the best education for our kids!

We shouldn't raise taxes to pay for infrastructure because then people that don't use it have to pay for it. Only people that use infrastructure should be responsible for its upkeep!

I see libertarian talking points all the time. Usually from the people that see libertarians hiding behind every tree.

[madfloridian]

67. Yes, that one. Newt's dream of "free trade" schools is fulfilled. We are not to gripe about it.

[Andy823]

115. OK

How about there is no difference between democrats and republicans.

Or Obama is the same as Bush, or even Nixon.

My favorite is trying to convince people siting home on election day is a good idea.

I too have seen a lot of vitriol towards people who actually think the president has done a lot since he was elected, and is NOT a total failure as some here want to paint him. I see people who claim they are "true" democrats, but those of us who might disagree with them are nothing more than "authoritarians", Obamabots, mindless drones marching in lock step with the party, etc.

Do you think it's a bad thing to support the president? Do you think that those who do support him never disagree, they just march in step?

I have no problem with whistle blowers, as long as they are really doing what they do for the right reason and not for political reasons. I think the NSA thing has gone to far and needs to be fixed, but congress has to make the laws to do that, not the president. I think speaking out when we disagree with policies is fine, but trying to lay all the blame on the president when congress has to pass laws to make or change policy is wrong.

I have been around long enough to know that change comes from voting. Get out during the primaries and vote for someone you think can make the changes we need. I also know that when my candidate does not win, it's still a hundred times better to have a democrat in office than a republican, even if I don't agree with everything that democrat may say or do in office. Nobody is perfect, but anyone that thinks the kind of republican tea party nuts we see in office today are acceptable over a democrat we may not see eye to eye with is someone I would think has a different agenda than I think democrats should have, how about you?

[madfloridian]

137. Did you even read what I posted? I don't think so.

[Andy823]

152. Yes I read it

And I replied to it. I also asked you some questions which have have not answered. I know you may be busy, so whenever you get the time feel free to answer them.

[madfloridian]

154. Every thing you asked can be answered by reading the OP.

My positions are clearly stated. I made it clear we supported Obama both elections. You simply have not paid attention to what I posted. Yes, I read what ProSense wrote. It does not change a thing about what I said.

[Andy823]

158. They are not really that clear

So far you have not answered the question about whether or not you think those who claim using GG instead of Greenwalds whole name are "homophobic" are right or wrong? Are they not calling people names also?

That's just one question you could answer if you find the time.

[madfloridian]

167. I did not even address that issue at all.

Why I would provide an answer to that?

[1StrongBlackMan]

202. +1,000. eom

[yeoman6987]

35. Are you leaving?

[JoeyT]

36. The only libertarian talking points I've seen here are

defending free trade and defending toll booths to pay for interstates. So it's kind of amusing that every so often a BOG member will fire off an anti-libertarian OP, given that they're basically the only ones defending actual libertarian policy.

Calling Greenwald GG doesn't show the BOG to contain homophobes. It was their campaign to ban LGBT people for criticizing Obama's opposition to gay marriage that did that. Something that brings a sudden silence from the people involved any time it's brought up.

[Doctor_J]

44. Don't forget replacing public schools with for-profits

for some reason those who use "libertarian!!11!1!!" as an epithet support school corporatization, XL, TPP, Heritage Care, and, as you mention, toll roads.

[Mosby]

58. Here are some I see all the time at DU

1. "Legalize all drugs", generally considered a libertarian idea.

2. non-interventionism, another libertarian idea. Liberals are traditionally "nation-builders", neocons love "interventions" and paleocons like covert "interventions",

3. "eliminate all foreign aid". classic libertarianism.

Those are just three off the top of my head.

[arely staircase]

39. often the same who downplay real Russian homophobia nt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

111. This ^ ^ ^

[Whisp]

147. o yes indeed, excellent observation, arely.

spot on!

the bleedin' nerve, eh?

[freshwest]

275. Hope you're doing well, arely. Missed your posts.

[arely staircase]

279. thanks

And yes I am well.

[smallcat88]

42. I'm fairly new to DU

but I don't recall seeing a lot of hate speech here. I've always considered myself a lifelong Independent. It's only in recent years that I've started moving further to the left. In part because the right-wing extremists are pushing me that way. But also because Democrats are more open to questioning their own when they screw up whereas the right usually defends Republicans no matter what they do.

Still unsure about Snowden, I believe in whistleblowers just a little unsure about the way he went about it. Although given the way we treat whistleblowers he probably didn't feel like he had a lot of options.

As for Libertarians, I agree with some of their views. The U.S. needs to back off being the world's policemen, legalize marijuana, and their criticism of the NSA surveillance. It's some of their other views that tie them to the far right that make them unviable candidates for office.

And we all need to criticize those in office, or in the press, when they're operating in the interests of specific individuals or companies instead of the interests of the people. The TPP comes to mind. President Obama, Democrats and Republicans all should be criticized for supporting 'Nafta-on-steroids'. And to be honest, I'm still a little pissed at Obama for caving on the public option for healthcare that he campaigned on. It was one of the reasons I voted for him in the first place.

Criticizing our elected officials is a right we should all be exercising. Reserve the hate speech for those who actually use it themselves as a tool: the anti-LGBT crowd, the guns for everyone fanatics, the 'use the bible like a club' people. I have seen GG a couple of times but honestly had no idea what it meant until now.

You'll have to excuse this 51 year old woman, I still have to look up a lot of internet abbreviations because I learned to speak in whole words and sentences. I have a hard time keeping up with all the abbreviated stuff used in texts and emails these days. Just spent a good part of yesterday afternoon looking up n/t because I keep seeing it on DU but had no idea what it meant. Still a little unsure on that one too. The explanations I found about no text didn't make a lot of sense to me.

But I can't honestly say I've seen much Obama bashing here. Maybe I'm just missing it?

[bravenak]

181. NT

I take it to mean the message has no text in the message body,just the reply line. Some use eom- end of message.
That way if you're skimming through you wont bother to click on that message because the totality of the message fit in the reply title line.

[smallcat88]

184. Thanks

Your explanation makes more sense than what I found on the internet.

[bravenak]

186. No problem.

It took me a while to figure out too.

[Rafale]

43. All of you disappoint me....

Ideology is like fool's gold. The only point of view that counts in today's American political environment is cash. There's not much difference between Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians except in rhetoric. They do however tend to do the same kinds of things in office. I weep for our country as all of you bicker with each other and cheer on your side as if your cause was just a football team.

In conclusion, Obama should be impeached and removed for 4th Amendment issues and war crimes. Bush et al. should be brought to justice for war crimes. Whatever new administration comes in it should be arresting Banksters and instituting measures that put the rights of the people ahead of multinational and non-US corporations. Mass media should not be in the hands of so few corporations. Anti-trust laws need to be enforced and the military must stop being used as a SWAT team in places like Yemen, Afghanistan, and so on. Campaign finance reform needs a Constitutional Amendment. Keep calling each other stupid names and just let Rome continue to burn. Just my two cents. Continue to denigrate each other. Pathetic.

[hobbit709]

46. OOH!! Now you've done it.

[Rafale]

48. Yup

Exactly.

[lamp_shade]

49. Welcome to DU. You'll fit in nicely. n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

66. The Repubs would never impeach Obama on those issues.

Those are the ones on which most of them agree with him.

But yeah, team blue vs team red is a distraction when most politicians are by the corporations, for the corporations.

[ancianita]

69. Disagree with first paragraph; agree with second. Unity doesn't have to be even close to uniformity.

The Democratic Party is a big enough tent for this 'bicker' to go on, and what you read is no standard for judging the larger party. Money in politics has frustrated most, if not all of us, and this board helps people sound out their various thoughts on party failures and frustrations.

If you can develop a strategy to get more unity here without excluding critics, maybe it's now, when the party's candidates, funders or campaigns aren't official. Just sayin'.

[TeeYiYi]

50. I haven't seen that...

Can you provide a link to a post where someone says that using "GG" for Glenn Greenwald is homophobic? I've seen the posts that disapprove of Gigi, GiGi, GIGI, etc., but I haven't seen where GG is homophobic.

re: ...using the initials GG makes you "homophobic"?

TYY

[Behind the Aegis]

54. Right here!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4992409

It is that post which has spawned clone threads. Personally, I see it as using homophobia as a weapon to further one's own agenda, which, IMO, is fucking homophobic in of itself!

[TeeYiYi]

57. Thanks. Not sure how I missed that...

I don't agree that referring to him by his actual initials is homophobic.

I've seen some hateful posts where "Gigi" and "bugger" were used. Those names fit the homophobic category because they were intentional slurs, aimed at Glenn Greenwald's homosexuality.

TYY

[Behind the Aegis]

61. It happens. :)

I am in the same boat as you. I have even confronted posters and hidden posts using "GiGi" and have seen "Gigli" used on other "progressive/liberal/democratic" sites. When they do that, it is obvious homophobia is in play.

[Cha]

136. I agree with your assessment, BtA. I completely missed that

stupid thread. Good Grief!

[DesertDiamond]

51. Whoever I support or don't support, I really feel that namecalling is not conducive to

value-creating dialogue. Name-calling does not bring anyone over to our way of thinking. It alienates the other person and further solidifies whatever view we are attacking. Let's have respectful dialogue instead, so we can get somewhere that is valuable to all of us.

[Arthur_Frain]

53. If you really think you've seen it all just wait.

Time will prove you wrong. It always does for me.

Every time I see someone, individual or group, taking or supporting some action that is beyond the pale I think "What next?". Sadly there is always someone ready to disappoint me even further, and there is always a next time. Always. It seems to me that when you get far enough out on the fringe of whatever side you're on, there is a group of individuals who view it as a competition to see who can come up with the most rigid thinking possible.

Sadly too, this is true for liberals as well as conservatives. There are trolls in each camp I suppose, all one really has to remember is that for the troll, lack of attention is deadly poison. As long as it's just in the forum, the best thing you can do is ignore them.

[Shandris]

55. You mean its almost like people are using labels to shut up the opposition?

Who could have -ever- seen -that- coming?

[truedelphi]

60. Andy823 - one of the reasons that you have "seen it all"

Is on account of how some of us here are older Americans.

We can remember Nixon's policies, and Obama is far to the right of them.

Nixon would never have allowed for the BP oil spill to leave BP in charge, and with the Coast Guard enforcing BP's desire to keep reporters out of critical areas. So now we have lost that entire eco-system.

Nixon would not have allowed for a Bankster-Arch Criminal like Geithner to hold the top spot at Treasury. Nor would Nixon re-appointed a Bernanke-type of person, eespecially not so if he had watched a Bernanke fiddle aroudn with various things at the Fed so that gas prices doubled.

We watch as the two parties continually collude. Remember how even with a Democratic majority and a Democratic President, circa Jan 2009 to Jan 2011, the things the public wanted and needed were not addressed because "oh my god - filibuster" and "oh my god - cloture!"

And the Dems were not even smart enough (or again, perhaps they were collusionary?) to the point that none of the appointments that might have been made over a Congressional recess were ever made.

In other words, the Democrats are either so friggin stuoopid that they never ever learn from some of the foxy tricks the Republicans use, or they' re collusionary.

So basically, you' re calling out those of us who remember when even Republicans acted decently on some matters.

We realize that most of the Democratic leadership is far to the right of Nixon, and that is not a good thing. Should we applaud this sea change?

Would it really make you happy for us to applaud the Banking TakeOver of this nation? The Big Military and Surveillance Governmental Bureaucracy takeover?

Would that make you happy?

I suggest you google "Mussolini" and his definition of fascism. When you do that, pls note: There is no need to have a Fascistic government order soldiers to goose step when on parade. Americans would not like to see goose-steppin' soldiers.

So the change that has come about fits in with the particular way that Americans like to see the world. Sure, we might have had a Congress that gave Pres. Bush a 95% A-okay on his war against Iraq. But hey, our soldiers are not goose-steppers. Instead, they are eating at Taco Bell, and McDonalds, and they like mom's apple pie, so why question who and what is in charge.

When I read comments like yours, I remember a friend of mine from grammar school who said just a year or two back: "I mean, if the USA was now in the hands of a fascistic government - wouldn't our Fourth Estate mention that on the news occasionally?"

[Rafale]

63. True Delphi

Concur.

[madfloridian]

64. Excellent post.

[wavesofeuphoria]

70. Excellently stated.

[Andy823]

75. Really?

Obama is to the right of Nixon? I guess democrats and republicans are all the same, right?

Now let me explain that I was drafted in 1970, went in the army in Jan. 1971 so I know about "us older" posters since I am one. Don't try and tell me what things were like back then.

When I read post like yours that try and paint Obama as worse than Nixon, well I wonder if you understand all that the president has done, or you just want to paint him as just another "republican". You seem to think a lot of Nixon since you want to paint him as being a better president than Obama, and that is just plain silly!

[OnyxCollie]

126. Pretty sure Nixon never covered up torture by a previous Republican administration. nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

86. Well said and I am among that older group

I remember watergate like it was yesterday.



I still wish the OP would define

''libertarian taking points''
so I have a guideline and a point of reference

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

97. Yep. And, we weren't upset when politicians were compared to "used car salemen".

Hell, some of us remembered that we were supposed elect representatives not leaders or celebrities.

[Andy823]

100. Not a complet quote

Seems that so many want to forget the "f you" part of that post. Used car salesman didn't bother me, it was the rest of the comment made which was disgusting.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

101. The rest of it didn't bother me.

I'm not an Obama fan but I do think that he isn't a delicate flower unable to stand criticism.

[Whisp]

134. PIECE OF SHIT, FUCK YOU... is not 'criticism' in most parts of the world.

It's like a toddler shitting his pants and crying

[Skittles]

109. THANK YOU

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

112. Obama's to the right of Nixon?

How old are you? I'm 56 and remember Nixon. No way in fucking hell is Obama to the right of him.

[Number23]

153. The SECOND I saw that person type Obama was to the right of Nixon I just moved on to the next

post. There is no way to have a conversation with someone that thinks something so historically ignorant, dishonest and dumb.

[Broward]

197. Obama himself said that "in a lot of ways Richard Nixon

was more liberal than I was."

[BootinUp]

225. lol nt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

248. Link?

[m-lekktor]

252. he told o'reilly this in an interview supposedly

I have no idea what this "hot air" is but this is what came up when i googled it.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/02/04/more-obama-oreilly-richard-nixon-was-more-liberal-than-i-was/

[Broward]

263. Here you go.

"The truth of the matter is, when you look at some of my policies, in a lot of ways Richard Nixon was more liberal than I was," Obama told Fox News's Bill O'Reilly. "Started the EPA, you know, started a whole lot of the regulatory state that has made our air and water clean."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/197334-obama-nixon-was-more-liberal#ixzz32lm3CToP
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

[m-lekktor]

250. apparently he told bill o'reilly this when o'reilly interviewed him

i found this link, i have no idea what "hot air" is but here is a video of the interview where he supposedly said this. i haven;t personally watched this but it came up when i googled.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/02/04/more-obama-oreilly-richard-nixon-was-more-liberal-than-i-was/

[Number23]

270. Thanks for the link. But the context is that this is in response to Bill O'Reilly and Fox News

accusing him of being the most liberal president ever. He provided some examples and included Nixon.

"In alot of ways, Nixon was more liberal than I am" in response to a loaded Fox news "question" isn't the same as the blanket statement that Nixon was more liberal than Obama.

[truedelphi]

228. When Nixon was President, hell's bells, even when Reagan was President

Only eight cents out of every dollar of profit generated in this country ended up inside the coffers of Big Banks. (And a lot of that that did end up in banking coffers did so on account of the war in Vietnam. Our government needed to borrow to fund that war. So to that extent, Nixon helped them.)

While I am addressing my concerns, please name for me, if you can, the eco-system that was destroyed when Nixon was President? Under Obama, we watched the Gulf go down. Please see the recent video about Papatano that another DU'er put up, regarding the fact that the fishery much of America counted on is now destroyed and you eat fish from that region at your own peril and risk of disease.

Not only has the Gulf gone down, but two other eco-systems are threatened. Despite what the public saw happen with TepCo GE in Fukushima, and the radiation released and all that, Obama remains firmly committed to Big Nuke energy.

And he has waffled so long on the Keystone XL - even if the Pipeline doesn't happen to take to the Nebraska aquifer, it will, in closed door deals, occur with a new name in a different location.

And again, in terms of Democratic "leadership" - we all watched as Ed Rendell, governor of PA, (with a Big Fat D after his name), served up fracking in the state he was governing, and he now is an important part of company leadership for a fracking firm inTX.


But back to the economy:
Due to what has transpired since August 2008, the nation has gone along its merry merry path, of elected leadership from both parties condoning the transfer of the middle class, Main Street wealth over to Big Banks. You did see Kucinich and Clemmons and Waters oppose this, but Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both Senators at the time, were all for it, and voted for it in October of 2008. As did John McCain)

Currently, under Obama's watch, 48 cents out of every dollar of profit generated inside this nation goes to the biggest financial firms and banks. That spells the end of the middle class.

In addition to the 700+ billions of dollars of announced Bailout monies, sixteen trillions of dollars have gone "as loans" to help the Big Banks. Experts claim 4.1 trillions of dollars will not be paid back. But don't be too concerned - after all, that 2.4 trillion dollar surplus in Social Security can help offset that, once the Catfood Commission people get that done.

Arch criminal Geithner destroyed the economy in Japan back in the Nineties, he did exactly there as he has done here. So it is deplorably pathetic if Obama did not realize that. (And criminal if he did know, and appointed him anyway.) I know there was a lot of discussion on the blogosphere about Australian newspapers decrying the possibility that Geithner could be appointed and allowed to ruin America in the same manner that he ruined Japan.

BTW, Geithner told the foreign finance ministers circa 2009 or 2010, that "Obama works for me." And that is the gist of all this. Our Presidents are the friendly, smiling faces, the people we woul dlike to have a beer with, while the people behind the scenes steal the country out from under us.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

251. Seriously?

It seems you believe Obama single handedly caused the gulf oil spill, is responsible for the big banks and many other offenses.

The stuff you're posting is too bizarre to be taken seriously.

And per environmental disasters under Nixon have you ever heard of the Cuyahoga River fire?

[truedelphi]

269. Please note that Nixon signed the EPA into law, and that the EPA came about

Due to the fact that during the time period, our polluted rivers were catching on fire.

I am not blaming Obama for the catastrophic incident that occurred on the Deepwater Horizon, but his response to the disaster was pathetic. Like I said, he left BP in charge of the situation. And he had the Coast Guard keeping American reporters away from certain areas that were heavily being inundated with oil. Why was that?

Why was the American President a patsy and toadie for a foreign interest!?!

And there is really no tightening of the lax oversight of the drilling operations. The same deepwater drills are up and running in other places, and much of Alaska and Northern Canada is threatened by American mining and drilling operations, on both the land there and in the Arctic Sea.

It is as though we cannot learn from our mistakes.

Your smug dismissal that the stuff I am posting is too bizarre to be taken seriously shows that apparently you yourself have not yet taken the economy seriously. That is fine and dandy if you are one of the One Percent, or even on of the top Five Percent, but if you are a wage slave, I recommend you start getting yourself educated.

But others here have written out the same messages - google DU userid "Autorank" and his full examination of what awfulness teh Geithenr/Bernanke duo did to our economy, and how the way they operated has destroyed our economy. Or look at what Octafish has had to say at this URL:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021915110


Here is a quite relevant posting about what Geithner did

DU user: TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 08:52 AM
Original message
New York Fed’s Secret Choice to Pay for Swaps Hits Taxpayers

Source: Bloomberg


New York Fed’s Secret Choice to Pay for Swaps Hits Taxpayers

By Richard Teitelbaum and Hugh Son


Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) -- In the months leading up to the September 2008 collapse of giant insurer American International Group Inc., Elias Habayeb and his colleagues worked nights and weekends negotiating with banks that had bought $62 billion of credit-default swaps from AIG, according to a person who has worked with Habayeb.

Habayeb, 37, was chief financial officer for the AIG division that oversaw AIG Financial Products, the unit that had sold the swaps to the banks. One of his goals was to persuade the banks to accept discounts of as much as 40 cents on the dollar, according to people familiar with the matter.
...
Beginning late in the week of Nov. 3, the New York Fed, led by President Timothy Geithner, took over negotiations with the banks from AIG, together with the Treasury Department and Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s Federal Reserve. Geithner’s team circulated a draft term sheet outlining how the New York Fed wanted to deal with the swaps -- insurance-like contracts that backed soured collateralized-debt obligations.
...
Part of a sentence in the document was crossed out. It contained a blank space that was intended to show the amount of the haircut the banks would take, according to people who saw the term sheet. After less than a week of private negotiations with the banks, the New York Fed instructed AIG to pay them par, or 100 cents on the dollar. The content of its deliberations has never been made public.
########################################################

I realize that it takes a bit of time to get your brain able to wrap itself around the fact that the Banking And Financial Firms inside this nation are now a criminal enterprise. (I have, since the crash of Sept 2008, spent at least 200 hours on that subject.) And if you are working and are devoted to family and friends, it may be hard to find the time. But in ten years, our kids and grandkids could be asking us why we grownups allowed Obama to be The First American Emperor. Why did we let trillions of dollars of Middle Class wealth get transferred over to the Banking class? And how come so many of us worshipped the man who made the appointments of the criminals who did this to the Middle Class a routine matter?

[ProSense]

141. You're

"Nixon would never have allowed for the BP oil spill to leave BP in charge, and with the Coast Guard enforcing BP's desire to keep reporters out of critical areas. So now we have lost that entire eco-system.

Nixon would not have allowed for a Bankster-Arch Criminal like Geithner to hold the top spot at Treasury. Nor would Nixon re-appointed a Bernanke-type of person, eespecially not so if he had watched a Bernanke fiddle aroudn with various things at the Fed so that gas prices doubled. "

...romanticizing Nixon? This Nixon: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024630064#post5

LBJ and Senator Dirksen: Nixon's unpunished treason...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022909338

The Nixon who created John O'Neill of Swift Liars' fame and gave rise to Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld? Nixon spawned the evil.

Nixon wanted to abort biracial babies: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/23/nixon-tapes-abortion-nece_n_219746.html

I'm glad I saw this post because whenever Nixon's actions are exposed, people tend to deny that they ever claimed Nixon is left of anyone. Thanks.

[aquart]

210. Nixon is on tape plotting to destroy US healthcare for profit.

[ancianita]

62. It IS weird and makes us all seem divided. But healthy criticism raises awareness about what we want

And that can be good for increasing progressive demands getting put into the party platform, eventually.

The squabbles, as I call them, and some of the 'purity and loyalty tests, are clarifications of our politics in the long run. I like to think of how we fuss around here as 'loyal opposition.' I believe that's pretty much all it is.

It's venting, sometimes crudely and rudely, frustrations about the power and influence of money over our leaders' decision making, which I'd like to think mostly leads to thinking about better progressive policy, strategies and candidates.

Not to worry. DU isn't falling apart.

[Rafale]

65. Party Platform

What if the party is a joke and whatever is on the platform is unimportant when compared to various large donors, who contribute to both parties to buy access and control? Your whole paradigm of government (or representation) is a farce and does not match reality. Forgive my bluntness please.

Agree though in that DU probably isn't falling apart, but the country is.

[ancianita]

72. "What ifs" are speculation. Look at party platform effectiveness, historically. Just carping about

how big money determines everything just undermines the credibility about voting power. Those donors have influence at the nominating convention IF only their candidates determine the platform.

You can be blunt. But what I see is that you denigrate a structure this party's worked with for a long time.

If you can prove it's a "farce" AND what "reality" is in party politics, then I'll take your blanket put-down of everyone here seriously. And not until.

You could at least take a look at how this 2006 plan is still relevant to party goals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100-Hour_Plan

[ancianita]

74. Then again, what if it is a joke. Now what? I'm a Marxist. I'm all about the class war.I don't mind

working within the Democratic Party, though.

You sound as if you're about to throw in the towel on party politics.

Are you?

How do you want us to proceed as a party?

[baldguy]

254. Healthy criticism is fair, well-informed & offers realistic solutions.

What the Greenwald & Snowden fans do is none of that.

[ancianita]

258. Why you call support for an attacked journalist and a whistleblower fandom, I don't understand.

I agree with your first sentence, but I don't think your Greenwald/Snowden example is fair. Maybe you could further explain, because I really don't like the use of "fans" in this context.

My first reaction: When DU people are clarifying their different understandings of what "treason," "whistleblowing" and "leaking" are, they are, in fact, offering important bases for a party's common approach to proper democratic governance. It's not just important, but it's foundational, for government not to break its own laws in handling national safety and security.

Your claim about G & S "fans" ignores the fact that most of us have read their explanations of their attempts to get information through the usual upline channels and have been ignored or threatened. How are DU posters' "solutions" even relevant or credible, since we here are not anywhere close to working in those contexts. But we do care about democratic government accountability to citizens. We do want to know what is being done to us or others in the name of 'security.'

The solutions come with the whistleblowing, which forces the secret, illegal activities against our people to be brought to light. Solutions usually don't come from us except through campaign work and voting. Whistleblowing forces public debates and accountability to resurface, for leaders to answer to citizens so that we know what leaders to support and vote for.

It probably wouldn't be any more fair for me to call you a fan of government secrecy than it is to call supporters of Greenwald and Snowden fans.

[treestar]

77. And there is no way they will admit that support of any candidate or officeholder

is anything other than sycophancy. So they are basically saying it is impossible to have a Democracy. Reminds me of right wingers who refuse to make distinctions. Support the slightest business regulation and you are a communist. They refuse to recognize the gradations to the left of center. Only to the right of center.

[freshwest]

274. 'So they are basically saying it is impossible to have a Democracy.' Exactly!

The Libertarians don't believe in it either.

[madfloridian]

96. What I have seen....

Or should I say not seen lately.

SO many of our longtime posters who posted long well-researched articles don't even bother much anymore. Too many to name but oldtimers here know pretty much who I mean.

They move on to somewhere else or post less because posts disappear too quickly to warrant the work put into it.

[Rafale]

102. Bingo

Posts disappear to quickly. I have a life. So sorry, but there's also nothing stopping independent research done by those good people, who have the time. Of course researching an opinion other than your own would require an open mind and an interest in discovery, which is much more fun than being spoon-fed by a stranger.

[madfloridian]

104. Whoa there! Lots of weird stuff directed to lots of us in that post. Welcome to DU...

I guess.

[Rafale]

105. Thank you

With great sincerity.
First beer or wine on me.

[BainsBane]

103. They also tend to be hostile

to posts by and perspectives of people of color and feminists.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

165. Jesus fucking Christ.

If you don't support the President's spy program, you're a mysogenistic and a racist. Climb off the cross. Your self pity is nauseating.

[BainsBane]

168. Get a grip

That is not what I said, and I'm not even going to bother explaining because you clearly are more invested in making up shit to be outraged by. To save yourself a coronary every time you suffer the indignity of reading (and misreading) one of my posts, put me on ignore and be done with me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

204. No ...

BB was pointing out that those discussed in the OP ... ALSO ... post things that PoC and Feminists find offensive.

[Jamaal510]

169. Somehow

I'm not surprised...

[BainsBane]

170. For the record, I do not support NSA spying

and unlike the previous poster I know it is not just this President's program but began under Bush (in David Addington's office, to be precise). However, I don't insult everyone who sees the issue differently as authoritarian. Nor do I use the Barack Obama Group as a pejorative (or code for African American). There tends to be some overlap between certain groups, and the ones who hate the President and the Democratic Party tend to overlap with those who are hostile to issues of feminism and racism. Those are three groups of posters, but there is overlap among them.

[freshwest]

276. Bush? No. The NSA, etc. was created March 5, 1946. Every POTUS since is required to carry on:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023501805#post108

Just for fun, lots of links:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022980689#post10

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10022979321#post43

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021935289#post42

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021935289#post16

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022980689#post20

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022980689#post25

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10022979321#post26

[Skittles]

108. complete BS

it isn't "anyone who supports president Obama" - it's blind, hero worship they find sickening

[Andy823]

116. I get it

Kind of like the blind hero worship the Greenwald fans have with him! You see that was my point about their hypocrisy. They can make such claims and it's OK, but don't dare talk bad about our hero, Greenwald, no way no how!

[Skittles]

135. They don't WORSHIP

they READ

[Andy823]

140. OK

Can you show me an example of that "blind hero worship" you say some have towards Obama?

Let me ask you a question. Is claiming "anyone" who uses GG instead of Greenwald's full name "homophobic" really appropriate? Couldn't that be interpreted as some kind of "blind hero worship"? Or that people who don't agree with those who support Greenwald here are unpatriotic?

[Skittles]

164. are you fucking serious?

THERE'S AN ENTIRE GROUP OF THEM

[Andy823]

226. Intersting

So the ones who disagree with you and your "group" are the bad ones, right? And you can't see the same kind of hero worship you talk about with the Greenwald Snowden fans?

Oh, and you didn't answer my question, to you believe those who use GG instead of Greewalds full name are "homophobic"?

[grasswire]

143. eyes open, with discernment! nt

I haven't seen anyone who appreciates Glen Greenwald's efforts go all weepy because he happened to unexpectedly walk down a city street. Or post sweet pictures of him with his partner. Or post love songs/poems that accompany his photos.

We appreciate his work. We aren't infatuated with his person.

[Skittles]

163. THANK YOU

these folk, who are so INFATUATED, don't seem to recognize that not everyone shares their ridiculous affliction

[cui bono]

179. Oh the hypocrisy...

Wow. "Blind hero worship". Did you even read the OP that you wrote???

Jesus christ. Pathetic.

[MisterP]

118. maybe it's all the hero-worship, authoritarianism, and blind following?

[Warren DeMontague]

125. You think it's bad now, wait until the '16 primaries start.

[Corruption Inc]

130. How about the group that hates free speech, free press and free health care?

Ever think about how offensive they are to the entirety of humanity?

[Andy823]

142. Well

The only ones that seem to fit that comment would be the teapublicans, so I would agree, they are very offensive to humanity.

[Cha]

144. I finally saw that thread that you were talking about.. I couldn't believe someone would use their

agenda to call anybody "homophobic" because "GG" was used instead of.. you know the long version. Pathetic.

"Every single person who refers to Glenn Greenwald as GG is using a homophobic meme."

Thank you for your OP, Andy.

[Andy823]

151. Yes, it makes no sense

The thing that gets me is the whole Greenwald support group doesn't seem to get just how stupid that comment is. I have yet to see one of them condemn that remark. To be honest some may have, but I have yet to see it.

[Cha]

156. Only 16 Recs.. so that's good. 17 are supporting that meme so far.. I sure as hell am

not interested in that list!

[Bobbie Jo]

146. Huge K&R

[Number23]

155. We've all seen it, including the admins who have been called Third Way by the same group of folks

that say that this president is to the right of Nixon, a piece of shit used car salesman and a corporatist empty suit.

Glad GD keeps them busy because this is the only place in the fucking world where they have anything resembling a majority. And we should all thank the Lord for that.

[Andy823]

159. Amen to that! nt

[BootinUp]

160. Nicely put.

[1StrongBlackMan]

203. LOL ...

And they claim to be the Democratic Party's base!

[Vattel]

157. How many posters have claimed that using GG is homophobic?

[MohRokTah]

172. Enough

This site has been taken over by GG sycophants who worship the very ground the asshole walks on.

[Vattel]

182. how many is enough?

[MohRokTah]

171. DU Rec

The libertarian Paulites have taken over this site.

[maced666]

176. Supporting him and expressing views where you think he is wrong is not anti-Obama.

Who would even take such a unreasonable position?

[Tarheel_Dem]

180. Nope. It's not just you. DU attracts the attention of a number of anti-Dem boards.

They are obsessed with us as "Democrats".

[psiman]

188. There has been a huge split in the Left coalition

The divide has always been there, lurking below the surface, between between one group who think the government is inherently evil and the other group who think that the government - properly constrained by Law - is our best weapon against the powerful.

For a while we were united by our common hatred of Bush and his crimes, but once he was out of office (through the normal processes of electoral democracy, I must remind some people) began to fall apart. For reasons that are still not clear the Snowden document dump blasted the remnants to pieces.

It has been like a church breaking up: we have spent the last year fighting over who owns which part of the infrastructure that we all worked so hard to build. Firedongloake and the Daily Kos have gone full moron, and we are going at it hammer and tongs.

Meanwhile, Karl Rove is laughing his ass off.

Thanks a lot, Ed, you did a good day's work.

[eridani]

190. Big minds discuss issues. Small minds discuss personalities

Could you join the big minds with your opinions on which Obama policies you specifically support, and why? Then which opinions held by Greenwald that you oppose, and why?

[Hissyspit]

191. Bullshit. No one "started a lame ass meme."

People last summer when the Snowden revelations came out were deliberately calling Greenwald "GiGi" as a effeminating homophobic dig. When they got called on it, they switched to GG, as a slyer dig. Not everyone, of course, meant it taken that way, but some. They did it on purpose and they knew what they were doing. And I watched it happen.

And, yeah, it's called Democratic UNDERGROUND. It always has been.

[NealK]

192. +1 n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

233. Regardless of 'your' emphasis

This is STILL part of the TOS:

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office.

Doesn't matter which word you capitalize. Never has.

As far as the rest of your post....

Buncha shit-stirring nonsense.

[Hissyspit]

238. Yes, posters who use ad Hominem homophobic digs instead of real arguments are stirring shit.

And, I know the TOS. I've been here for a decade. You are restating my point.

[NealK]

193. .

[stonecutter357]

195. libertarians strike me as very odd.

[tomp]

198. whenever anyone says someone has "pushed [their criticism] too far"....

...they mean to stifle discussion. democratic underground has ALWAYS been a site that allows for criticism of democrats by the left wing of the party, you know, that wing of the party that NEVER gets anything from the party. it has also always been a place where people stand up for the people.

so let me make this very clear: i do not support obama. i think he is a suck ass corporatist doing what democratic presidents always do--throw bones and drop crumbs for the people and continue to shift the wealth of this country to the rich. frankly, i would think any one with even a passing understanding of american politics should know this and anyone who doesn't is a brainwashed, head in the sand apologist for the powers that be who are destroying the planet. and as strongly as you feel what you feel, i feel what i feel.

So my advice: stop whining and have a discussion. defend your point of view and see who you can convince. period.

[Andy823]

223. Well

Sounds to me like you are the one doing the whining. I also didn't say I had been pushed to far, simply said I have seen everything now. There is a difference.

My point was that one group here complains because another group doesn't agree with their view on the world. They get mad at those who support the president, label them as unpatriotic, mindless drones, bots, etc., yet that same group seems to have much the same problem that they accuse others of having when it comes to "blindly" following those they consider "their" heroes. It was about the "hypocrisy" they have shown, and in particular those who try and push the meme that anyone who uses Greenwalds initials are now "homophobic"!

I too think that anyone with even a passing understanding of american politics would know that president Obama has done a lot of good, even if he hasn't done everything for every person that voted for him. Sure there are things I would like to see done, like universal health car for everyone, tougher gun regulations, more taxes on corporations and the rich, etc., but I also know that he alone can not do all these things, he needs the help of congress and as long a republicans have control of the House, nothing will be done, especially if it's something the president is pushing, that's just plain facts.

I do like the way you put in that those who don't believe what you seem to believe are brainwashed apologist with their head in the sand. Nice touch.

[tomp]

272. Actually, you did say what I said you said.

"I don't care if people want to disagree with them, hell that's their right, but I think some here have pushed it to far..."

So, I paraphrased just a bit, the essence is there. Pushing criticism too far.

"My point was that one group here complains because another group doesn't agree with their view on the world. "

Dude, that's what we all complain about! Everyone here has an opinion. Don't like mine, let me know, and I will do the same.

As for heroes, most of us have someone we look up to as having done good, or have good ideas showing the way forward ("heroes&quot . I submit yours is obama and you are doing the same thing with him that you are accusing other of doing with Greenwald. I think you don't see it in yourself. You think they don't see it in themselves. I will say that if someone accuses someone of being homophobic for not supporting Greenwald, I would hope it had been in a particular context, with some other evidence presented as to that persons homophobia. Otherwise, I also would consider that to be criticism gone too far. If your complaint is that obama's hands are tied, otherwise he would do better, and others don't see that, then we disagree. obama was essentially installed by the rich and is working for the rich.

As far as what a president can achieve, I submit this is where obama shows he is a used car salesman. The status quo is unacceptable. Every president can speak up in no uncertain terms and change the dialogue. Obama and his supporters continue peddling the same old paradigm: the two party system and the OBVIOUS support for the rich from both parties. If you don't see that, you don't see things as they are. Everything else is bones and crumbs. The role of obama and the democrats is to keep enough people, like you, entrenched in the old system, believing in the lie of good american government, the good democrats and the bad republicans.

[Scuba]

199. I miss the unrec button.

[rhett o rick]

205. I so agree that there are two main factions here. One faction is liberal and the other

are called a lot of things but IMO they are LINO's (Liberal in Name Only).

The liberal group can be found in the threads on fracking, TPP/NAFTA, cross country pipelines, indefinite detention, the Patriot Act, saving SS and Medicare, the growing wealth gap, fracking, etc. This group does not walk hand in hand and often has significant disagreements. And this is what IMO DU is all about.

The other group avoids the above mentioned subjects 100% yet call themselves liberals. I ask, how can a liberal not have an opinion on the above mentioned topics. And when not one single member of this group posts, I cant help but think it's a boycott.

This group of self identified liberals seem to me to be the ones that do most of the alerting and are most outspoken to hide and lock threads, and grave dance. They seem to think they are saving the rest of us from the dangers of discussing woo or CT.

This group also post OP after OP and post after post of vitriolic ad hominem attacks on those that speak truth to power, like Snowden, Assange, Manning, Greenwald, OWS, Code Pink, Wikileaks, Michael Hastings, etc. And yet they call themselves liberals.

And craziest of all, this group disparages those they call the "far left" or "extreme left" from what they consider their liberal perspective. What is really happening is they are disparaging the liberal wing of the party from their pseudo-liberal perspective.

The views of this pseudo-liberal group align with The Third Way, Blue Dogs, and Conservative Democrats, yet they object to any of those names. The stick to the claim that they are liberal.

But I will ask again, how can a liberal not have an opinion on fracking?

[carolinayellowdog]

217. not paid to have an opinion on fracking? n/t

[rhett o rick]

221. Those that are paid to disrupt dont bother me as much as those that naively follow

the top authoritarians like Gen Clapper and Gen Alexander. They mistakenly think the authoritarian leaders will protect them and therefore they give up their liberties, freedoms, wealth and integrity.

[Andy823]

222. So in other words

Everyone that agrees with you are liberals, but those who don't are not, right?

Now I admit I don't read every post on DU, but I don't think I have ever seen anyone support tracking. I have seen most of those who "support" the president, you know the ones that get called drones, mindless followers, etc. post on all the issues you have mentioned. The "other group" as you call them simply don't agree with you on things, like some just don't buy into the idea that Greenwald and Snowden are speaking out for truth, but instead for their own reasons like money and politics. If Snowden is speaking for truth, then should I believe all the crap he spewed in the past against liberal ideas?

Just because some disagrees with you and your "group" does not mean they are not liberals. I always question anyone who makes the claim that "others" are not real liberals simply because they don't see things the same way.

[rhett o rick]

227. It's easy to tell. Those that refuse to speak to fracking, the TPP, etc.

and hate whistle-blowers dont meet any kind of liberal definition.

You make the typical mistake, "Everyone that agrees with you are liberals, but those who don't are not, right? " Liberals rarely agree with each other. Those that debate issues with me are liberals and those that post ad hominem attacks on whistle-blowers and avoid all the main issues are pseudo-liberals.

[Andy823]

230. As I said

I don't recall every seeing anyone who was not against tracking, from those who support the president that is. Sure there may be some trolls or libertarians post here who might support it, but that's about it.

I would think people could both debate issues with you and still not agree with Snowden and Greenwald, and still be a liberal, right?

You say liberals seldom agree with each other, but if someone doesn't agree with liberal issues, but still debates the issues with you, are they liberals also?

[rhett o rick]

259. "I don't recall every seeing anyone who was not against fracking, from those who support the

president." And how can you tell? I am strongly against fracking and post in a lot of anti-fracking threads. I wont claim to have seen them all, but I think it's very odd that none of "them" will post, not one will give their opinion. Same goes for threads on the TPP, indefinite detention, the Patriot Act, critical of Wall Street, the XL Pipeline, and more. When not one will post on any of these very important issues it makes me wonder why.

"You say liberals seldom agree with each other" Yes I did and I should have said that liberals rarely all agree with each other. Not true of the Blue Dogs. They 100% back every thing the President does. Wow, now that's loyalty, but not very liberal.

The Blue Dogs might say they oppose the growing wealth gap, but it's only talk. They wont insist that their representatives support the 99%. The love H. Clinton even though she is joined at the hip with Goldman-Sachs-O-Money and Wall Street.

[baldguy]

237. Um... You're not trying to put Greenwald and Snowden in the "liberal" group, are you?

Because they support Rand Paul - and that's not very liberal.

[Hissyspit]

242. I think you meant to type:

Greenwald questions the legitimacy of Presidential policy that uses drone warfare to target American citizens. Which actually is very liberal.

[baldguy]

244. People who praise Rand Paul are not & can never be considered to be "liberal"

Hitler loved dogs, but the ASPCA doesn't claim him as one of their own, and his supporters don't get invited to speak at their meetings. There's a good reason for that.

[Hissyspit]

245. Simplistic absolutism.

Last edited Sun May 25, 2014, 10:12 PM - Edit history (1)

And "praise" is your word.

[rhett o rick]

261. They have to have someone to hate and take their mind off the important issues that

the President is screwing up. We shouldnt deny them their hate. They have little else. They cant talk to the major issues of the day.

[rhett o rick]

260. How silly of you to even ask. I guess it's one of your illogical fallacy tricks. And by the

way I havent stopped beating my wife.

[asiliveandbreathe]

211. Ignore the haters

You are not the jackass whisperer! Rumors are carried by haters - spread by fools - and accepted by idiots! Haters are terrified of their own emptiness!

[Stellar]

224. I agree with all that you have said!

I support president Obama. I don't agree with everything he does, but I still think he has done more good for this country than any president in a long long time.

And I'm gonna say what I feel about it anytime I feel like it. I find that the negatives come from the Snowden/Greenwald fan base but that's OK...I don't always respond to their questions anyway.

[shenmue]

229. Well said

[lamp_shade]

234. From some of the replies, I'd say you struck a few nerves Andy823.

[Hissyspit]

241. Fox News gets on my nerves.

What's your point?

[lamp_shade]

243. ...

[rhett o rick]

262. It's kinda sad when that's your goal. Especially when we are coming up to an election.

Piss off the left, is that the game plan? I guess it's easier than speaking to issues.

[baldguy]

236. What Greenwald & Snowden fans don't understand, or deliberately won't acknowledge.

The Democrats who are most subject to criticism by these blowhards are, at the very least, people who got elected, in very large part by actually advocating, working for and helping to pass liberal legislation. That's the reason why we support & vote for Democrats. And there's no way in hell Greenwald & Snowden would ever be able to do that. Attacks on Democrats are designed to make passing liberal legislation more difficult, and ultimately impossible.

People who support Greenwald & Snowden when they praise Rand Paul and characterize the President as a would-be dictator are working against everything we've accomplished in the last 6 yrs.

[Hissyspit]

239. Um, no.

[baldguy]

246. You replies are just as informed & well-thought out as your positions.

[Hissyspit]

247. I could say the same for you.

[baldguy]

255. Can you dance in the Big Shoes, too?

[Andy823]

257. I couldn't agree more nt

[Blue_Tires]

253. I feel you...

I've hardly been able to ask any questions about Snow-Wald or mention any dissenting facts without being called a statist, authoritarian, paid Pentagon shill, and worse...

[kelliekat44]

256. You took the words right off my keypad. I really, really feel the OP. nt

[JEB]

265. Well if opposing illegal surveillance of Americans,

drone warfare, so called free trade agreements, etc. makes me a libertarian, well so be it.

[Andy823]

267. Never said it would

I think it's the posters that promote both parties are the same so why vote for either one, try a third party. Or the ones that say "stay home" no need to waste your time voting that might be the libertarians.

Oh, yeah and anyone who says Rand Paul wouldn't be so bad as a president, "WOULD" be a libertarian!

[JEB]

268. I'd say Rand Paul is an ignorant, arrogant, privileged asshole. Wrong on most issues.

But I have to agree that voting for puke lite or third way is not for me. I also wish that Dems would wield the power they have and stop accommodating the enemy.

[NaturalHigh]

278. We also have a very vocal group...

that is always prepped to go all Apocalypse Now on anyone who disagrees with the President on anything.

I like President Obama, but I also understand why he's so polarizing for a lot of people.