General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI see people like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi and Cenk Uygur are being attacked in a big way
Who's next on the list? Who else has to be silenced for failing to fall in line?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
making fun of those clowns isn't silencing them in any way...
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)by character assasination and it makes you look intellectually dishonest and too simplistic to debate against the points they make. It's no better than talking over somebody or making a conversation too personal to have a real disgussion.
So, yes in a way it does destroy actual debate and it does not represent the party well at all.
Really! The poor things! They are being persecuted!
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
Response to dionysus (Reply #1)
Post removed
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I see people like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi and Cenk Uygur are being attacked in a big way"
...boo hoo, and guilty: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=90109
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Gosh, I can't imagine why Democrats would want to attack two strong supporters of the ultra-right attempting to ratfuck the Democratic Party! 
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and their spokesperson, Bush so much for so long and why he was supported by the 'left'. 
Puregonzo1188
(1,948 posts)
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)because he supports drug decriminization and wants people to know stuff about it?
MsPithy
(809 posts)Please post a link!
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)Greenwald was NOT supporting Ron Paul, he was making a point, and Cenk is not a neo-con.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to not to. He's a thinker and unlike a majority of writers acceptable to the mainstream, he considers all sides of an issue, gives credit where it is due, and none where it is not.
But if you don't actually read his work, you would most likely claim that he 'supports Citizens United' eg. Rather than understanding that he points out some things missed by almost everyone else. And that in no way does he support it or the current system of financing of campaigns.
He is probably one of the best writers on political issues today.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)of illustrating what the OP is talking about.
Kudos!!
inna
(8,809 posts)disgusting - and quite illustrative
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)of those posts make any sense.
Oh well! Campaign time is indeed silly season.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Goes on the "list" apparently.
Greenwald is a wonderful writer, and I'm more and more impressed when I see his work.
Cenk speaks his mind, and that is displeasing to those who don't like to hear it. So he is a liberal and is unhappy with Obama, join the club, there are plenty around.
Goes on the "list" apparently.
Greenwald is a wonderful writer, and I'm more and more impressed when I see his work.
Cenk speaks his mind, and that is displeasing to those who don't like to hear it. So he is a liberal and is unhappy with Obama, join the club, there are plenty around.
...they impress you, therefore they must impress everyone?
Seriously?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)be good little soldiers marching behind, some of us have to make up our own minds on things. Believe it or not, that isn't a crime (yet).
"we all can't be good little soldiers marching behind, some of us have to make up our own minds on things. Believe it or not, that isn't a crime (yet). "
...but we must be "good little soldiers marching behind" Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi and Cenk Uygur?
Obama/Biden 2012!
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)And standing up for their rights not to be smeared and silenced by presidential power, its lackeys in the media and its chorus of blinded hope?
"No, but how about just reading what they say?
And standing up for their rights not to be smeared and silenced by presidential power, its lackeys in the media and its chorus of blinded hope?
...what? Pundits are a dime a dozen, there's no rule that says that anyone has to agree with them. They're not above criticism and a random poster on the Internet not agreeing with them has nothing to do with being "smeared and silenced by presidential power."
Oh, and I read Cenk's piece and strongly disagree: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100284253
sendero
(28,552 posts)... it must be true because you are 99% wrong 99% of the time.
Donnachaidh
(19,749 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"If you disagree with it. ... it must be true because you are 99% wrong 99% of the time."
...I predicted Cenk's diary sucked and I was right: http://www.dailykos.com/blog/TWC%20Judging
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Daily Kos? You know that Kos is a 'former' Republican AND loves Ron Paul, or at least he used to. DK's disdain for Liberals (and DU btw) is well known.
For Cenk, this is an honor coming from the righties on DK. And does the exact opposite of what you hope it does. It confirms he is a Liberal. Liberals have never been popular on DK. Cenk knows the deal on DK, he's been there for years and I would not be surprised if he's laughing his head off, as I and probably hundreds of others are, as this was so predictable. He may even have planned it.
Congratulations Cenk. I would love to have received that honor from DK. Did you know that people proudly display 'banned from kos' banners on their blogs because it really is a badge of honor to be banned from kos?
Here's a question. You don't seem to know much about the blogosphere, especially the Progressive Blogosphere which has a long history known to most progressives. Where DO you get your information? I really am curious.
People have been mocked on DK for linking to Democraticunderground. They took DU off their blogroll along with all the other progressive blogs several years ago because they only wanted 'respectable' blogs on their FP they claimed. If I had the time, I would go into the archives and post some of the derogatory comments about DU made by some of their top FPers.
I would not be using it to make any points if I were you.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)and a NO shit to that.
-p
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)Even in the framework of free speech? The CIA didn't learn agiprop just to flush all of it down the toilet once the Cold War ended. They brought it home, and taught corporations and lobbyists how to do it. In turn, these are the same people who end up, through the revolving door, working for the government.
There were such campaigns certainly were under Dubya, and there was certainly such less efficient versions of it going back to Reagan. Do you just think Obama, or Democratic organizations supporting him, are just too good to do it? Direct people to come to a premier Democratic board and smear some guys who are really saying devastating things about the Party Head and Commander and Chief. Wake up! It's the way things are done now.
About Cenk's piece, that one was not factually based, that was opinion. There are no facts there, really, to dispute, other than that Obama has, very strangely, appointed all Wall Street insiders, mostly from the same company, to run the monetary policy. And that's factual. You can't dispute that, though his opinion that you should support someone else in the primary is something you can dispute.
Try reading Greenwald instead:
http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/
His facts are a bit more thick on what the Obama administration is doing, and how egregious it is.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Didn't quote everything, and was easier to read.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)and I don't like the new ProSense either.
Seems to be pro bullshit all the time.
-p
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... being attacked for their dissent. The OP did not suggest that anyone had to follow their lead.
Rather, the point is that dissenting is honorable and in an honest debate if one disagrees, attack not the character of the dissenters, but their arguments.
I noticed a significant change in DU over the last year or so. Two years ago, most any criticism of the President got a thread locked. That was not true six months ago.
In my opinion, DU is healthier, and a better tool for leftists/progressives/liberals/Democrats than it was two years ago because of the increased tolerance for dissenting opinions.
Trying to smear those who hold dissenting opinions is not healthy.
I worked for BHO's election in 2008 and have been working for his re-election ever since. That doesn't mean, however, that I won't be critical of his actions when they run counter to what I think is best for Americans. This concept is called "constructive criticism". You've probably heard of it. I can categorically state that it is NOT a call to vote Republican, or to stay home.
I suspect many DU'ers, like me, have been critical of right-wingers for blind obedience to their party. I strongly feel that blind obedience is not healthy for our side either.
So pick your spots. If you're talking with your "undecided" cousin, emphasize good things that the President has accomplished. There are many from which to choose.
If you're here on DU, or otherwise working with leftists/progressives/liberals/Democrats, then be constructively critical.
Slit Skirt
(1,789 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)First, I read that comment and saw no such claim. But for the record, they impress me too and used to impress a vast majority of Democrats on this forum and elsewhere, and btw, still do.
But, using that logic, 'They DON'T impress you therefore they must not impress everyone?
And again for the record, either a candidate earns the votes of the people or s/he doesn't.
Some advice meant very, very sincerely. Trashing anyone who points out policy disagreements, will not earn votes for a candidate. Not in these times. It is generally viewed by a vast majority of intelligent voters as an attempt to cover up something, to distract and an inability to defend the criticisms.
Rovian tactics such as personal smears may work on Republicans but they do not work on Democrats. Democrats can only be persuaded by facts, they generally find personal attacks on anyone, to be despicable and a failure.
If these kinds of tactics continue against people who have a huge a progressive following combined, I know who I will blame if we end up with the nightmare of a Republican majority and WH.
I don't know about anyone else, but I do not want a Republican Majority or WH. So, how about not using tactics that alienate voters since every vote is going to count in this election.
" Logic check!"
...what?
But, using that logic, 'They DON'T impress you therefore they must not impress everyone?
And again for the record, either a candidate earns the votes of the people or s/he doesn't.
Some advice meant very, very sincerely. Trashing anyone who points out policy disagreements, will not earn votes for a candidate. Not in these times. It is generally viewed by a vast majority of intelligent voters as an attempt to cover up something, to distract and an inability to defend the criticisms.
You don't seem to understand: I'm free to criticize anyone or not, and you're free to support them or not.
As for your advice, my criticism of Cenk and others is likely to have zero impact on the 2012 elections.
I mean, look at the defense of these three, including: "Rovian tactics such as personal smears may work on Republicans but they do not work on Democrats. Democrats can only be persuaded by facts, they generally find personal attacks on anyone, to be despicable and a failure. "
What the hell is that about? Cenk wrote something. I disgreed and called him a moron.
How is that different from Greenwald calling Steve Benen an Obama tool or apologist or referring to Obama supporters by some other derogatory term?
It's really funny to watch those defending these three pretending that no one who supports them ever referred to anyone using the words "clown," "moron," "apologists," "tool," "fanboy."
It's the height of hypocrisy and another attempt to claim some imaginary high ground by those who don't like to see people they admire criticized. Yet, they're the first to accuse other of not wanting to deal with criticism and trying to silence others.
Criticize away, and respect other people's right to do the same.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)No one individual will have an effect on the election, but combined orchestrated attacks and smear campaigns against individuals, name-calling and angry posts, turn people off, even if they do not like the target of the attacks. That is what helped Clinton survive the personal attacks on him, the public became disgusted more by the vitriol than by what he had done.
I mean, look at the defense of these three, including: "Rovian tactics such as personal smears may work on Republicans but they do not work on Democrats. Democrats can only be persuaded by facts, they generally find personal attacks on anyone, to be despicable and a failure. "
What the hell is that about? Cenk wrote something. I disgreed and called him a moron.
What did you disagree with? I know you called him a moron but I have no clue what it is you disagree with him about. Your point, whatever it was, was lost in the name-calling and anger. This party is divided and it is being more divided by this kind of 'discourse'.
It's possible that whatever it is you disagree with him about, might have gotten some agreement without the attacks on him personally AND on those who agree with him. Minds CAN and have been changed, but never by anger and name-calling.
I do not want a Republican majority. Politicians are among the least popular people in this country right now. People defending them by attacking those who disagree with them, is a losing tactic especially considering the state of the country for millions of Americans right now.
You attract more flies with honey, especially at times when people are in no mood to cut politicians any slack whatsoever, and that is a fact.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)At least not by verbal or written statements of facts. If anything "the facts" reinforce a belief threatened by those facts.
There is some evidence that pictorial arguments can be effective. For example Al Gore's hockey stick slide from An Inconvenient Truth was quite effective in shaping beliefs until a well financed campaign to undo the "damage" turned things around.
Human consciousness is quite odd.
Skittles
(171,713 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"no - they only impress INTELLIGENT people"
...especially the ones who believe criticizing them is an affront to free speech. Every Democrat should be "INTELLIGENT" enough know that criticizing Cenk is not conducive to preserving Democratic Party unity and freedom of speech.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)try this on for size...
http://emiliawahoo76.blogspot.com/2011/12/cenk-uygur-comes-out-of-woodwork.html
treestar
(82,383 posts)adorers - they don't want to hear it.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)is because I'm a nobody. Sometimes it's good to be a nobody. I wish I didn't have these goddamn tire tracks on my head, but ....
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Anyone who seriously questions the liberal credentials of these folks is doing so for one of two reasons:
(1) they are trolling to stir the shit and may well be paid to do so by our enemies; or
(2) they are believers in a cult of personality that holds that Democrats should never be criticized even when they do - or fail to do - things that the Democratic party as a whole has stood for for the last 80 years.
I am not directing this to any specific poster, but it is hard not to notice that there have been a LOT of newbies posting concern trolls and toned-down freeperisms since DU3 went up.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Anyone who seriously questions the liberal credentials of these folks is doing so for one of two reasons:
(1) they are trolling to stir the shit and may well be paid to do so by our enemies; or
(2) they are believers in a cult of personality that holds that Democrats should never be criticized even when they do - or fail to do - things that the Democratic party as a whole has stood for for the last 80 years.
I am not directing this to any specific poster, but it is hard not to notice that there have been a LOT of newbies posting concern trolls and toned-down freeperisms since DU3 went up.
...more "disgusting": expecting the place to be an echo chamber for the three.
Accusing people of "trolling to stir the shit and may well be paid to do so by our enemies" doesn't help.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)Whether your post quotes somebody or not?
Why don't you just post Obama's answers to those three guys, and then back it up with facts? The reason why people are simply attacking them is that Obama has no answers to their criticism. If you think he does, I challenge you to find them.
And it's actually, 100 percent factual that both parties, and every candidate in them, pay people to troll boards to post slanted messages. It's absolutely legal, impossible to regulate, companies do it all the time as a part of "guerrilla marketing." The Dems and Repubs would be stupid to not do it. Any candidate would be stupid not to do it.
The suspicion that people working for directly Obama are posting here is well-founded. Though you can't tell the agents from those with fanatical hope, there's no doubt the former are here.
And at least the GOP agent provocateurs are easier to recognize.
Why don't you just post Obama's answers to those three guys, and then back it up with facts? The reason why people are simply attacking them is that Obama has no answers to their criticism. If you think he does, I challenge you to find them.
And it's actually, 100 percent factual that both parties, and every candidate in them, pay people to troll boards to post slanted messages. It's absolutely legal, impossible to regulate, companies do it all the time as a part of "guerrilla marketing." The Dems and Repubs would be stupid to not do it. Any candidate would be stupid not to do it.
The suspicion that people working for directly Obama are posting here is well-founded. Though you can't tell the agents from those with fanatical hope, there's no doubt the former are here.
And at least the GOP agent provocateurs are easier to recognize.
...what the hell? So you're upset that random posters on the Internet are criticizing Cenk because you suspect "people working for directly Obama are posting here"?
So is it your belief that the more than 155 people who troll rated Cenk's diary are Obama operatives?
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)And if you got that much wrong about three paragraphs, it's no wonder you still support Obama, you have a tenuous perception of reality at best. Or, on the other hand, if you're just ridiculing what I meant, then you have little or no self-control.
And cartoon icons don't make you look better.
Maybe this will focus your mind: Obama has, with his drone assassination program, committed murder. He has happily accepted, or outright grabbed, power to have anyone, anywhere arrested for whatever reason he wants. And he has clamped down on government secrecy. This is all factual. There is no doubt about any of it.
For the Oath of Office, the two things the President promises to do are 1) be faithful to the office of the President and 2) preserve defend and protect the Constitution. The first is hard to define, but the second isn't and he has stomped on it. He has derelicted his duty, and broke at least half the promises he's required by the Supreme Law of the Land to keep. That's the rock-bottom requirement of a President.
I don't how you can be ROTFLMAO about it. But hey, if stupid icons and ADHD and stupid cartoon icons allow you to preserve your hope in Obama, who am I to say it isn't worth your mental health, or worth making yourself into a worse person.
Slit Skirt
(1,789 posts)Just you.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)They don't need to hire 155 people to rate it down. They need 3-4. After a few well-placed comments, the support will be affirmed in their "hope" and will volunteer their comments glorifying Obama and attacking his critics.
And, I'm not saying drown out the supporters, or that supporters are insincere, I'm only saying you should recognize who has the power to mobilize and coordinate an attack, and who would do it as a matter of course, and grade your opinion about it on a curve.
I'm also not even saying that Obama supporters are dumb. PR and agiprop has become very scientific. The practitioners know how to manipulate people. Obama ran an excellent campaign, and it's painful to lose hope once you have it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I'm happy to see there are still a few true liberals still hanging on over there, although most have left that place. Even with all that have left, they outnumber the righties though.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and I don't expect the place to be an echo chamber. That there are shit-stirring trolls around here is obvious to anyone who can read. That's not an opinion, that is a FACT.
What I DO expect is that people whose progressive credentials are as solid as those of Cenk, Matt and Glenn would not be viciously attacked on what is, ostensibly, a progressive site. That is all.
That there are shit-stirring trolls around here is obvious to anyone who can read. That's not an opinion, that is a FACT.
What I DO expect is that people whose progressive credentials are as solid as those of Cenk, Matt and Glenn would not be viciously attacked on what is, ostensibly, a progressive site. That is all.
...you haven't explained is the relationship between the "shit-stirring trolls around here" and people who don't agree the three.
Cenk's "progressive credentials" amount to a lot of sensationalist talk and most of it inaccurate. Disagreeing with Greenwald is easy because he loves to cherry-pick facts and leave out details to spin is outrage. His affinity for libertarians views is also not to my liking.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Some of us on the left tend to be very libertarian on civil liberties issues while remaining democratic socialists on economic policy.
Cenk is a good, solid progressive and has been for as long as I have known about him. Speaking as an attorney, I find Greenwald's essays to be accurate, ruthlessly logical and very well crafted. Taibbi has done more to unmask the criminality of Wall Street than any other mainstream writer. But I guess those things aren't enough when they criticize Democrats for failing to push the ideals the party has stood for since FDR.
"Some of us on the left tend to be very libertarian on civil liberties issues while remaining democratic socialists on economic policy."
...libertarianism, in my view, sucks: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100287685
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)"civil libertarian" that has been applied to individuals like Justices Douglas, Black and Brennan, all among the staunchest defenders of the First Amendment in this country's history. The ACLU is considered to be a civil libertarian organization. The dictionary is our friend.
Epic fail.
...you going to pretend that the libertarian views expressed by Paul and supported by others are the same as these Justices?
Major FAIL!
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)described myself as being a libertarian on civil liberties issues. I wasn't discussing Ron Paul's or anyone else's views. I consider myself to be a strong civil libertarian, in the tradition of those Justices, and a social democrat.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?
" My reference was back to my own post, in which I"
...the comment you responded to was specific to the libertarian views at the link. It was specific to the crap being pushed by Greenwald and others by virtue of cherry-picking Paul's views.
I'm done arguing with someone who moves the goalposts every time they're boxed in.
As Thomas Paine once said, arguing with one who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead.
Toodles.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)As Thomas Paine once said, arguing with one who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead.
Toodles.
..."whatever."
I didn't move the goal post, I was specific about which libertarian views I opposed. No one is debating the civil libertarian views of the three justices. In fact, Greenwald constantly references Paul and Johnson.
The OP mentions Greenwald, not the three justices.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Paul was not part of the conversation but you threw him in, for some reason.
Any reason why you did that?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)
FredStembottom
(2,928 posts)Let's all say toodles to those who have 24/7 to post frantic gibberish on every thread in DU just to disparage any and all who express Democratic ideals.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)That poster is deliberately misrepresenting your position on purpose.
It's obvious.
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)You called it right, Cali_Democrat. It's very obvious the game they are playing and most of the people posting here aren't fooled in the least.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)If you support individual rights like those protected in the Fourth Amendment, gay rights, the right to abortion, ending the drug war, etc. etc., then you are libertarian on civil liberties. It's just a word and doesn't obligate one to take up all other things that are also called libertarian.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Smearing and attacking rather than providing reasons to support Democrats. Because if it is it will backfire, and as I said above, I will blame those who engage in these tactics IF we end up with a Republican WH and/or majority in the House and Senate.
I can't imagine why anyone would think these tactics will work. Slamming writers does nothing to get a candidate elected. But it does waste an awful lot of time that could be spent working on electing Progressive Democrats for Congress and the Senate. I have not seen a single post from those spending time on Cenk and Greenwald, offer up any Progressive candidate for Congress who needs support. THAT is what a Democratic forum ought to be about imho.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Happy New Year to you both!! 
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)they remind me of the Republicans they claim to oppose.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)I'd wish more people would follow your example.
mythology
(9,527 posts)either a troll or a cult member. While you didn't actually name specific individuals it's a poorly disguised passive aggressive attack and name calling. You really should be able to disagree without having to resort to such tactics.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)I also don't want to see threads titled "So and So is a Moronic Asshat for supporting "So and So", when the statement is blatantly FALSE.
Show me a link where Glen Greenwald says "I support Ron Paul for President". There isn't one... because it's a fucking lie.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And how does this help Democrats? I can't see it doing anything but discrediting them, which is definitely not helpful during an election season.
unionworks
(3,574 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)trust me, would be voters read the bullshit attacks and wonder how old these folks are... "do they really represent the democrats?"
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I hope not and I hope the Democrat Party reigns in this kind of vitriol during the election season, at least makes it clear that they do not condone or endorse it.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Vitriol is very much a two way street here these days.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and circular firing squad from all sides. Maybe someone should take the responsibility of not being the ones to start it. If someone disagrees with what a writer has to say, then deal with what s/he has to say instead of attacking HIM or HER.
Just my opinion as I would far rather WIN an argument with facts IF I decide to get into one, which I often do, rather than start out with name-calling where there is simply no winning. Which may be the point, to NOT deal with the substance of what is said. All I know is, it is a turn-off and mostly has a negative effect on the whole political process.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)
valerief
(53,235 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)silence any of them? Are you suggesting that they are above criticism or even attack, as you put it?
It seems to me that the appropriate response would be to defend what they wrote or said with logical arguments, and in the thread on DU where what they wrote or said is posted.
Nobody is above criticism here. And nobody prominent doesn't have critics here. Defend those you can defend, with facts and logic. You can post in any thread.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)attacks and not criticisms. When an OP on a writer is a string of insults toward the person, one can not respond with logical arguments. It is name calling.
So, frankly, that's the issue. If anyone has an actual specific argument against something any writer writes, let's all critique and defend and tear it apart,that is what it is for. That is not what the writer himself or herself is for. People need to stick to the work if they take issue with the work. They need to stick to actual discourse, not taunts and personal criticisms.
Many people on DU attack Greenwald for his residency outside the US, which is the case part of the year as the US has bigoted immigration laws that will not allow gay couples to come home with partners from other countries as y'all are allowed to do. So to attack him for that fact is hateful, and there is not a logical response to it, for it is not a logical argument, and it is not addressing his work it is attacking HIM.
Those who do that are in my opinion utterly without merit in any discussion.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)Who's next on the list? Who else has to be silenced for not meeting people's expectations?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, (allegedly) being their bosses we are responsible to hold them to account.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Indirectly but you do and you should remember they are amongst the wealthy.
Everyone pays the politicians' salaries, not just people who agree with you.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)patriotic, anti-democratic dissent on DU! Why, do you know how hard it is to find threads saying that Obama = Bush = facist = bad = ______ on DU? why, i have to scan 1/4 way down the front page to... oh... never mind...
eridani
(51,907 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Calling it "attack" is a lame form of partisan defense.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)go after Sen Sanders.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Sanders also wouldn't surprise me. He's just too "left wing" if you know what I mean.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)so I expect it.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)slay
(7,670 posts)indeed.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)It just has the nastiest habit of cracking some people's rose-colored glasses, and they don't like it. So, rather than a fact-based counterargument, it's a lot easier to attack or discredit the messengers, hoping to influence others. Sadly, they're posting at a message board where people are inclined to check into things for themselves rather than to take an anonymous word, and that discombobulates them even further. They're easy to spot, though, as their devastating ripostes usually consist of straw man arguments, unfocused ridicule, and sophistry that would make Dustin Hoffman's character in "Rain Man" say, "Get a grip."
peace frog
(5,609 posts)and thank you.
gulliver
(13,985 posts)But Taibbi and Greenwald are fair game. I have always found them to be very hard working writers.
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. sort of circular firing squad benefits either "side."
(I actually thought we were on the same "side." )
:sigh:
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Can't somebody disagree with one of the people on your list without being accused of "silencing" them? Nobody here certainly has that kind of power. And after all, as we're always reminded, dissent is the highest form of patriotism. (There's no restriction on who or what you can dissent about.)
I think perhaps you can dish it out but you can't take it.
If Mssrs. (note they're all male) Greenwald, Taibbi, and Uygur can criticize and dissent all they want, certainly it's permissible for others to criticize them and dissent from their views. Doncha think? Or is this thread meant to SILENCE any dissent?
Nailed it.
peace frog
(5,609 posts)
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)The ridicule and mocking that is used from one "side" against another does potential harm to the goals both "sides" say they wish to pursue.
It is divisive and harmful to coalition building. It is juvenile. It becomes quite distasteful to envision yourself as part of a group when you are taken completely for granted, mocked, and ridiculed for your opinion. Criticize the opinion. Ideally use facts to support your criticism. But we need to lay off ridiculing each other. "Conservative" Republicans are much better targets and more richly deserve to be ridiculed.
P.S. My opinion is not directed at you, but is being stated as a generality for both "sides".
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I am very sincere in my dislike for Glenn Greenwald's and Matt Taibbi's opinions and tactics (I neither listen to nor watch Cenk, so I only know what I read). My distaste for Taibbi dates back to 2004 (I actually cancelled my Nation subscription over his writing); my disagreements with Greenwald came after much measured consideration as far back as 2006: the more I read from him and the more I found out about his libertarian positions, the less I felt we were on the same page. He's a hedgehog, I'm a fox. People need to deal with the fact that their admiration for these writers is not shared by everyone on the left. In return, I'll accept that you may sincerely like them.
But let me say, in regard to your post, that the ridicule and division is in no way one sided. Any time there is a post about something the Obama administration has done (say, the recent regulations on mercury--which environmentalists have been trying to get for more than twenty years, and have finally gotten), there are always a string of posts in the thread with titles like "small recompense for murder"; or "what's the difference if American's are put in concentration camps."
There's a basic rift here, and we all have to just accept that the two sides are very far apart: and not because one side is more liberal or progressive than the other. To be dismissed and denigrated as a "centrist" because your first cause is not the legalization of weed, for example, is simply myopic and childish.
Buck up and realize that some people are going to ridicule you if your ideas and allegiances don't conform 100% with theirs. It doesn't really matter. Just stay with your own convictions, whatever they are. But please realize that people with other convictions are not morons or centrists or idiots: they are just as sincere in their convictions as you are.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)I specifically stated my post was directed to both sides as a generality. I never said it was one side or the other. I stated both sides.
Then, I was given a lecture from you and told to "buck up". Further, I do believe, contrary to your opinion, that it does matter. Continuous ridicule will drive a wedge between the left.
I can take ridicule and mocking just fine. I view those that engage in it when directed at me with heavy suspicion. A LOT of people don't take continuous ridicule and mocking just fine however.
And, again, I think it's very destructive to our cause (for the record I never doubted yours or anyone's intentions/positions) to engage in lecturing, patronizing, mocking, and ridiculing behavior.
My point is hopefully made clearer with this post.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)The only reason I said it didn't matter that people ridicule and mock is because I don't believe that we will ever stop them. It seems to be part of the Internet zeitgeist. In lieu of that, I think we pretty much have to ignore it as much as possible. The "buck up" was directed as much at myself as at anyone else: if you can't change people's minds or improve the level of the conversation, as much as we both deplore it, I think we just have to plod on, stating our opinions and ignoring the folk who chide or insult us.
TiberiusB
(526 posts)What libertarian views does Greenwald express that you disagree with? Can you link to an article to support your position? Libertarian, around DU anyway, seems to have become code for "Ron Paul acolyte," which, to me, is short hand for "if you agree in any way with anything Ron Paul says, you are a demented racist and everything you say is almost certainly a lie." When you say that you "found out" about some of Greenwald's political leanings, you seem to be suggesting that they were some sort of secret, or are somehow obviously distasteful. It's a perception only bolstered by your subsequent statement that you are a fox and Greenwald is a hedgehog, suggesting that you believe yourself to be more open minded as compared to the rigid, dogmatic Greenwald. Or were you not referring to the Archilochus quote:
"The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."
Perhaps you were referring to the essay by Sir Isaiah Berlin ( http://www.kheper.net/topics/typology/Fox_and_Hedgehog.html ).
Even when you seem to be accepting of the idea that people on "both sides" (an ironic statement given that we are all supposedly concerned with the same, or at least similar, goals) are often to quick to engage in vacuous ad hominem attacks, you are only able to muster the ability to point the finger at critics of Obama. Let's take your arbitrary example of discussions over the recently announced new mercury regulations. I read four threads about the new mercury rules, and the closest anyone came to criticizing Obama was to say that the rules were not designed to go into effect until 2014, which opens the door to all kinds of political shenanigans. I saw nothing about "concentration camps for Americans" or "Obama is a murderer," or anything that could even be construed as being on that level. Can you actually point out who said anything like that and print the quote?
The problem I have with those people that attack Cenk, Greenwald, or Taibbi (or anyone else, for that matter) is that they nearly always devolve into clumsy attacks on their character rather than the message.
I don't doubt that many here are sincere in their belief that critics of the Obama Administration are closet racists itching to embrace their inner Ron Paul, "reformed" neo-cons, or deluded whiners waiting for their pony. My problem isn't with their convictions, it's with their tactics.
JohnnyRingo
(20,870 posts)I may not agree with his views on the president entirely, but I'll not stop reading his Rolling Stone articles. He's the best.
I recall when the primary was still up in the air in early 2008 or late '07 he came here to Youngstown and wrote a scathing overview of Hillary's visit. He critisized her support of NAFTA while telling the rubes in Steel Town that she was the very answer to all their woes.
So now he cracks on Obama. Though I'm an avid supporter, he probably deserves Taibbi rubbing his nose in some of his own shit. He's a big boy, he can handle it. Anyone who thinks Taibii would in any way advocate for a Romney White House in 2012, doesn't know him well. He's simply an equal opportunity abrasive with an incedible gift of vision.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)He's done a magnificent job in his Rolling Stone pieces. For those people who aren't aware of his work, I would strongly encourage them to read his articles.
midnight
(26,624 posts)JohnnyRingo
(20,870 posts)It's like listening to someone on a barstool next to me explain complex economic scenarios and principles using words that relate more to someone describing Monday night's football game.
To paraphrase a classic: "like a giant vampire squid whose bloodied tentacles snake out toward anything that smells even vaguely like money."
tishaLA
(14,777 posts)But Cenk is another matter altogether.
savalez
(3,517 posts)slay
(7,670 posts)and by the usual - "tow the Obama line or else" - crew. ugh. Seems anyone critical of Obama is being attacked on DU3 these days. I always thought DU'ers to be more open-minded and good hearted than to do that. And I think most are - but yes, I have noticed the stepped up attacks on anyone who questions Obama - and not just against famous or well known progressives - but progressive DU members as well.
And whenever someone does criticize Obama, someone usually jumps in with some form of "Do you want a republican as president?"
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)Promotion of support for the President? Really? Doesn't seem like that's working out well for them if that's the case.
PB
JohnnyRingo
(20,870 posts)Though I believe simple critisism well in bounds, like the aforementioned trio in the OP.
I do get upset with those who call for his ouster next year, or those who demand impeachment or worse, and I've seen a lot of that in the past few months, including posters ignorantly advocating for a third party candidate here in a site called Democratic Underground. I got into a lengthy discussion with someone who stated simply that we should all work together to see that Obama lands in a "cold dark cell in the Hague". He didn't understand how anyone in DU could possibly see it otherwise.
This kind of defeatism goes beyond carping about the subpar job Obama has done in satisfying the wants of progressives, and sets up a return to a GOP led White House next year for the sake of sending a message that we don't like current policy. I simply can't accept that scenario. It's like shooting myself in the foot with a .44 magnum to get out of gym class.
Once upon a time, a primary challenge may have been a constructive tool, but that day passed in very early 2011 when such a campaign would have had to already be in place and supported by the Democratic party. There's no such thing as a successful last minute presidential run on a shoestring budget these days.
slay
(7,670 posts)yeah we are stuck with Obama at this point - although i do intend to vote for any other Dem on our ticket that is not him in the primary. after the primary - i may have to stop posting here til after the election cause honestly i don't think i can vote for another 4 years of Obama. it's a moral issue with me - and the wars - and his covering up not only the Bush era war crimes, but for letting the big banks just get away with it all. i'm not saying i won't vote for him at this point - i guess i'll see how the next few months unfold.
JohnnyRingo
(20,870 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)Jane Hamsher, Robert Reich, Dave Sirota, Matt Rothschild, etc. etc...
"Paul Krugman
Jane Hamsher, Robert Reich, Dave Sirota, Matt Rothschild, etc. etc..."
...would never lump Krugman and Reich in with Hamsher and Sirota.
I often agree with Krugman and Reich, but not always.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100262711
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100282148
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100237833
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100260666
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Please.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)...some of those attacks I've agreed with and some I have not.
Regardless, if you are going to be a professional critic, then you are subject to criticism as well. I figure all 3 of them realize this, I hope they do. Either way, its perfectly fair.
tabatha
(18,795 posts)Just a lot of people on both sides voicing their opinions.
If stating an opinion is silencing, well then I guess lumps of coal are guns.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)but you are correct that they aren't be silenced in any way.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)they destroy the party from deep within. I'm tired of the bullshit spin and distortions used to attack folks who hold this country ABOVE a fucking political party. It's something I thought at one time only pukes did, but I come here and I see the mentality and it makes all our current issues clear. People in denial are destroying the political system like it was just a game without any regret for how it effects all americans in the long run.
Oh, and if this party can't handle criticism from the left, you ain't got a leg to stand on when arguing with the right. The only thing going for the party leadership is that the GOP is too insane to win a presidential election this time.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)...to have his feet "held to the fire" but strangely (and I mean that) proxies won't have any of it.
It's nonsensical. Or rather, it makes a lot of sense if the goal is to stifle discussion, specifically promotion of classical Democratic ideals.
It's kind of an airtight racket if you think about it.
PB
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)Which is what a lot of posts against Obama here on DU are
Yes, there are some who hold his feet to the fire, and i support that. What i do not support is those wanting to toss him into the fire(aka calling him evil, DLC, a puppet and a bunch of other things) or just attacking anything he does
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)when voters reject a certain politician that is.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You can't do anything without joining with other people.
And one does not have to agree with all criticism in order to "take it."
LiberalLovinLug
(14,689 posts)IMO, you stand up for certain democratic ideals and those that agree with you will become visible and make themselves known. The Party is a living, changing thing, and only by constantly re-evaluating positions, can it evolve in a healthy way. Cenk, and the others on the "list" provide a lot of independent input.
You and your little group of paranoid Party Apparatchiks, ProSense, dionysus, SidDithers, have to learn how to chew gum and tie shoelaces at the same time.
MuseRider
(35,176 posts)The Under The Bus Party aka those who stand for traditional liberal values party
Personally I find under the bus a comfortable and honest place to reside.
theaocp
(4,581 posts)It's like memory foam for the underside of the bus.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)I would serve in the nation's military, though, to protect his right to be an asshat. In fact, I did just that. By the same token, I reserve the right to think that Cenk is an asshat. Sometimes, I explain why I think he is an asshat, but sometimes I don't.
I would not dream of silencing him or anyone else, though. If I did that, then I would agree that people can be silenced for expressing their ideas, and that would mean that I might be silenced for calling Cenk an asshat.
My opinions of Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi are similar, but I chose Cenk for this reply because he has recently engaged in some serious asshattery by suggesting that Iowans not caucus for President Obama. If that is not prima facie asshattery, I do not know what is.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Accurate or not, toward anyone, at any time, it is just name calling and as such, not something I like to encourage in discussion, really. That's just me. I don't need to call names to get my point across.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)has accomplished nothing positive at all to political discourse.
If people cannot make their case from my experience, they generally resort to name-calling.
Slamming progressive writers in particular and calling them names, most likely has the exact opposite effect of what is intended.
For those of us who were around throughout the Bush administration, we are familiar with the three mentioned in this OP and appreciated more than can be understood by anyone who was not, the courage they exhibited when they openly criticized that administration when the entire US MSM had gone silent.
We do not forget that, but you would have to have been there, I suppose.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
msongs
(73,754 posts)MineralMan
(151,269 posts)their lately departed leader to refer to our President. Interesting, indeed. It's a very weak sort of insult you're trying there. Very weak, indeed.
dionysus
(26,467 posts) treestar
(82,383 posts)from right wingers.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)You demand that I dare not criticise who I want to, yet you want to keep that right for yourself?
Explains a lot.
Spazito
(55,497 posts)Is it entitled "The Sacrosanct versus The Un-sacrosanct"?
The Sacrosanct being 'those who must not be criticized'
The Un-sacrosanct being 'those who must be criticized'
If so, it seems to me everyone has their list/s and they are rarely the same.
Criticism, as I have read many times on DU, is healthy, democratic, etc, and I agree.
trumad
(41,692 posts)It's a small minority that don't appreciate these guys.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)I thought the idea was to get Obama re-elected and more Democrats on the Hill. Nobody's perfect, but that's all we got, and it doesn't help to piss and whine in public when we should be out campaigning.
Cenk, for one, is a lying sack of shit ex-repuplican who may not be so "ex" and just endorsed Ron Paul.
What's not to criticize?
Dewey Finn
(176 posts)Failing to fall in line?
Please tell me you intended this to be funny.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)to see people holding up their darlings-de-jour, and insisting that others have to "fall in line" with their assessment of same.
Sounds kind of lock-steppy to me.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)and believe I am right on point.
I do find it amusing to see those who accuse others of lock-stepping doing it themselves, marching behind their heroes of the moment.
It is also amusing to see people who pile on this president, this administration, and the Democratic party insisting it is 'valid criticism', but when someone disagrees with one of their heroes, it is immediately cited as an 'attack' and a desire to 'silence'.
If any one of the three - Cenk, Greenwald, Taibbi - wrote a piece next week saying that after careful consideration, they admit they were wrong about this administration and now support it wholeheartedly, they'd be under the bus in record time.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)who said nothing about lock stepping. But it looks like it made a good hook for your overwritten rant.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)I merely noted that it was demonstrative thereof.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But we sure have to worship and adore these pundits!
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Those posters might say it's because they're promoting Ron Paul (which they aren't), but to them it's simply because some people are not in love with the disaster Obama is.
pa28
(6,145 posts)Anonymous, angry posters lashing out on the internet don't need to be taken all that seriously. They certainly aren't capable of silencing anyone.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)(especially Cenk Uygur and Matt Taibbi were overwhelmingly cheered, G.G has always had a few detractors)...until... they started criticizing the Obama administration.
Bleh. The crowd here at DU3 is boring. DU3 is looking as milquetoast as a morning news show. The spark is gone. It's probably time for me to move on to some other liberal forum.
Bucky
(55,334 posts)I like Taibbi's reporting and I totally admire the Young Turks. But I don't have a problem with anyone using DU to air their passionate disagreements with them. If you think Cenk is stupid, call him stupid. If you think he's weakening the president, say so. Who the hell is silencing them?
Democracy is about arguments, my friend. If you can't handle them going on around you, you're not ready for democracy.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)It's funny how the bloggers who are constant critics of the President and advocate breaking from and opposing him are so fervently defended...as if DU has the power to take their soapboxes away.
Hardly!
sandyd921
(1,570 posts)and had forgotten just how intolerant of even slightly independent of the mainstream Democratic POV some on this board can be. But it hasn't taken long to be reminded. People like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Cenk Uygar can't be allowed to breathe any independent or somewhat different ideas into the straight down the middle, only somewhat sold out to corporatist interests (but we won't cop to it) mainstream Democratic groupthink I see represented here by a sizable portion of posters (although the hopeful thing is, not by all).
Guess with this post I'm about to hear from some of those folks. My preference for doneness when you post me to the stake and light the fire is medium rare.
inna
(8,809 posts)DU (as in, the community of posters, not the LLC or whatchacallit) on the whole is amazingly democratic and progressive;
it's just that some animals are more equal than others, for some reason...
Owlet
(1,248 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)Click on a poster's name and one of the options is ignore.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)
Robb
(39,665 posts) bvar22
(39,909 posts)*to think for ourselves
*to question authority
*to criticize the Party
*to voice our concerns
*to highlight BAD Policy
*to remember the Traditional Democratic Party Values of FDR/LBJ
*to have our grievances ignored by the Party leadership
[font size=7]FREEDOM![/font]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Greenwald does and which this country needs way, way more of.
For some reason that kind of true journalism is a threat to both parties, sadly. But not to the American people, which is probably why we have so little of it.
inna
(8,809 posts)- not unlike GG... who is a national treasure, afaic
- just had to say that, that's all! 
Dewey Finn
(176 posts)inna
(8,809 posts)Dewey Finn
(176 posts)inna
(8,809 posts)pure projection on your part wrt "bad parody"
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts) Dewey Finn
(176 posts)that you'd think so.
Dewey Finn
(176 posts)if you stop and think about it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and concluded it makes perfect sense.
webDude
(875 posts)banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)With no evidence - not a shred.
Taibbi is ignorant on these matters. He is not a prosecutor. He knows little about finance. He was caught lying by Andrew Sorkin. He is a petulant little dipshit - full of fake self importance.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)He is doing the work for Romney.
TiberiusB
(526 posts)Okay, ummm, seriously? You produce no proof that Matt Taibbi lies beyond claiming that Andrew Sorkin totally said so?
For those who want a little background on just how ludicrous this is, here are some links:
First, the main point of contention between Sorkin and Taibbi:
Sorkin's NYT article:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/the-fine-print-of-goldmans-subprime-bet/
Taibbi's response:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/andrew-ross-sorkin-gives-goldman-a-rubdown-20110607
Here are a few pieces calling out Sorkin as a bit of a Wall Street fluff-meister:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-how-goldman-dissembled-wall-street-journal
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2011/10/01/333749/andrew-ross-sorkin-sneers-occupy-wall-street/
Finally, read this piece about OWS from Sorkin himself:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/03/on-wall-street-a-protest-matures/
Take particular note of the tone, the condescension and occasional passive aggressive implication that OWS might be dangerous.
I'm not going to claim that everything Matt Taibbi writes is bulletproof, but holding up Andrew Sorkin as the cornerstone of some future list detailing Matt Taibbi's devious agenda may be ill advised.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)He wrote:
"What makes Obama’s statements so dangerous is that they suggest an ongoing strategy of covering up the Wall Street crimewave. There is ample evidence out there that the Obama administration has eased up on prosecutions of Wall Street as part of a conscious strategy to prevent a collapse of confidence in our financial system, with the expected 50-state foreclosure settlement being the landmark effort in the cover-up, intended mainly to bury a generation of fraud."
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/obama-and-geithner-government-enron-style-20111220#ixzz1iDUeXVJ1
Taibbi is full blown moonbarking nuts now. Obama has gone from Goldman accessory (although TARP was Paulson/Bush) to orchestrating a system wide cover-up to prevent a total collapse of our financial system.
"If Geithner and Obama really wanted to convince the world that America’s markets weren’t broken, they would effectively police fraud, and by extension prove to everybody that at the very least, our regulatory system is not broken.
But by taking a dive on fraud, and orchestrating mass cover-ups like the coming foreclosure settlement fiasco, what they’re doing instead is signaling to the world that not only are our financial markets corrupt, but our government is broken as well."
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/obama-and-geithner-government-enron-style-20111220#ixzz1iDVfy411
And Taibbi can't stop. Obama is taking a "dive" on reform? What about Dodd-Frank and Elizabeth Warren's CFPB? Oh, that is just a rubjob, he will lament. Can't have my rubes thinking on their own! They might quit buying the swill I sell!
And I read your link to Taibbi's reply to Sorkin. He admitted he had no evidence that Blankfein perjured himself as he previously maintained. Sorkin is right.
TiberiusB
(526 posts)Taiibbi did not admit he didn't have any evidence that Blankfein perjured himself. He more accurately said that Sorkin's argument over whether Blanfein did perjure himself seems to boil down less to specifics than to parsing minute distinctions between words like "massive" and "big" and other nonsense. More specifically, did Goldman place a "massive" bet on shorting the subprime market or merely a "big" one? That appears to be the entire crux of Sorkin's assertion that Blankfein did not actually perjure himself. Sorkin can hardly be said to be vindicated.
Whether Blankfein perjured himself is all a distraction, however, as the bulk of Sorkin's article is clearly an effort to polish Goldman's reputation. This is where Taibbi takes real issue with the article and where the meat of the debate actually lies. Debating whether Blankfein actually perjured himself is a bit like arguing over things like what your definition of "is" is.
If Matt Taibbi's assertions about Obama are your central concern, then you shouldn't have dragged Sorkin into the discussion. Do you have any link, any at all, to anything that can prove Taibbi is "full blown moonbarking nuts"? I don't need a list, just something to at least start to make the case. Quoting Taibbi over and over again isn't making a good case against him.
The main argument for complicity on the part of the Obama Administration, at least as I think Mr. Taibbi sees it, would appear to be their lack of drive to, and I'm being generous here, actively look into at least the possibility that real wide spread fraud has been committed. The administration's efforts to push through a deal protecting the banks from fraud investigations not only now, but even in the future, doesn't reflect well on the President. Obama's assertion on the legality of Wall Street's actions only gave further ammunition to Taibbi's assertions. Routinely appointing Wall Street friendly advisers to his cabinet doesn't help either. It's all part and parcel of the current push to "look ahead" rather than focus on actually cleaning up any wrongdoing, whether by Wall Street or the previous White House tenants...unless you are a whistle-blower...but that's another thread.
On Obama's assertion that the banks may not have done anything really illegal:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/more-msm-criticism-of-obama-nothing-illegal-here-move-along-stance-on-foreclosure-fraud.html
Dodd-Frank was weak tea at best and it has only been getting weaker. This is hardly a unique perspective on Taibbi's part:
http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/07/21/dodd-frank-made-no-structural-changes-to-banking-system-52276/
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/03/josh-rosner-dodd-frank-is-a-farce-on-too-big-to-fail.html
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/03/quelle-surprise-geithner-gutting-dodd-frank-via-intent-to-exempt-foreign-exchange.html
http://www.bohemian.com/northbay/reform-molehill/Content?oid=2174835
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/one-year-after-dodd-frank-rules-delayed_n_876898.html
None of this is to say that Dodd-Frank is utterly worthless. Everyone, including Matt Taibbi, acknowledges that some genuine good was left in the final bill. The question is, and remains, how much good, and the evidence is increasingly tilting toward "not much," as Wall Street has immediately returned to it's pre-2008 behavior, even resuming it's old derivatives trading. If Dodd-Frank somehow opens the door to more effective legislation down the road, great, but holding it up as some sort of legendary reform is misleading. No resurrected Glass-Steagal and a severely weakened Volker Rule are bitter disappointments and leave the door open to yet more crisis.
As for the CFPB, that could be somewhat helpful, should it ever actually get up and running. You can make the case that Obama is boxed in by Republican obstructionism, but you can't argue that the CFPB is major reform until it actually exists and is having any affect at all on legislation.
At any rate, it seems this discussion has, to some degree, already happened in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100291663
TiberiusB
(526 posts)Only that no one currently heads it, leaving it in a perpetual state of limbo, preventing it from accomplishing much of anything.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)It boils down to this - this "pervasive fraud" is fiction. Goldman has NO consumer business. They deal with sophisticated investors.
I see things from a transaction level having worked in finance.
Were there predatory loans? Yes.
Were there MBS that contained unfit transactions? Yes.
Were there robos-signed foreclosures that need a remedy? Yes.
And these are all being dealt with. But none are going to get a CEO of even a local bank into court.
I got a check for a few hundred bucks from a trustee of American Express last week. AmEx was ripping people off on ForEx fees.
Will the CEO go to jail?
C'mon.
TiberiusB
(526 posts)People, pundits, economists, and journalists included, are going to make mistakes and need to be called on them. On the other hand, even people you find yourself struggling to tolerate, much less agree with, may, from time to time, make a valid point.
Except Andrew Breitbart, he's just a dick.
As for the fraud issue, you may be correct, but I think the big issue, at least for many of the current administration's critics, is what appears to be active obstruction of even the smallest attempts to investigate potential criminal wrongdoing. It's one thing to try and fail, it's another not to try, and it's wholly another to prevent anyone else from trying. I am, of course, referring to the reports that the attorney general's office has been exerting pressure on the state attorney generals to accept the administration brokered bank deal. Endless appointment of former Wall Street players doesn't help either.
At any rate, I'm sure there could be a very constructive thread laying out the potential, or lack there of, for prosecutions involving a number of facets of the 2008 financial implosion in the U.S. I was more interested in trying to put an end to people holding person x, y, or z up as someone to be regarded with disdain without offering any substantial proof. Even the original post which started this whole thread is, fundamentally, pure flame bait. I doubt very much the author didn't know what sort of thread would result from such a post. Maybe that was the intention, a provocative message to draw out the two opposing camps so everyone inclined can give their mouse hand a workout clicking the "ignore" button.
Rex
(65,616 posts)then I say have at it. A few people here seem to be trying to start a flamewar...and THAT is NOT going to happen. Take that shit somewhere else.
NavyDavy
(1,224 posts)We have to put up we some knuckleheads who forget that this is democratic underground not green party not libertarian or independent underground we on this site work to see that democratic candidates and candidates who fall in with our beliefs are elected to office, and I hate to break this to some of you that does not include any of the Pauls, we had this fight back during the previous few election cycles.....so please if you want to support the pauls go to their sites......thank you from a veteran of these trolling wars...peace out.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)As I understood what prompted this OP was criticism of political journalists and pundits who dare to question policies that are going to play a huge role in the coming election. Imho, the way to counter anything that is false, is to post facts. But what does disagreeing with policies have to do with supporting Paul?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)If so, do you have links for such claim or claims?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Anyone can post anonymously on this board and elsewhere and pretend to be more-Democratic-than-thou.
We have a right to use our intellect and reason that those engaging in the character assasination are not truly Democrats when when they reject reasoned discussions and prefer name calling and lock-step thinking. Was it Rove who wanted neocons to post on these boards and pretend to be Democrats?
Robb
(39,665 posts)...the REAL neocons? Or the fake ones?
Madness --------> that way.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Anyone can post anonymously on this board and elsewhere and pretend to be more-Democratic-than-thou. "
...I think most of us know this!
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)That is his m.o. -- start a fight and then leave.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I didn't choose a nickname of an apple.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)You've heard that, right??
inna
(8,809 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)saying words, not actions.
Their actions may show what they are truly doing.
I mean that's the rule when applied to the President.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)dish it, take it
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Just utterly preposterous.
He can say whatever he wants.
He's also liable to be mocked and ridiculed if he exposes his idiocy.
The rest, I only saw one thread bashing Taibbi and Cenk still has major support and I admittedly didn't see that thread bashing him.
As far as being silenced, don't try to lecture people on who gets silenced, please. I spent almost a year being silenced here by people who simply disagreed with me.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)(well, almost)
so it's only gonna get worse.
treestar
(82,383 posts)How is that? Aren't they still babbling?
If they can't take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen.
Why do these pundits get so precious that no one is allowed to disagree with them?
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)But what can ya do, peoples lives are driven by it.
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)I usually just ignore people who resort to name calling when talking about Greenwald & Taibbi..
For anyone who is not familiar with the great work being done by Greenwald & Taibbi I would urge you to check them out and make up your own mind. Personally, I love their work. For me they are the best journalists reporting today.
For those few who just want to smear these guys without addressing their specific works I'll borrow some dialogue from an old Cary Grant movie (People Will Talk) to respond.
In the dialogue below one of the characters (Mr. Shunderson) tells off Hume Cronyn's character, Professor Elwell. Throughout the movie the despicable Professor Elwell went to outrageous lengths to smear Cary Grant's character (Dr. Pretorious). He did so because he was jealous of Pretorious. Here is what Shunderson tells him:
"Elwell, you’re a little man. It’s not that you’re short. You’re … little, in the mind and in the heart. Tonight, you tried to make a man little whose boots you couldn’t touch if you stood on tiptoe on top of the highest mountain in the world. And as it turned out . . you’re even littler than you were before.”
— ‘People Will Talk’, 1951
So for all of you who like Greenwald & Taibbi just think of Shunderson's comments to Professor Elwell whenever you see petty, personal attacks directed against these journalists. If you're like me it will bring a smile to your face and the petty attacks you see will just roll off your back. lol
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)And if you had read any of the screeds that Greenwald has written since January of 2009 over at salon dot com, you would know why he doesn't get much traction here. He's not a popular guy, by any shade of the shadows cast here.
President Obama doesn't deserve the hate-filled screeds that Greenwald, et al have written about him.
And that's just a fact.
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)lol
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Another thing I learned from online political discourse is that once someone resorts to insults and attacks on a person rather than their argument, you know you have won. It's actually a form of surrender.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)even though it's one of the most heterogenous mags on the Web, Ralph Nader, of course, and occasionally Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky. OWS comes in for some of it, though it's mostly left alone since it's too obviously the only reason that the current US political discourse isn't dominated by Republican themes.
Also, anyone who doesn't want to hang Ron Paul, or who has the temerity to notice that as bad as he is, he's the only candidate who has taken principled stands against perpetual war for empire and the insane drug war. Because, you know, that makes the current middle-management PR officer pretending to be el supremo in Washington look bad for waging both of these forms of war.
They're all among the over-honest leftist or otherwise non-conformist beasts who must be ritually exorcised (and then brought back for more metaphorical burning at the stake) for still noticing all the same things that still suck about this country, have always sucked, but aren't supposed to suck because a (D) is now president and he's totally doing every single good thing that it's possible to do and keeping his powder dry for surprising us with other goodies and war is peace, etc.
Also, they have to be blamed in advance so that when the usual right-wing lurch by the Democrats possibly causes losses for them, since it tends to make them look indistinguishable from Republicans, it will all be the fault of the leftists and non-conformists. Like, remember when Nader committed massive election fraud in Florida, suppressed the recount, and made the Supreme Court pick the president, thus committing a coup d'etat and ending any pretense to constitutional rule in the US? That was all his fault.
.
PS - Anyway, what is being silenced by the daily exorcism campaigns is not these writers, but the ability to have normal discussion and debate about anything these people write on DU without it turning into a name-calling festival of bullying.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Perhaps you could petition for a "cultish commentator worship" group, set some rules in the mission statement.
Since you think disagreement stifles debate, you could make yourself a dandy little echo chamber and not have to hear a word of it.
"Silenced."
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Thanks.
Robb
(39,665 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Over and out, thanks!
Robb
(39,665 posts)I'm on a mobile, no post numbers in the side columns. I shall have to root throughout the entire thread to find your pearl of genius.
Feel free to talk amongst yourself. Seems a forte.
On edit: good lord, man. Are you saying your post is better because it's longer, or more supercilious? I'm long past the days of being paid by the word, so it must be the fiery indignation?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)Are footnotes where they tell me which color to use for the different parts of the horsey?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)Dewey Finn
(176 posts)THAT?
Holy crap, dude.
Robb
(39,665 posts)It is not in the suffering of such offenses that we see true character, but rather in how they pick up the pieces and persevere!
In the last ten minutes he has taken the lessons of the tragedy and used it to grow and mature -- he is showing the world what real success looks like!
It's inspirational.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)One single discussion talking about how asinine some pundit is and it's all over.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"One single discussion talking about how asinine some pundit is and it's all over."
...my fault. I'm sorry: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100291364
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
Irony is not dead!
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I put up with crap from Obama detractors for almost an entire year. No skin off my back.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)It's online bullying. Generally, it's wrong and stupid, but it's rarely harmful, being online. People tend to do it because it's online, they use it as a way to release steam with relatively little harm.
Nor does anyone say it has to be effective - bullies are notoriously weak people.
The spirit of it is to avoid engagement in discussion or facts and throw around a lot of empty, generic mockery and labels, laugh-icons and sidelining graphics. In this case (as often) it was coupled with an exhortation to leave the board (implying the board conforms to the bully's opinions, when in fact the majority seems to think otherwise; not that it would matter either way).
Also, a great deal of just putting words in people's mouths (the new classic in this art is now surely the substitution of a Jake Tapper column for one of Greenwald's!) and tiring them out from bothering to respond to the silliness, until all that's left is the bully's echo chamber.
.
Robb
(39,665 posts)...then say, in opposition to reality, someone "exhorted you to leave."
Perhaps someone else did, I merely suggested your delicate sensibilities
might find the boundaries of a DU Group less unsettling on these matters of hero worship.
I'm also a touch offended you thought my mockery was generic; I'll get over it, though.
Dewey Finn
(176 posts)in support of a flawed premise...
I'll give you credit, though. I think you sincerely believe what you're saying.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)And do you have trouble reading so many complete sentences? Sorry! I'll try to keep it to ooga booga ha ha fail and where's the code for the laugh icon? Together, I'm sure we can lower everyone's reading comprehension to something more manageable for everyone. Dude.
Dewey Finn
(176 posts)You started from a position that verges on ridiculous. Message board snark does not equal bullying. Differences of opinion, even vehement ones, do not equal bullying. Derision and sarcasm do not equal bullying. Period. You can call a cat a potato all day long, but at the end of the day, it's still a cat.
Not a thing you've said makes your argument any more convincing, and quite obviously you don't intend to reexamine the absurdity of your premise to begin with. So do as you like, but don't expect to be taken as seriously as you feel you should be taken. Not when you start off with such outlandish hyperbole.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts) JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Inquiring minds need to know!
Dewey Finn
(176 posts)You think S. whatshisname is the only person who ever addressed someone as "dude" on this board? Please.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Thanks for the reminder, not that it matters.
Anyhoo, as I said, welcome to DU
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)...since you've obviously never engaged in name-calling. Wholly above reproach.
I am indeed envious.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I notice the continued absence of substantive response.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)...now Ron Paul supporters or Ron Paul are off limits to criticism? I don't think the word "hang" and a person accused of being a racist should be in the same sentence!
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Thanks for helping to illustrate my points, however.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Still, why, on a Democratic Board are so many progressive writers under attack lately? These very same people, all the ones you named, have always been under attack from the right.
Sometimes I have to check to see where I am.
Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)
Post removed
Dewey Finn
(176 posts)Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)that he had the cut-and-pastes to back it up.
Mimosa
(9,131 posts)B ut I have also noticed the attacks against Taibbi and Greenwald.
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)Because the motivations and reasoning of people who earn their paycheck by stirring up outrage against the most powerful democratic politicians in our government are beyond refute.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)The Kos blog has a lot of liberals over there.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)behavior here that caused them to leave. The very best writers from that blog from the early years, are all writing elsewhere. The vitriol and meanness that dominated and probably still does, although with fewer targets now, is a waste of people's valuable time.
So no, if he knows anything about that blog, he will laugh his head off at this, so very, very predictable and funny, considering the source.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Cenk is a Republican gasbag, and that's all there is to it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And very few worth reading anymore. If they have 5000 active members at an given time, that is a lot. And such a miniscule % of the population as to have zero impact on anything.
The FP is boring, no one but the most loyal members read it. I have yet to see a DK FPer quoted anywhere other than in the small circle of blogs affiliated with them, and even then, not so much.
As I said, the most interesting and talented writers left there long ago.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)According to you.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Ask 20 people on the street if they know what is 'Daily Kos'.
They wanted to be respected, but did not know how to go about doing that.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Now he can be proud of that comment, too, according to the logic that you are applying here in this thread.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)From what I have observed, it doesn't seem to bother any of the former Repubs on DK eg. And there are quite a few of them, or were. They are welcomed into the 'Big Tent'. I don't know if it's still in their 'about us' page, but DK welcomed Libertarians, since Kos described himself as libertarian on some of his views. At least he used to. He, eg, very much liked Ron Paul at one time. But he does tend to change his mind, a lot. In fact, former Repubs sometimes appear to be more welcome than lifelong Democrats, or did, on DK, which is why so many of the latter went elsewhere.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)and this most recent criticism, intended to silence prior criticism of criticism, shall now render free speech safe again.
or something like that...
slay
(7,670 posts)that's a lot of criticism criticizing criticizing criticism. 
ProSense
(116,464 posts)soliciting opinions: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100293141
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Let us know when they lose their "voices".
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)"They're going to shut me down any minute because they can't take criticisim."
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)with a flood of reflexive, thoughtless generic mockery and labeling. It never relates to what any of these authors say, and always seeks to tar them simplistically as enemies. This makes rational critique impossible, and seeks to bully mention of them off the board.
got root
(425 posts)however, those lock-steppers are few, and have such a tired, ordinary, predictable, schtick that is so transparent and lame even the casual reader can point them out, roll their eyes, and move on to the good stuff 
gateley
(62,683 posts)it's CRUCIAL that we keep the Republicans out of the WH, and people who are suggesting things like not voting for Obama are not helping MY agenda.
MADem
(135,425 posts)madrchsod
(58,162 posts)
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)in this admin. It is unholy.
For all the critics of Glenn Greenwald,; read some of his articles/books before you dismiss his writing and ideas.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)colsohlibgal
(5,276 posts)I agree with what all three of these men say about 99% of the time. Obama has indeed been working overtime trying to thwart other entities prosecuting Wall Street for obvious and rampant fraud and in essence theft. He's been locking more people up minus due process than Dubya. He should have been locking up banksters.
I'll vote for Obama because I have no other good option. Increasingly the choice at top is between not so good and evil/nuts on the other. The Supreme Court is the big thing, an opening or two may not be far off. If the Supremes add another rightie or two the Citizens United ruling will soon seem like child's play.
mistertrickster
(7,062 posts)the center would be even further right.
cali
(114,904 posts)and write controversial things. Disagreement does NOT = silencing- not even a little teensy eensy bit.
And you attack people and disagree strongly with them. Are YOU actually just trying to "silence" them? How evil of you.
lighten up. it's a discussion board. Oh, and Glenn attacks people too. duh.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)because he trusted Bush.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297462