I say we lock any post that says anything bad about any Democrat!!!!

[Logical]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by William769 (a host of the General Discussion forum).

We cannot keep attacking our own party!!!

Even if we are doing things that are not progressive, they must not be mentioned!!!

Don't attack any Democratic candidate, no matter how much they don't really seem Democratic!!!

Don't attack any bills proposed by Democratic members of congress, no matter if they don't seem Democratic!!!

Don't attack any votes by Democratic members of congress even if they appear to be voting Anti-Democratic!!!

ANY attack of ANY Democrat is an attack of ALL Democrats!

Carry on!!!

[Kalidurga]

1. Finally some common sense

[peacebird]

2. Obviously you forgot to add the sarcasm thingy....

[Logical]

10. Should I have needed it? :-)

[peacebird]

14. Not for me, but ....

[GGJohn]

28. Not for me, I recognized it for satire immediately.

I suspect I know what thread spawned this one.

[Logical]

52. I suspect you are 100% correct! :-)

[Bobbie Jo]

83. lol "satire"

Now there's a generous description.

[GGJohn]

95. Well, what would you call it? eom

[Bobbie Jo]

115. Call it whatever you want

I guess I just have a higher bar for what qualifies as "satire."

I would call this effort little more than simplistic snark, I suppose.

[merrily]

3. ....

[HappyMe]

4. lol!

Party over principal!!1

[Fumesucker]

5. We are all Joe Lieberman now..

It was only because he was attacked by the far left that he could not let us have the public option.

[tabasco]

48. Lieberman was an independent when he fought the public option

But you knew that, didn't you?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

96. Lieberman was always Lieberman all along.

He merely changed the letter after his name to win re-election when he lost his primary. It didn't actually change anything about who he was politically. To pretend that he somehow magically became 'different' in his views because the letter after his name changed is ludicrous.

[tabasco]

116. He changed the letter after his name because Democratic voters rejected him

How nice it must be to live in Lala Land, where the truth is nothing but a dream.

[ND-Dem]

120. they rejected him because he was a dino. actually he was a saboteur.

[tabasco]

125. I see, so you admit he was not a Democrat.

We're making progress!

[ND-Dem]

127. He just played one on TV. But the Party accepted the play.

[Marr]

134. Not to mention a Vice Presidential candidate.

It doesn't get much more 'inside' than that.

And then party loyalists turn around and blame voters for not giving Gore sufficient votes.

[ND-Dem]

135. +100

[ND-Dem]

101. that's ridiculous.

[tabasco]

114. The truth is ridiculous to you?

Sad way to be.

[ND-Dem]

117. ridiculous to imply that putting an I in front of his name changed what he was or what he'd been

doing.

[tabasco]

122. It was not the placement of the letter,

it was his rejection by Democrats that put the letter "I" there.

But we already know you're quite happy to ignore truth and reality.

[ND-Dem]

126. It was his lack of any Democratic principles that led to the lack of voter support that put the

"I" there, the "I" which more truly reflected his actions.

Thanks for the personal attack, btw. shows your character as well.

[Fumesucker]

132. Lieberman became an independent because of the far left

Which makes the fact we have no public option now entirely the fault of the far left.

See how it works? Every failure of progressive legislation can easily be attributed to the actions of the far left.

[ND-Dem]

100. exactly. it's all your fault, lefties!

[treestar]

6. Why are you so eager to attack them?

People who have nothing good to say about them are odd. If you are not a Democrat, you can expect pushback from Democrats here. Why do you feel entitled to agreement from Democrats that their party is just the worst thing ever? A lot of us here are Democrats and we want to build up and not cut down.

[Andy823]

15. Excellent question

Why should anyone "ATTACK" other democrats? I don't mind that people disagree with each other, or disagree with the president, or anyone who will run in 2016, it's not wrong to disagree. However those who "ATTACK", and there are a lot of them here on DU, are going far beyond disagreeing and some have actually gone to the point they sound more like right-wingers than democrats, liberals, or progressives.

It's pretty obvious that some here are trying to tear things down, not build them up. Instead of useful suggestion, it's simply "trashing" those they don't like, day after day, after day.

[Logical]

17. Define Attack vs. Disagree. I bet that is most the problem. Your Attack is my Disagree. nt

[SickOfTheOnePct]

21. Exactly

There are any number of posters here that are all too ready to cry "Troll!" or "Repug" if you dare disagree with a Democratic politician.

[GGJohn]

40. Ain't that the truth. eom.

[treestar]

82. Playing the victim card

Do you ever agree with any Democratic politician? And disagreeing with a Blue Dog is fine, but advocating that people stay home and not vote another thing. And refusing to acknowledge issues where blue dogs agree. Or calling people "Turd Way." That's not building up. These people don't merely disagree with Democrats occasionally. They are always ready to tear down the Democrat. Even a communist would have sense enough not to do that, if they wanted to see any movement left.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

89. Of course

I agree with Democratic politicians the vast majority of the time.

Disagreeing with ANY Democratic politician is OK - why limit it to Blue Dogs?

Advocating that people stay home and not vote is not OK, but then again I've never done that.

Calling people "Turd Way" is not OK, but then again, I've never done that.

You might want to aim your vitriol at someone that has actually done the things you're complaining about.

[DanTex]

24. You used the word "attack" in your OP. Why don't you define it?

[merrily]

36. Difference being, the OP was satirizing others who use the word "attack." Reply 15 was not.

[GGJohn]

30. Spot fucking on. eom.

[treestar]

79. I see plenty of attack

Disagreement that is 100% and constant is not likely either, even if the person is an out and out socialist. They could still see some good things happening sometimes.

The blather about the corporatists and how the system is corrupt and never works and should be torn down is not stuff you can expect from Democrats.

The Democrats are not for tearing down the whole system and having a revolution. If that makes us corporatists suck ups to the 1%, that's you're corporatists fascist authoritarians but to us our Democratic Party.

[Logical]

91. I think Hillary is a corporate politician. And not a real progressive. I will vote for her.....

if she is the nominee. As we all should. But calling her out is 100% fine with me. No on on the DU is going to impact an election with our comments.

If anyone gets discouraged by comments on the DU then you need to get a real life.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

97. Why telegraph u'll vote 4 Hillary 4 Prez no matter wat? That's not logical Logical-wud seem ur givin up leverage 2 move her further left on progressive issues. JMHO

[Logical]

111. You think my post will change Hillary? nt

[treestar]

78. You are right - there is never anything constructive

Sometimes you get this general idea of tearing down the whole system. Like what replaces it could hardly be anything but worse.

[Oktober]

7. Came in to see if you were serious...

Still not sure...

Hmm...

[truebluegreen]

25. Of course not serious. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

98. Seems pretty obvious to me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Straw men are flammable./NT

[RiverLover]

9. Yes! We must continue to enable republican policies driven by Democrats In Name Only!!

Our team winning is ALL that matters!!

[djean111]

33. Evidently this is what we are supposed to do......

[treestar]

86. If that's what you really believe, you aren't a Democrat

And Elizabeth Warren would be just as bad in your eyes, for identifying with the Democratic party and sometimes voting with it.

A few words on one subject should be nothing to the principled if she does the wrong thing on one other issue. Unless of course you are using her to cut down other Democrats.

[HereSince1628]

11. Why the anxiety about quashing criticism? It's like 'they' know the heroes have deviated

from the ancient code and that the centrists (sic) cannot hold.

[QC]

138. Sames reason Justin Bieber fans shriek and howl

when someone points out that their idol is a goofy delinquent who can't sing.

The fan mentality. Most people grow out of it in their teens, though.

[HereSince1628]

139. Gotta admit I'm not familiar with Beibar or his delinquency...

I'm probably 45 years beyond his target age demographic

He's a bad boy, eh?

[leveymg]

12. Does your old Brown Shirt still fit? Better have it drycleaned, anyway.

[merrily]

39. You're calling the OP a Nazi?

[leveymg]

80. No.

[merrily]

81. good.

[leveymg]

87. One snark invites another.

Dish it out, gotta take it in. Great circle of snark.

[merrily]

90. Snarking about some DUers trying to stop criticism of Democrats is not exactly on the same level

as snarking about someone being a brown shirt wearing Nazi, but whatever.

[leveymg]

93. I didn't think he was entirely serious, nor was my response.

We can go into infinite regress, if you want.

[GGJohn]

41. You do realize that it was satire don't you? eom.

[leveymg]

85. Yes. But, I've seen a lot of McCarthyism on this board of late.

Perhaps, it's just a little too close, even if in jest.

[ND-Dem]

106. mccarthyism? you mean posters criticising others for being too left-wing? i've seen it too,

but your Nazi 'joke' doesn't speak to it.

[leveymg]

121. Point taken. The allusion to McCarthyism is more apt.

I'll post these lovely images instead, when and if there's a next time.

[ND-Dem]

131. makes more sense now.

[NightWatcher]

13. can we all get matching uniforms as well to go along with our locksteping?

[Logical]

16. Yes, I have picked out these uniforms......

[Bobbie Jo]

18. I say we lock any post

that looks like a mish mash of silly exaggerations.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

37. If we do that

half of the first page on any given day would be locked.

[randome]

19. Be happy.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you think childhood is finished, maybe you didn't do it right the first time.
Start over.[/center][/font][hr]

[TreasonousBastard]

20. Oh nooooo...

that would abridge the free speech of malcontents and "true Democrats" alike. (Mainly malcontents, but who cares at this point...)

More to the point might be for everyone who complains to add an addendum about the rules that must be followed to avoid such objections and how normal dealmaking in state and national capitals should not be excepted from said rules.

It would also hugely cut the traffic here since vastly more posts seem to be complaining about some asshole rather than saying something positive about someone.

[wyldwolf]

22. I've seen some posts locked and couldn't fathom why

I said from the beginning the jury system would fail.

There used to be only a handful of things that would get a post locked:

Personal attack: You dumbass!!
Appeal to right wing authority: Rush Limbaugh says...
Calling someone a Republican or conservative (this was a special kind of personal attack)
Sexism
Racism

Posts are locked or NOT locked now depending on your jury and who you.

Just because your feelings are hurt over someone disagreeing with you isn't grounds for a post being locked.

However, I haven't seen any posts locked over the reasons you describe.

[Logical]

23. No locked but people throwing fits that we are complaining about dems not being dems. nt

[wyldwolf]

29. So the posts haven't been locked?

You're just complaining because people are disagreeing with your opinion of someone's Democratic bona fides? Ah, got it. You're annoyed because people on DU won't conform to your definitions.

[merrily]

43. I read the complaint as being about going ad hom as an attempt to silence.

In theory, we are supposed to post about issues, not other posters.

[wyldwolf]

59. what part of his post complains about ad hom attacks?

We cannot keep attacking our own party!!!

Even if we are doing things that are not progressive, they must not be mentioned!!!

Don't attack any Democratic candidate, no matter how much they don't really seem Democratic!!!

Don't attack any bills proposed by Democratic members of congress, no matter if they don't seem Democratic!!!

Don't attack any votes by Democratic members of congress even if they appear to be voting Anti-Democratic!!!

ANY attack of ANY Democrat is an attack of ALL Democrats!

He's whining that people disagree with his opinions on what constitute being progressive and what policies are 'anti-Democratic.' More specifically, he (and you, by the way) don't like it when people disagree with you opinions on Hillary Clinton.

[GGJohn]

62. Dude, it's satire, get over it. eom.

[wyldwolf]

63. OPs like this never stand alone. The poster has a history and that is what people reference...

... when he posts things like this.

[GGJohn]

65. It's satire on a Sunday morning, just roll with it and quit being so serious.

[wyldwolf]

74. nah. He's trying to make a statement with it

A statement some (like reply #6) fully understand based on the OP's history.

[GGJohn]

76. Ok, whatever.

It's a beautiful morning here in the Flagstaff area, I'm just enjoying the humor this thread has produced.
Have a great Sunday.

[merrily]

64. The way I read the OP, the OP, taken as a whole does that.

Flip what the OP is saying into the kind of post the OP is spoofing.

For example, "Stop attacking Democrats." (A post of that kind is not discussing issues. It's discussing a poster's posting behavior.)

[wyldwolf]

69. where's the ad hom attacks?

"responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.'

[Bobbie Jo]

55. Yeah, you know

lockstep and shit....



*insert bizarre Orwellian graphic here.*

[hrmjustin]

26. So you want to stifle debate?

[Logical]

27. YES! Democrats cannot be attacked no matter how non-progressive they are!!!!!! DON'T YOU GET IT?? nt

[hrmjustin]

31. If it were a safe haven I would say yes that you could lock threads like that.

We don't allow it in the HRC room but GD it is perfectly allowed and should be.

People should expect a back and forth.

[GGJohn]

32. Amazing!!!!!

Some here don't yet get that your thread is satire.
Maybe you should've added the sarcasm thingy.

[hrmjustin]

42. Actually i do but I enjoy playing along.

[GGJohn]

44. Ok, my bad and apologies.

[hrmjustin]

46. .

[Logical]

45. I really didn't think I needed it. Wow, how much more over the top can I get? :-)

[GGJohn]

50. Well, with a certain faction here...................................eom.

[merrily]

51. Please see Reply 43. Seems to me, those who go ad hom and call people

Republicans and trolls, instead of addressing issues, are the ones trying to stifle debate.

[hrmjustin]

58. And you will never see that from me.

[merrily]

60. Different posters have different tactics.

[hrmjustin]

66. Insulting someone on purpose is not mine.

[ND-Dem]

108. i've not seen you do it. but i have seen others do it as their first line of defense.

[hrmjustin]

119. I have seen it done as well on both sides and it is not pleasant.

I personally have been insulted for supporting Hillary.

[ND-Dem]

123. insulted or criticized? i don't mind being criticized, but irrelevant personal remarks accompanied

by the rofl icon strike me as juvenile and creepy. and I get those kind of responses all the time.

[hrmjustin]

129. Insulted. Criticism comes with the territory.

[ND-Dem]

130. i agree, criticism comes with the territory. personal attacks are another matter.

[Bagsgroove]

34. Sarcasm???!!!

I admit that without the *sarcasm* thingy at first I thought you might be serious...but the triple exclamation points (!!!) work almost as well.

[wyldwolf]

47. there is a message in his sarcasm, though. An underlying aim

The OP likes to post the types of posts he's complaining about and he doesn't care for anyone disagreeing with him. So his sarcastic OP about stifling debate reveals his desire to stifle debate, to accept his pronouncements of who is 'progressive' enough to be called a 'Democrat.'

Pffft.

[merrily]

53. There is a message in the sarcasm--always is--but not the message you describe.

[wyldwolf]

61. The please explain, Oracle, how his post is only about 'ad hom' attacks

[merrily]

71. Never claimed to be an oracle, so thanks for that ad hom, but pls. see Reply 64.

[wyldwolf]

73. Calling you 'oracle' doesn't meet the definition of ad hom. pls see reply #6

[merrily]

84. It goes to the person (me) and not to any issue.

[wyldwolf]

102. Which isn't the definition of ad hominem

ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character.

Your character was not attacked.

[merrily]

103. Was it issue related? No. It was about me. Was it intended to compliment to me? No.

Personal insults do fit some definitions of ad hominem. Call it what you will.

[wyldwolf]

105. You can't invent your own definitions.

[merrily]

109. I don't need to. http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/

When you attack the speaker/poster, rather than debating the issue, you are engaging in a logical fallacy. Some call it ad hominem. Call it what you will. It's still a logical fallacy.

[wyldwolf]

137. Your link in no way describes what you're calling 'ad hom.'

You weren't undermined on a personal level.

[hootinholler]

35. RIGHT ON! Woodchucks Unite!

Let's get to chucking that wood! All sensible and shit!

[randome]

38. Anger is not logical.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Logical]

49. Great pic! nt

[merrily]

57. Reading anger into words on a screen is not logical, either.

The OP is spoofing this kind of poster:

?itok=S3x5lUeK

(Remake of a Leonard Nimoy film, btw).

Deciding the spoof is the product of anger is on you.

Best I can tell, the OP is laughing.

[randome]

68. I get it now. Didn't at first. Oh, well...

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Logical]

70. Thank you!! nt

[merrily]

72. Oh, so now you're trying to pretend you're not poutraged?

[ND-Dem]

110. invasion of the body snatchers was a nimoy film?

on edit: I looked it up. Nimoy was in the remake with Donald Sutherland (source of that picture), not the 1956 original.


http://georgehahn.com/2015/02/27/invasion-of-the-body-snatchers-leonard-nimoys-most-underrated-performance/

[merrily]

112. In the sense that he play a character in the film, yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_the_Body_Snatchers_%281978_film%29

[ND-Dem]

113. that's the 1978 remake, the source of the picture you posted. the original was 1956.

Donald Sutherland is the one pointing in that picture. he starred in the '78 remake which nimoy appeared in.

the 1956 original starred kevin McCarthy.

[MrMickeysMom]

54. So, does that fix what the party pumps out over time to REPRESENT THE DP?

If so, go back and look at what Democrats supported around our 16th POTUS and tell me if we are the same… Then, check out the Republican party's deepening fascism from, say around the early 1960...

Are we static?

Or, is it just your attitude???

[L0oniX]

56. Locking

[Logical]

67. LOL, fooled me! nt

[Bluenorthwest]

75. In politics, I much prefer those who 'attack' issues and positions over those who 'attack' persons.

Same goes for those who promote persons, I am more interested in the policies and positions than the persons. So if you favor candidate A and I ask 'What does A think about carrots' and your response is 'Candidate B hates carrots and has been part of the anti carrot movement' you have simply not answered my question. You have not promoted your candidate, you have simply criticized the other. It's not the same thing.

[Logical]

92. Politicians criticize each other all the time. Even during the primary. So you might let them....

know your rules before the primary's start.

[SidDithers]

77. The only locked thread in GD that I can see, scanning back a couple of pages...

is one talking about Bigfoot and UFOs.



Now, if you're talking about a post being hidden, well, you take your chances when you bash Democrats on a partisan Democratic board.

Sid

[merrily]

88. OP is making a satiricalModest Proposal, ala Jonathan Swift, not reporting about locked threads.

[Oktober]

94. Poe's Law in action...

[dissentient]

99. Good sheeple don't question their leaders. They just march in lockstep to where ever the leader

tells them...

[JoePhilly]

104. Can't, DU would shut down.

[DrDan]

107. censorship . . . great idea . . . . it'll solve all ills

on edit

ahhhhh - satire - you got me . . . . it just seemed a bit too real

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

118. And, put it on their Permanent Record!

[fadedrose]

124. "Heil"

Is that how you spell it?

Where's Adolf when you need him.

[Android3.14]

128. The OP really needs the sarcasm marker

There are several on DU (even a few total nimrods that are unpaid and sincere) who will see this as exactly the policy this community should practice.

[still_one]

133. Won't happen. Hopefully that will happen at election time though, and if

it doesn't I will have serious reservations about DU

[liberal N proud]

136. Been my philosophy for a long time

It just helps republicans.

[PumpkinAle]

140. Of course, we need to shine the light

on Democrats that discredit the party. We should stick our head in the sand and pretend everyone is great ........ that is what repugs do.

Is this a good example of a Democrat............just last week Assemblyman Richard Carrillo, D-Las Vegas, charged with drunken driving and possession of a firearm while intoxicated.

There are too many bad politicians that need to be shown the door, we don't want or need them in the Democratic party. We have some really, really great people (Franken, Warren are just two) and we should cultivate them and be proud of them for what they do not just because they have "D" behind their names.

[William769]

141. LOCKING.

DISRUPTIVE META-DISCUSSION
Positive threads about Democratic Underground or its members are are permitted.

Threads complaining about Democratic Underground or its members; threads complaining about jury decisions, locked threads, suspensions, bannings, or the like; and threads intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of Democratic Underground and its community moderating system are not permitted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025307978