Hitler liked dogs, so if you like dogs...

[MannyGoldstein]

For the record, I'm very happy that ACA remained fundamentally intact today. ACA is terribly weak tea, but it's not water.

I just popped on to DU and I see a bevy of threads savaging folks who wanted to see ACA taken out. I saw a thread insinuating that if anyone is disappointed by today's ruling, they are likely a lunatic Republican.

Look, I disagree with Democrats who wanted ACA struck down. I understand their profound disappointment. But they are not Republicans any more than dog lovers are Nazis. Democrats are disappointed because they wanted strong tea. Republicans wanted water. Big, big difference.

It has of late become fashionable and acceptable on DU to call people trolls, Republicans, liars, and worse, simply because we disagree with them. That's crap. It should stop.

It's fine to disagree. Even to strongly disagree. And to be blunt about a disagreement. But name calling is simply the refuge of a person who can't defend their ideas. This isn't grade school - either win the argument on the merits, or rethink your argument.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

1. Good advice. But have you considered, thinking in lieu of name calling would slow things down.

[ProSense]

2. "Hitler" had

a list. This ain't it:

[Honeycombe8]

3. Dogs are not a political position. Name one of Hitler's political positions, like anti-academic....

nt

[sadbear]

4. Yep, when you advocate for republican positions

be prepared for the consequences. (Repeal of Obamacare was NEVER a Democratic position.)

[DJ13]

6. Obamacare IS a Republican position

It was their idea 20 years ago.

[sadbear]

8. It's a Democratic one now.

This ain't 1992.

[Zalatix]

23. The Democrats got indoctrinated by the GOP. Hooray.

[woo me with science]

24. So are indefinite detention, austerity budgets, settlements for corrupt banks,

pre-emptive war as administration doctrine, spreading drone wars, proliferation of drones and militarization of police departments at home, supply-side tax policies, job-destroying secret free trade agreements, drilling and new pipelines, corporate education policies, massive new surveillance centers for scrutiny of Americans' emails and phone calls, arguing at the SC for warrantless GPS surveillance, arguing at the SC for strip searches for any arrestee, crackdowns on OWS, support for ACTA and Joe Lieberman's alternative to CISPA, support for internet ID's, support for TSA groping, etc., etc., etc.

Of course they fought for a corporate mandate for profit-driven health insurance. It is consistent with this administration's generally pro-corporate and authoritarian policy agenda.

Facing reality is going to be necessary at some point if we are ever going to fix our party and reverse this country's rightward, corporate march.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

25. It looks like you hit all the important ones. But we still have time for some more.

[hay rick]

31. +

Can't wait for the November Republican primary...

[awoke_in_2003]

33. One party...

Known by two different names.

[Honeycombe8]

9. You're talking about one provision. Not the ACA. Are you familiar with it? Doesn't sound like it. nt

[FarLeftFist]

20. lolz.

[treestar]

40. Before Reagan

Before this country turned right.

[FarLeftFist]

5. You can also go onto the Weight Watchers forums and post about cheesecake, but...

its election season. If someone wants to continuously post negative threads about D's then maybe they should find a site that enjoys such a thing. How does the saying go, if you're not part of the solution...

(not speaking of OP of course, just in general)

[RZM]

15. If you're not part of the solution . . .

You're part of the precipitate

[arcane1]

26. DUzy!

[SunsetDreams]

7. Seems more suited for Meta nt

[Autumn]

10. I like strong tea. If we had ordered strong tea we could have added a glass of water and

we would have had a nice glass of iced tea. But when everybody at the table ordered water, well

[Rowdyboy]

11. Your tea/water analogy is off...some Democrats wanted strong tea, Republicans wanted people thirsty

all Democrats could agree on was weak tea. May not be much but its sure as hell better than going thirsty-at least IMHO. To each his or her own-I haven't called anyone anything for being dismissive of the ACA. But its at least one step closer to single payer than we were in 2009. Considering the "quality" of Democrats in the house and senate these days I'm amazed we got anything at all.

[MADem]

12. It's also fashionable to look, frantically, for the "Debbie Downer/Worst Case Scenario" and slam it

up here the second any good news arrives. I believe in some circles it's called "Harshing the mellow."

That's crap, too--and it should stop.

Some of these "Waaah, not Good Enough" posts are not even subtle. There's an agenda behind them, and it isn't support and improvement of the party.


This is Democratic Underground. Not "Democrats Suck Underground."

I think a review of the TOS is helpful all around.

[Honeycombe8]

13. It's valid to voice an opinion against a bill. It's also valid to point out...

that that anti-bill opinion is the exact opinion of the tea baggers, and the bill is supported by ALL key liberal politicians, whether they be Democrats or Socialists.

It's a point worth noting. That is not calling someone a name. But it is a valid point, esp since it's so unusual for this forum, and virtually unheard of when the Democrats have a win against the Republicans (which is rare in itself).

It IS part of an argument to point out who holds what opinions. We do it in this forum all the time. It's usually when the liberal position is being supported (like, to quote Bernie Sanders as being in favor of such and such, as further proof of a poster's viewpoint being supported by liberals who are knowledgeable), but it's valid to point it out when some are not supporting the liberal position.

I can see why it would make someone uncomfortable, though, to suddenly realize who else is saying the same thing they are. I've been in that position before, myself. It's pretty earth shattering. Makes a person think. Which is the point.

[progressoid]

14. Weak tea?

More like turnip juice.

[Zorra]

16. Yeh. What I find disturbing is that

it's almost always a more centrist poster who is further to the right calling a more progressive poster who is further to the left a troll or republican.

Republicans are the traditionally the righties. Democrats are traditionally the lefties.

It's so...off...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

18. Of course, name calling would not be required if logic support their "centrist" positions.

[joshcryer]

17. And Ron Paul is anti-war...

...but pro-death squad.

So we shouldn't point that shit out, because it's OK to support anti-war even if it means pro-death squad.

The talking points used by those against ACA have for the past two years been totally right wing. Some people have been PPR'd for espousing those views from right wing sources themselves.

These so called "Democrats" that wanted to destroy ACA and allow millions of people to suffer, wanted to later on then champion some "single payer" cause for the next few decades as we waited for different health care legislation.

As it stands now a public option in the next 4-5 years would fix much of the problems for ACA and then the public pool could readily be merged in 10-15 years into Medicare for all / single payer. This is a great, fantastic win for progressives. Not for authoritarians who want to see the world burn in a glorious display of Marxist Historical Materialism.

[Zalatix]

29. You will die of old age before the Public Option is passed. If it is ever passed.

[Robb]

19. "No name calling," said MannyGoldstein.

"I mean, starting right NOW."

[FarLeftFist]

21. Yeah, because when we think Hitler we think HEALTHCARE FOR ALL!

[MannyGoldstein]

27. Yes, that's what I said

Have a good night.

[Proles]

22. I don't disagree with you, but the people who wanted to see ACA struck down so that

some magical single payer could be ushered in to replace it in one fell swoop are very naive. Don't get me wrong, I want single payer, but the time for that was years ago. Regrettably, Obama and the Democrats couldn't get their act together to pass something like that. Given the circumstances, maybe we can't blame them entirely.

Unfortunately, the alternative wasn't single payer at this point, it was an emboldened republican base, a weakened Obama Presidency, and lack of health care for millions. If people don't see that, then no wonder Democrats are too divided for their own good.

[Zalatix]

28. I don't see anyone here who wants the ENTIRE ACA struck down.

Just the mandatory private corporation product purchase part.

[MannyGoldstein]

32. Repeated polling shows that two-thirds of Americans want Medicare for All

Including more than half of Republicans. If Democrats can't turn that into policy, then they suck. Or they don't want to.

I believe it's entirely possible that if ACA had been struck down, the Democrats might have tried to do the right thing out of desperation. But for a number of reasons, I preferred that ACA be upheld. But I can understand why others felt differently.

[Proles]

34. It would have been too risky. How exactly could have Democrats pushed through

single payer out of desperation if we don't have the House, and barely have the Senate? We'd have to wait until after a November miracle, unless Obama could have used some crazy executive order to require implementation of single payer (which I highly doubt would've been possible).

[Odin2005]

30. K&R!

[just1voice]

35. It's the "I got mine, F you" mentality displayed in full regalia

Actual discussions involving rational ideas have been tossed aside by most, replaced with propagandized responses they've been trained to have like Pavlovian dogs. It makes me feel like I have little in common with people anymore until I remember that 70% of Americans want single payer.

What we have here are a lot of political sycophants as it's a political site. The deceiving nature of that is it leads a person to believe there will be actual political discussion but it's really a lot more like Yahoo where people just shout in others faces about all the material goods they think they have.

So now they have for-profit health care and think they can afford it, this in a country that is so corrupt that we can't even hold torturers accountable for setting up torture camps.

[quinnox]

36. yep, its a sign of the weak minded, but I haven't changed my position one iota

In fact, it makes me more convinced I'm right when I see that technique used. I always have had a hard time accepting the sheep argument - "you better agree with me and otherwise you are bad/evil/heretical/a satan worshipper/ etc etc"

Arguments based on appealing to social pressure are ridiculous and a sign of being a sheep, IMHO.

[Laelth]

38. Well said. n/t

-Laelth

[Uncle Joe]

37. Some people prefer the message and others the messenger.

Thanks for the thread, Manny.

[treestar]

39. I missed those threads

Though sometimes people on DU sound like a right winger's stereotype of a liberal - fueling suspicion of trolldom.