I think it's about time for me and my fellow solidarity Democrats to say "fuck it".

[LoZoccolo]

So we've got a post endorsing Rick Perry for President at the top of DU right now, and the justification is that we have to let the Republicans to injure and/or kill so many people that they come running to progressive Democrats in the future. The only thing I really have to say to these people is that it's been tried before and you can look up "nach Hitler uns" if you're serious about it, and see if you really want to take responsibility for this course of action. I wouldn't.

The thing is, I don't think that they're particularly serious about it. There's a class of people who want the power of being activists with little or no effort. There's this tool that's come along in the past fifteen years or so to let them do that, and they're enamored with it, spend an inordinate amount of time playing with it, and that's the reason you see a disconnect between Obama's real-world liberal Democrat approval and the impression you would get by reading Internet posts.

I've been seeing political posts on the Internet fall into two categories: statements of assessment and/or prescription, and statements of manipulation. A statement of assessment and/or prescription seeks to tell the facts as they are, in order to inform the best course of action. A statement of manipulation seeks to fabricate the facts in order to misinform other people into the misinformant's desired course of action.

An example of the latter is the Republicans' actions to "work the refs" and get the media to give time and serious consideration to any ridiculous thing they might want to say, by accusing the media of a liberal bias. This is not an assessment, this is a statement designed to have an affect to manipulate another's behavior. As such, they will keep saying it no matter how untrue it eventually becomes, because it's not being said in order to be true, but because it gets people to do what they want.

Likewise, we see these tired canards about Obama doing nothing, that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans; these aren't being said because they're true (they are objectively and verifiably not true; there is testable empirical data which shows them not to be true), but because they are supposed to have an effect on the elected Democrats and try to get them to enact more liberal policy. It is the liberal netroots version of "working the refs". If these were statements of assessment and/or prescription, then their refutation with empirical data wouldn't be met with blanket dismissals; in other words, when we give them the list, they just go "oh, that list again". Like the statement that the Republicans make about the media having a liberal bias, they will assert their canards no matter how untrue they are, because of the affect they think they will have.

The problem is that the people making statements of manipulation are pissing in the well of our discourse as we try to assess and/or prescribe. At best they are a distraction; this question of whether or not we should work for Democrats has now become the #1 discussion on Democratic Underground and all sorts of other topics become soiled with this dirt. They are wasting our time. And at worst, they are bringing people to believe their manipulative lies, and steering them away from political responsibility, from assessing and prescribing, and making a difference.

I think as people who want honest political discussion, we'll have to think about how we approach this phenomenon now that it's become pretty clear to us what's going on. I'm inclined to just ignore it and try to build something bigger and more prominent, but as the pragmatists are out doing real work, the manipulators have much more time to try to dominate the Internet discussion, so they will always have an advantage in this venue, so I'm not completely decided on it.

And I don't give a fuck that only maybe a third of the people here agree with me, because if you go out into the real world, to meetings like the ones listed in my signature line, they don't do this bullshit. They're people who've seen what needs to be done in order to get what they want, who participate in Democracy. They would see no sense in tearing down what they worked so hard to get so far.

And can this "oh you're being divisive against liberals, you better be real nice and not be rude to me if you want me to vote for the Democrats!" response; you made the threat first by using the Republicans as your attack dogs, against me and everyone else in this country - the world, really - and while I might be telling you you're wrong or even calling you names, I never threatened to hurt or kill people. Don't be a hypocrite, and hypocrisy is commonly a sign of manipulative and histrionic behavior to begin with.

[woo me with science]

1. ...

[MineralMan]

2. Very well said. Please continue to write longer OPs.

K&R, for what it's worth.

[Cosmocat]

3. It is bizarre ...

I find myself arguing against the same intellectual dishonesty with some folks here that I gave up battling with hard right wingnuts over ...

If only barrack obama would have fought harder HCR would have been better ... Like, Reagen took down the soviet union with his bluster ... The raw numbers on the final vote, that they had to backdate through reconcilliation be damned ...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. k/r

[MannyGoldstein]

5. I don't see a post endorsing Perry on the front page

I see a post stating that Perry could be the consequence of saying "no!" to "Democrats" who run as Democrats than move to the right of even most Republicans once elected. Your post is factually incorrect, and I hope that you'll responsibly edit it.

Stopping this craven triangulation is a difficult dilemma: voting for triangulators and appeasers has gotten us to ugly place we are now, but the consequence of having someone even worse in office (a Republican) is an awful thing, too.

[LoZoccolo]

7. Well you might want to deal with the fact that these "triangulators and appeasers"

were selected by the party membership, and take responsibility for the power you get as a partisan in exchange for compromising with fellow partisans, and the platform that that party gives you to influence your fellow partisans. This might play better among those fellow partisans than threatening them with harm.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. We were defrauded

Candidate Obama and President Obama are two different creatures on most major issues, e.g.:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah


Now he wields staggering power as the incumbent, trying to out-Republican the Republicans on things like slashing Social Security. It's a tragic situation.

[phleshdef]

17. Your own use of politifact works against your point on so many levels.

Promises Kept or In the Works far, far, FAR outnumber the pathetically small number that it rates as "broken". But you know this, you just ignore it. Because you are one of the people trying to sell the rest of us on turning on the guy. You don't care about the truth. You care about being right about how wrong you think Obama is. Thats whats REALLY important to you, just admit it.

[MannyGoldstein]

31. 44 broken promises is pathetically small?

And the importance of the broken promises is what's so awful: Public option health care, not raising taxes on the middle class, tougher rules on the revolving door of lobbyists/appointees, increasing the capital gains tax, etc. Big, big stuff.

[BzaDem]

36. Obama promised NOT to enact Single Payer. He ran ads in October of 2008 specifically calling it

extreme.

[MannyGoldstein]

40. You're right, I meant to type "public option"

And have corrected it. Haven't had my first cup of coffee yet, will do so now.

[ZombieHorde]

110. I sometimes post on DU shortly after waking up.

Usually turns out to be a bad idea.

[phleshdef]

41. Yes, in the world of Presidential politics, its pathetically fucking small.

And "not raising taxes on the middle class"?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/37/extend-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-lower-incomes/

Which pretty much backs up the promise he was actually making...

But I'm sure you want to split hairs, so you must referring to...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/515/no-family-making-less-250000-will-see-any-form-tax/

Oh wow, taxes on tanning beds and cigarettes and paying for your emergency room risk if you don't have health insurance. Excuse me if I'm not impressed by your argument.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. 44 lies are acceptable. Marvelous. And Candidate Obama didn't

make a very sharp point of not requiring the purchase of health insurance?

[phleshdef]

62. A "broken promise" does not mean a lie.

Your premise is wrong.

Obama didn't lie about the mandate. He changed is mind. He decided he was wrong. He very clearly said he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting that it wasn't going to work without a mandate. Changing your mind is not lying. If it was, we wouldn't have a separate set of words to describe it.

Also, people may break promises because of inability to see them through. Thats what happened with a lot of those items politifact has listed. I've no problem with you criticizing his inability to see something through. But it should be presented as such and should not be an argument to attribute diabolical qualities.

I'm all for holding politicians accountable. But you seem to want to pretend that Obama isn't human and that Congress is itself powerless and plays no part into whether or not promises will be kept.

[sabrina 1]

121. He decided he was wrong about a lot of things after he was elected

like Offshore drilling also, when in fact he was actually right as were the environmentalists who voted for him, as we saw tragically with the deaths of 11 men and the environmental disaster in the Gulf, 18 days after he told us rather arrogantly btw, that the ban was based on 'old data' and his 'new and cool advisers' had convinced him that rigs no longer were likely to 'spill'.

That one flip flop alone was enough to show how easily manipulated he is by big business. But then add Mandates, which he spoke so eloquently against as a candidate, then flip-flopped on also when Big Business demanded it.

Maybe of he didn't confine himself to a bubble where only the wealthy get to talk to him, he wouldn't be flip-flopping so often on issues that he was right about as a candidate, when he did actually have to listen to the people.

[phleshdef]

136. Offshore drilling permits granted by the Obama admin shrank to a fraction of what the Bush admin...

...was handing out. The only thing his administration did that pissed everyone here off was allowing exploratory work to take place in new areas... regardless that no actual drilling would occur for likely decades.

This is another example of someone like you blowing something insignificant completely out of proportion while totally ignoring anywhere the administration has fell on the positive side of the issue. The fact is, Barack Obama's administration is responsible for a dramatic slowdown in the permits for new drilling. They didn't ban it altogether, but they never ran on banning it either. This was not a flip flop. But I'm sure you will continue to imagine that it was all to entertain this fantasy that Obama is some sort of corporatist, breaking promises that you imagined that he made.

[TheKentuckian]

200. Exploring IS drilling. It isn't setting up production platforms and pumping but it is drilling.

[MADem]

221. Bullshit. Nice try, but BULLSHIT. nt

[TheKentuckian]

238. Exploration does not involve drilling?

[MADem]

250. Often it does not, at least not at the initial stages.

Drilling is a very rare first step in modern exploration. And anyone who calls a test well "drilling" doesn't understand the impact of actual "drilling" as opposed to a test well.

Here's a little Oil Exploration For Dummies course--it's helpful and simple.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/oil-drilling.htm

Excerpt:



Locating Oil


Whether employed directly by an oil company or under contract from a private firm, geologists are the ones responsible for finding oil. Their task is to find the right conditions for an oil trap -- the right source rock, reservoir rock and entrapment. Many years ago, geologists interpreted surface features, surface rock and soil types, and perhaps some small core samples obtained by shallow drilling. Modern oil geologists also examine surface rocks and terrain, with the additional help of satellite images. However, they also use a variety of other methods to find oil. They can use sensitive gravity meters to measure tiny changes in the Earth's gravitational field that could indicate flowing oil, as well as sensitive magnetometers to measure tiny changes in the Earth's magnetic field caused by flowing oil. They can detect the smell of hydrocarbons using sensitive electronic noses called sniffers. Finally, and most commonly, they use seismology, creating shock waves that pass through hidden rock layers and interpreting the waves that are reflected back to the surface.

In seismic surveys, a shock wave is created by the following:
•Compressed-air gun - shoots pulses of air into the water (for exploration over water)
•Thumper truck - slams heavy plates into the ground (for exploration over land)
•Explosives - detonated after being drilled into the ground (for exploration over land) or thrown overboard (for exploration over water)

The shock waves travel beneath the surface of the Earth and are reflected back by the various rock layers. The reflections travel at different speeds depending upon the type or density of rock layers through which they must pass. Sensitive microphones or vibration detectors detect the reflections of the shock waves -- hydrophones over water, seismometers over land. Seismologists interpret the readings for signs of oil and gas traps.

Once geologists find a prospective oil strike, they mark the location using GPS coordinates on land or by marker buoys on water.

[MannyGoldstein]

139. True. But if Obama doesn't fight for something at all, the only

reasonable assumption is that he's decided that breaking his promise is cool.

He did fight a smidgen on closing Guantanamo, and on ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest. But on most items, no fight whatsoever, or he's leading the charge in the wrong direction.

[MADem]

117. Obama is NOT THE KING (in case that escaped you). He has to make the best deal he can with the

Congress (you know, those assholes in DC who represent "We, The People") that he can get.

If he sits on his ass and his principles, he'd be seen as an obstructionist and be out on that very same ass faster than you can say "Get some fucker in here who understands that compromise is part and parcel of American Realpolitik!!!!"

You need to develop a more mature attitude towards politics. Campaign promises are goals--ideals--"HOPE"s, if you will. They aren't cast in stone, and if you think they are, then you have a rather concrete and unrealistic view of the world.

[MannyGoldstein]

131. But he needs to fight for what's right

[MADem]

140. The "Johnson Treatment" was a bullying technique cleverly used by LBJ.

He would invade people's space, particularly when a photographer was around. He would also POINT at them, to make it appear that he was "instructing" them, even if he was saying "Look at the nice ass on that woman." No, I am not joking. That's how he rolled. Newsmen and photogs knew that if they published a crappy pic of him, they'd lose access. For a guy who looked like an overgrown basset hound, he was surprisingly vain.

And if we're talking about a guy who did good things (Great Society) and not-so-good things (dithering over the war, NAPALM, Agent Orange, etc., instead of declaring victory and leaving), well, LBJ is a perfect storm, now, isn't he?

Let's not revise history. Johnson was a hero, and a failure. He was also a product of his upbringing, his peer group, and his times.

[dflprincess]

212. Selling us out to the insurance companies was the "best deal he could get"?

Maybe for those companies, but not for us.

We needed reform that gave us access to care instead we got a requirement to keep sending money to same old crooks who make their money by denying that access.

[MADem]

218. And King Barack did this by what.......DECREE?????

Learn your Constitution.

CONGRESS MAKES LAW. Not the President.

I'm tired of this crap. People need to grow up and understand how bills become law before they invest so much transparent, oppo hate in an individual. It's not only tiresome, it is based in woeful, pathetic, moronic IGNORANCE as regards how our system of government functions. Or something more nefarious.

I love the smell of plastic grass in the morning....

But hey--blame it on BARACK---because he's the "KING."

PUH-leeeeeeeze.

[SwampG8r]

228. so he vetoed it?

i must have missed all the vetoes of all the things he didnt approve of

[MADem]

234. So you want him to veto EVERYTHING that isn't "perfect?"

That's how one-term presidents are made.

[SwampG8r]

251. so that would be a no

[cliffordu]

227. 44 lies??? Fuck me., this is even beneath YOU.

does he exist in a vacuum where he can make independent decisions without needing a vote in either house??

Fuck me, the stooped burns.

[LoZoccolo]

56. "out-Republican the Republicans on things like slashing Social Security"

Utter shit, and ignores the events of a few weeks ago with the debt ceiling.

This is the shit I'm talking about.

[MannyGoldstein]

130. "Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1631283">Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

"The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor DID NOT call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CALLED FOR THAT," declared US Representative John Conyers in a press conference held by members of the House "Out of Poverty' Caucus on 07/27/11."

You might want to have a word with Mr. Conyers. But Obama's own words back up Conyers:

"We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security"
- Barack Obama, 7/21/2011

And who can forget Obama's "Deficit Commission" designed to recommend deep cuts in Social Security? And Obama has not rejected their recommendation of a 22% cut in benefits for the average worker over time, even though he's rejected other recommendations of that commission.

[SusanaMontana41]

209. Those pesky facts. nt

[MADem]

116. You were NOT defrauded. You painted your own "HOPE" and "BELIEVE" on a blank slate.

Clinton wasn't good enough for you (and that is a generic YOU, not you, specifically), because she had a record that included failings. You (generically) denigrated the Clinton supporters and called them traitors and PUMAs and all sorts of names. Even when the Clinton supporters backed the primary winner, they were still "evil" and suspect. Obama was what YOU "HOPE"ed and dreamed he would be, and you were SO FUCKING SURE of it.

Now, reality has bitten you in the ass. He's Hillary Clinton, only he's slightly to her RIGHT. If you looked at his donor list you would have figured that out.

Oh well. No sympathy.

Obama at his worst is better than the BEST Republican on offer. I'm voting for the guy.

[Warren Stupidity]

120. It was "Hope" and "Change". But your argument here is quite odd.

It wasn't fraud because the campaign theme was deliberately devoid of content and designed to get people to fill in whatever they thought it meant? Is that what you are saying? Seriously? It wasn't fraud because it was deliberately deceptive?

[MADem]

129. That's EXACTLY what I am saying. When people on this forum pointed out that the guy

had a history with BIG COAL, with the Crown family of Chicago and other defense industry bigwigs, that his wife was wired into the WALMART corporate crowd through Kirtland, all of the HOPE/CHANGE/BELIEVE crowd pooh-poohed. Oh, he doesn't MEEEEEAN that!!!! He's just saying/doing that to get ELECTED!! It'll be different once he's in!!! He's gonna stop the war, you'll see! He's not going to let the coal industry dictate a big chunk of energy policy!!! You just hate him because he's BLACK!!!

Please. Children waiting for Santa have a more realistic view of the world. Children understand that the US President isn't a king, too.

He wasn't my first choice. That said, he's my first choice this time around, because ANY Democrat is better than a Republican, and if you can't see that, why, I can't help you. The "Take your medicine because -I- didn't get what I wanted" crowd can just stuff it. They aren't a significant portion of the Democratic party, and if they want to be, they have to push away from their tables and their keyboards, and do real world activism, amongst the people who don't spend all day on the computer--those people who work, or collect pensions, and VOTE.

Don't blame my argument because you don't care for the truth in it.


And, on edit: BELIEVE was a big part of Obama's campaign, along with HOPE and CHANGE. Or have you forgotten that, too?

http://www.google.com/search?q=Obama,+believe&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=554&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=0D5RTtW0D8TEgQeir9DrBg&ved=0CCMQsAQ

[Warren Stupidity]

144. hmmm... so you are condemning people for being naive,

but not condemning the Obama administration for deliberately exploiting that naivete. OK. Fair enough I suppose, but really quite an odd argument to make in support of your candidate.

I knew what I was voting for, to an extent. I am truly surprised by how far right Obama has veered, and by the utter and open disdain that he and his handlers hold for the center left Democratic base. We didn't want ponies, or the rest of the nasty bullshit your side uses to describe our disgruntlement, we wanted an advocate for core Democratic Party principles.

[MADem]

156. How about condemning people for being smug and self-righteous and

not listening to other arguments because they liked the "idea" of a candidate, and now crying because they have "Buyer's Remorse?"

It isn't 'naivete' when these very 'naive' people fling shit and accusations of everything from closet republicanism to racism at people making an opposing argument, and that's what happened four years ago.

I saw what his connections were; I knew damn well he'd be MORE conservative than Clinton, simply because of where his dough was coming from. For Christ's Sweet Sake, Tony fucking Rezko fund-raised for him--that should give you a clue. The guy understood "The Chicago Way" better than any hundred politicians. Obama was a pragmatist--and still is. He's not some starry-eyed 'brother' who unselfishly works 'in the ghetto.' He's a middle class kid from Hawaii who clawed his way up to the elite class by getting good grades in the best schools, who married a ward boss's daughter, and took it from there. He was NEVER Mister "Fight the Power." That was fiction that people invented in their heads because they WANTED IT TO BE TRUE....even though his history, and the facts of his associations with lobbyists and corporate donors, plainly made it obvious that he was not that, at all. To to blunt, if he'd been a fat grey haired white guy, people would have been way more suspicious of his associations--but because he was a caramel colored, attractive young man, people cast him in a role NOT OF HIS OWN MAKING. And now they're mad because THEIR fictional story does not match HIS reality.

All that said, I have my big kid overalls on; and I'll stick with the one my party chose. Obama has both my vote and my ACTIVE--not passive keyboarding--support. He's a damn sight better than any Republican on the market, and anyone who says that we should "let" Perry win so that we hit bottom is not a Democrat, but simply a rabble rouser and a spoiler. Democrats work from within to make the party better, not sit idly by and gloat when things go wobbly.

[MannyGoldstein]

173. There was plenty of content - it was just not followed up with action

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1783078&mesg_id=1783184

[BzaDem]

11. The post you are talking about clearly ENDORSES that consequence.

"And yes, maybe a jerk like Rick Perry will become president because of people like me, but I'll tell you right now, we are headed in that direction sooner or later on this crash course, and I would rather have it be sooner, so that we can hit bottom quickly and rise back up."

This OP (not the one with the quote) is factually correct in its assertion.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. When FDR entered World War II, did he endorse our troops getting killed?

Or did he endorse a course of action as the least-awful alternative?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

21. Precisely right. But 'some' people are think with their arse, and it thrills the hell out of them

to trash the whole country. Look at Nader. Same thing. He got a real charge out of helping GW Bush get in office. People like Nader and other such cretins participate in public life only to do harm because it seems to be the only way they can get in the public light.

[BzaDem]

32. The OP isn't endorsing the least-awful alternative. The OP is endorsing the MOST awful alternative,

under the theory that if his action results in the maximum pain inflicted on the voting population at large, then the voting population will "wake up" and change their voting behavior, so we can bounce back at some undefined point. It isn't just ME who is claiming that it would be the most awful alternative -- it is the OP itself, who is advocating to bring the most pain SPECIFICALLY to get us to hit "rock bottom" (his words) as soon as possible.

Purposefully taking an action that results in the maximum pain on other people for the purpose of changing their future voting behavior is the definition of terrorism. The phrase "in the long run, we are all dead" is quite applicable here.

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Opinions aside, it sounds like you agree with me that the post endorses a scenario, not

a candidate.

[BzaDem]

43. It endorses a scenario that is defined by a certain candidate winning -- not Obama, but the

Republican.

[Wait Wut]

76. That's the only course of action on DU.

I've seen the consequences of anyone actually endorsing our President for reelection. It's much more agreeable to simply endorse unification towards a common goal. Progress. We can argue about 44 broken promises or we could try to focus on the promises kept. Hell, let's just try thinking positive for a day. Let's try to agree on something that could bring peace to this site so we can once again focus on the real issue...defeating the Republican party. I can understand some of the disillusionment of Progressives, but not all of it. I can support some of the ideas of Progressives, but not all of them. Bottom line, we really do want most of the same things. Isn't that enough of a reason to work together as Democrats?

The glass is half empty, but it's only because the GOP drank most of it. I'm not about to let them drink the rest of it. We've got the chance to fill it up again by taking back the House, keeping and enriching the Senate and retaining the Presidency. Can we do that together?

[MADem]

119. He also PROMISED that we had nothing to fear but fear itself--and that wasn't true, either.

Should he have been thrown out on his ass because he "LIED?"

Please.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

19. As for you, putting in a shithead that will send our country into hell faster....

is not an admirable quality. I will say what I said before, Nader was a shithead no different from any Republican, and those who voted for him are the same.

Throwing the baby out because the bathwater is dirty is one amazing flaw in logic. Not only idiotic, but far more damaging than having catatonic Democrats in office.

You're clearly not going through hunger like so many are, or in danger of it, so you're playing adrenaline games and showing off how you're going to finish fucking up our country faster because, well, it thrills you, and you want attention. Nothing admirable in you. At all. But carry on. I'm sure someone, somewhere will tell you you are just so 'kewl.'

[BzaDem]

25. Um, I agree COMPLETELY with you. Read the exchange.

MG said that the post in question did not advocate for electing Rick Perry. I claimed that the post did indeed advocate to vote for Rick perry, and I provided a quote to prove it. I obviously oppose the quote, and the entire thread in question, and have made my views very clear in that thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1779365

[Sarah Ibarruri]

30. Sorry. Your post appeared somewhat confusing and seemed to express a slightly

different slant.

[BzaDem]

34. Sorry about the ambiguity -- I have clarified.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

37. Thank you, yes! nt

[Number23]

201. Wow. Very nice post, Sarah.

so you're playing adrenaline games and showing off how you're going to finish fucking up our country faster because, well, it thrills you, and you want attention.

That's all it is. A desperate, idiotic quest for attention. Either that or an immaturity and/or stupidity so vast and so deep that not even a proper asskicking would do. People like this need to spend a month in a third world country. Join the Peace Corps. Something.

If we stop giving these attention seeking assholes what they seem to so desperately crave, maybe they'd grow the hell up.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[BzaDem]

69. You don't get to run away from your quotes.

"And yes, maybe a jerk like Rick Perry will become president because of people like me, but I'll tell you right now, we are headed in that direction sooner or later on this crash course, and I would rather have it be sooner, so that we can hit bottom quickly and rise back up."

You ENDORSED enabling a candidate that will make things as BAD as possible, as SOON as possible, with the theory that the pain inflicted on voters will cause them to change their behavior (so we can "rise back up"). We tend to have a word for people who want to maximize (or speed up) pain on other people to achieve political ends.

Some people are not going to make it that long under the scenario you endorse. Maybe you and some others have enough resources to deal with the consequences of your actions. Others would literally not survive them.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[MH1]

97. Couldn't possibly be your writing skills now could it?

Funny, I read it the same way many here did. You are clearly endorsing letting republicans win if you don't get what you want from a given democrat, including in the presidential race, where Obama is clearly the general election candidate. Your idea we should walk away and not support Obama's re-election candidacy asserts DIRECTLY that it would be better for Perry to win than for Obama. Why your post isn't locked yet is troubling, but says a lot about DU.

[Electric Monk]

98. Some see what they want to see and disregard the rest.

[MH1]

122. Bullshit. I don't spend enough time here to know one poster's position from another's

except in a few cases. I usually have to read an entire post thoughtfully to understand the poster's position, and I did so here. I did not know initially what position he would be taking and I re-read the post to be sure I wasn't misunderstanding.

The words are clear, and they violate DU rules as those rules are written, but apparently it doesn't matter any more.

[BzaDem]

99. You support "changing the system" by specifically advocating for hitting "rock bottom" as soon as

possible, and you believe that Rick Perry would get us to rock bottom sooner than Obama apparently would.

Your quote (emphasis added):

"And yes, maybe a jerk like Rick Perry will become president because of people like me, but I'll tell you right now, we are headed in that direction sooner or later on this crash course, and I would rather have it be sooner, so that we can hit bottom quickly and rise back up."

[Electric Monk]

231. I'd like to point out that the deleted messages you're replying to weren't mine. nt

[bluestate10]

49. One was written late last night. With the typical chorus of recs from the echo chamber. nt

[MADem]

132. A rather disturbing "chorus," too.

It's difficult to discern the real reasons for the enthusiasm behind said chorus.

[jaxx]

59. You just described the veiled threat that is posted here daily.

No Sale!

Consequences brought to us by cheap whine.

[MADem]

6. People who want to vote for Republicans do not belong on DU. This isn't an opinion,

it's in the DU rules. If someone wants to advocate for election of Republicans, they need to use some other asshole's bandwidth.

Perry for President threads need to get deleted (unless they are completely 'ironic' and insincere), and the person posting them, if they are advocating without reservation for a GOP president, needs to be shown the damn door.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Straw.

No one here wants Republicans in office.

That's the whole fucking point!

[MADem]

103. My response was to the OP, which said, in no uncertain terms,

So we've got a post endorsing Rick Perry for President at the top of DU right now, and the justification is that we have to let the Republicans to injure and/or kill so many people that they come running to progressive Democrats in the future.


Now, I did not see any thread of that nature.

The one Perry-related link I saw, provided downthread, does not "endorse" Rick Perry. It's one of those "Obama isn't enough of a Democrat to suit me, so if I go third party and Perry ends up getting it, don't blame me" type threads.

I'm tired of the perfect being the enemy of the good. If you (and that is a generic "you"--I am not talking about YOU, personally) sit to the far left, you are not in the mainstream. You may be the majority here, in this small sliver--statistically insignificant--of the Democratic party, but not in the real world. In the real world, most Democrats are pragmatists. You're not going to get your way by pouting. Start local if you want to change the direction of politics. That's what the wingnuts did--they put their crazyass pals in local office, started building local networks, becoming movers/shakers in local party politics, and next thing ya know, boom--they got the House.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

112. I saw the thread but agree that it was misconstrued.

We (and that's a generic "we") are not "pouting" because our "far left" ideas are not being implemented.

Ending the wars, ending Bush's economic policies, supporting workers rights, etc., are all MAINSTREAM positions.

You (generic) may not believe in them but poll after poll has shown that to be the case.

[MADem]

137. Poll after poll notwithstanding, people want different things from candidates than they do from

Presidents. History has shown that, over and over again. Nixon ran in sixty eight on a secret plan to end the war, remember? He got elected on that basis, and the war was still going on when he was reelected. Fool me once, won't git fooled agin?

I think the thread in question was designed to sow hate and discontent amongst the Democratic voters on this forum, and give aid and comfort to those who don't want to vote for a Democrat for President in the upcoming election.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

142. I disagree.

The handful of obvious trolls notwithstanding, I believe no one here wants Republican rule. No matter the party identifier after the candidates name.

I think the thread in question was designed to sow hate and discontent amongst the Democratic voters on this forum, and give aid and comfort to those who don't want to vote for a Democratically policy-oriented for President in the upcoming election.

[MADem]

158. That Rick Perry thread, linked in this one, advocates defeat of a Democratic Presidential incumbent.

And it does so "for our own good." Which is absolute bullshit. That thread certainly does, in no uncertain terms, "want" Republican rule, with the idea that once we "hit bottom" we'll somehow miraculously see the error of our ways and do a magical one eighty and prance off in the opposite direction.

Real life does not work that way. Neither does real politics. Political change, even when it seems momentous--like the Obama election--is usually INCREMENTAL. The ship of state turns like an aircraft carrier, not a speedboat.

And you don't have the "right" to change my words to suit your worldview. I said DEMOCRAT FOR PRESIDENT, and that's what Obama is, the INCUMBENT in that position, in fact, like it or not, by vote of the majority of Democrats. You can't change definitions because you didn't get your way.

If you don't fit in, and you are angry, you can always move along--maybe the GREENS are more your speed. Or maybe work from within instead of trying to tear down around the edges? That's what proactive, rather than negative, people do. You'll have to start local, though--don't try to change entrenched politicians, you have to grow your POV from local government on up. That takes both work and time. Ask the Tea Party.

The DU ADMINS have made it pretty clear that people who advocated defeat of a DEMOCRATIC PARTY INCUMBENT need to find someone else's bandwidth to pout on. I agree with them. I'm entirely sick of this shit, and I was not a supporter of Obama in the 08 primary. I will support him in the next election, though, because I'm not stupid--he's better than the best Republican on any ballot.

[HereSince1628]

18. I think the 5 star post on the Greatest List passed these DU tests

on its way up the ladder.

It's very difficult to imagine that the usually quick to ALERT crew wasn't quick to alert on that thread.

[Electric Monk]

82. Link, for context and future reference (because it won't be on the top tomorrow)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1779365

[MADem]

111. I am not a fan of the "Fuck you, I'm taking my ball and going home" school of thought.

I also am not a fan of the finger pointing "It's your fault!!" school either. That goes triple for the "Cut off your nose to spite your face" school, as well.

[HereSince1628]

118. And I respect your right to express your opinion

within the rules of the site.

And I do think the 5 star post in question almost surely was vetted for being within the rules to have reached the top of the Greatest List, because many people who disagree with that opinion would have used the Alert function.

[MADem]

159. I think the moderators didn't read the whole long diatribe.

The "Screw the Democratic Party, screw everyone, let's fuck the country by letting Perry have it" bit comes at the end.

That paragraph is plainly against forum rules.

Of course, a lot of people didn't see that thread, either....UNTIL TODAY.

I wonder if all those people who recc'd that anti-Democratic Party/Pro-Perry Victory (for our own 'good' of course) rant realize that the admins can see how they voted? I wonder if they would have recc'd the thing if they realized that?

It's so egregiously against the DU rules that it almost looks like a trollbait post. Not quite, because it's way too long....but ....almost.

[Number23]

205. "it almost looks like a trollbait post." ALMOST?

Did you see the folks rushing to high five that idiocy? The trolliest of the trolls were all up in that thread.

[MADem]

232. Well, now the Admins have a list of people who either don't understand reality or

endorse troublemaking. They do have the ability to see who 'up-checked' and 'down-checked' individual posts. I remember years ago they used that ability to shitcan some Nazi-endorsing rabble-rousers.

Those same people, I suspect, are marking this post down. Shame on them.

[bluestate10]

54. As typical of the practitioners, the OP did not outright call for the election

of a republican for President. The OP did eviscerate President Obama and offered no alternative other than the OP was not concerned that a republican could win the Presidency. Of course the OP got the hail of empty headed Recs that are so typical for horseshit OPs.

[MH1]

100. Actually, he did. I guess it depends what 'outright' means.

He states that it would be better for Perry to win. (that bit is quoted upthread here)

[MADem]

104. Merci, mille fois.

Someone posted the link to the thread, and you summed it up better than I ever could.

[Joe Fields]

92. So, who wrote a Perry for president thread?

Show me, and I will alert on it myself.

[MH1]

102. Alert on your own thread then.

Because that is what your post is.

[MADem]

113. It's helpful to read the entire thread, starting with the first post.

I'm responding to that.

[joshcryer]

8. I'm a crappy Democrat, but it's so true what you say about the meetings.

I'm a die hard, far left anti-capitalist libertarian socialist, under an anonymous identity I write regular screeds against capitalism, the state, even politics itself, but the fact remains that this is reality and when push comes to shove, it doesn't work how those who are manipulative think it does. You go out, you volunteer, you canvas to the best of your ability even while being extremely anti-social.

During Obama's election I went out and used the fist bump to disarm people (and to make the connection more real) with people. I didn't turn this county Blue but I sure as hell helped take Colorado Blue. When we stayed Blue in 2010, I know for a fact that had I and others of my stripe (super far left crazy person) not acted we would've lost Colorado (we only won it by a few thousand votes, many of them came from this county, no we didn't win it again, but that doesn't matter, we kept the onslaught from going the other way).

Good post.

[phleshdef]

10. Fucking thank you. This kind of sober, righteous anger needs prevalence around here.

[BzaDem]

13. I regret that I only have one Rec for this thread. K&R.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

15. I blame Republican ideology completely for the disaster we're living in right now

However, I CANNOT SAY (without lying):

1) That Democrats have refused adamantly to follow any Republican ideology from 1980 to the present. The fact IS that there are some EXTREMELY right wing Democrats, who have sold our country out time and time again;

2) That Democrats have spoken out loudly and clearly TO POINT OUT publicly how the Republican ideology has harmed, is harming and will destroy our country. Fact is, many Democrats have remained silent all the time, played 'nice' with Republicans most of the time, or only made a barely audible sound once in a blue moon.

3) That Democrats have refused to sell out our country to corporatist interests, such as FREE TRADE. Fact is, most Democrats sold our country and our middle class out to the desire for corporations to remove jobs from here and take them to where they can keep labor costs in their pockets because they pay $1/day or some such ABSURD amount.

I would ADORE to blame only Republicans for the damage our country has sustained and the fact that we're headed towards third world nation at breakneck speed, BUT I CANNOT when Democrats have been COMPLICIT.

And as I said, it's not only that many Democrats have participated in implementing Republican ideology, but that they remained SILENT.

Remaining silent while something wrong is being done, is tantamount to participating in it.

I hear too fucking much silence and ignoring the real issues from Democrats.

[sufrommich]

16. I've seen more and more of the posts you mention here. On Fark

they're referred to as "Both sides are bad so you might as well vote republican" posts. Of course, on Fark they're recognized as trolls and laughed at.

[solara]

20. Well said, very well said

This is the first post of yours I have read and I will be watching for more.

:hi:

[ldf]

22. so suffice it to say

that america became the farce it became, because:

1. americans were so greedy that they all wanted to be rich so "their money" could work for them and they wouldn't have to lift a finger for the rest of their lives, (or at least that is how they thought it worked)

2. americans became so christian that they decided to use, and enforce (but only THEIR interpretation), the holy babble as the new basis for their constitution (while simultaneously OUTLAWING sharia law),

3. americans became so outraged there was a "colored" in the whitehouse they made sure that "white supremacy" became the law of the land,

4. americans categorizing themselves as democrats, the only party that could halt #1, 2 and 3 of this list, refused to hold their party leadership accountable,

5. americans were such cowards, fearing any financial pain whatsoever, they refused to address the first four of these items.

[bvar22]

23. I AM a "Solidarity Democrat".

I join is Solidarity with those who support these Traditional Democratic Party Principles:

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."---FDR

I STAND with those who are willing to fight for these rights.
I will NOT stand with those who would privatize the above RIGHTS,
or limit access to the above RIGHTS,
or profit from the unequal distribution of the above RIGHTS,
or sell them out to Corporate Interests.


---bvar22
a Proud, Mainstream, Middle-of-the-Road Pro-Working Class FDR/LBJ DEMOCRAT


Unrec this OP for willful distortion.


Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Little Star]

86. That's where I'm at bvar22! I also give this OP a un-rec! n/t

[DonCoquixote]

89. how can it be willful distortion

when the person's words were quoted, and then the poster tried to run from his quotes.

[Joe Fields]

93. Should be a post of its own. Thank you. Would K&R if I could.

:toast:

[DonCoquixote]

94. here is the quote

"And yes, maybe a jerk like Rick Perry will become president because of people like me, but I'll tell you right now, we are headed in that direction sooner or later on this crash course, and I would rather have it be sooner, so that we can hit bottom quickly and rise back up."

Now, WHAT about this is distortion?

To quote Eric Hoffer "those who would sacrifice a generation for an ideal are the enemies of mankind." Is is true of the teabaggers, and those the teabaggers have manipulated.

[bvar22]

109. That is in NO WAY an "endorsement" of Rick Perry.

I feel no need to elaborate any further.


Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[MADem]

148. It's a DU-rule-breaker, that's for sure. Blatantly. Obscenely.

I'm shocked so many people outed themselves by "reccing" the thing. It's like Outing Bait, it's so obvious.

I seem to remember something in the DU rulebook about violations including "Expressing intent to not vote or vote third party, or justifying defeat of any Democratic general election candidate (unless a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative)."

Fits the bill, that quote, I'd say.

[DonCoquixote]

214. again, the quote

I would rather have it be sooner, so that we can hit bottom quickly and rise back up."

There is NO solidarity in these words.

[MADem]

217. More than "no solidarity"--it's a backhanded GOP endorsement, to "teach us a lesson" NT

[Number23]

206. Fabulous

"those who would sacrifice a generation for an ideal are the enemies of mankind."

Good Lord, I just got the chills. that is so true.

[Warren Stupidity]

149. Me too.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Stop characterizing others, everybody stop it.

I mean, note that 'solidarity' is a relative term. From my view, anyone who opposes my equal rights in any way is openly stating that they are not in solidarity with me, my family and my community. It is not possible for us to be 'in solidarity' with those who 'believe' we should not have equal rights because of some invisible being they 'believe' tells them to be prejudiced. The lack of solidarity comes from the McClurkin and Warren and DuBois faction, and others who claim they are 'defending the Sacrament' against me and my people. They clearly state that they are opposed to us, that they feel no solidarity with us.
Two way street. Cake and eat it. A few years of hate preachers and open statements that God is in the mix, and 'those people' should 'be given certain rights' and other dividing, line drawing, us and them language destroys all possible solidarity.
Stand with the people, or you stand with the Republicans. Those who agree with Palin and Bachmann are not in solidarity with me. No matter what tee shirt the affect.
If you want solidarity, you have to build it. By standing solidly with those you wish to see standing solidly with you. " You should be standing with us, except on the days when we have rallies against your kind" is an interesting approach, but it is a loser.

[phleshdef]

29. Blah, blah, a noun, a verb and Donnie McClurkin.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. How original, and to compare my post to a thing said about a

Republican. Build that solidarity. Way to go. Of course, your attempt at retreaded wit only stands as an evasion of the points made.
Those who oppose the rights of my community are in solidarity with the Bachmanns, not with me and my family. That is the choice they make.
If you want solidarity, you have to build it by standing in solidarity with those you wish to stand with you. There is no other way.

[phleshdef]

70. It wasn't meant to be original. The comparison with Giuliani was 100% intentional.

Donnie McClurkin apparently IS your 9/11.

I see your posts all the time. They stand out because you won't shut the fuck up about Donnie McClurkin, something that even a good number of people in the gay community no longer gives 2 shits about. But you can't stand that its so insignificant to most people, so you insist on constantly dropping the name in desperate hope that you can make it mean something. But it never will. All it accomplishes is reinforcement of the idea that your posts are broken fucking records, accomplishing nothing substantial for the cause of gay rights, especially nothing on the level of what Barack Obama has in fact accomplished for that cause.

But if that last bit isn't clear, let me restate it. Barack Obama has done more substantial things for the cause of gay rights than you ever have and likely ever will. And you have to live with that.

[Bluenorthwest]

101. Yeah, there you go. All about me, not about the issues.

And you don't know me, you have not seen what I have seen, been where I have been. So you just don't know.
I try to avoid the personal attack thing, so I will not be responding to you in kind. For the campaign to repeat those rallies this year would be a huge mistake and that mistake would do harm to all Democrats standing for election. They should not repeat it, because it has not been forgotten in the quarters where it will matter come the day.

[phleshdef]

145. If it were about the issues for you, you wouldn't post the things you post.

If it were about the issue, you would acknowledge that Barack Obama has the best track record on gay rights out of every single President thats ever sat in the office. If it were about the issue for you, you wouldn't spam the forums with obscure references to Donnie McClurkin all the time.

These are all, by the way, personal attacks against Obama on your part. Spare me the lectures about personal attacks. You are in no position to make them.

I've no problem with you taking issue with Obama because he is still seemingly behind the times on gay marriage. But you take it a step further. For you, its an all out crusade to convince everyone that he is a gay hating bigot who wants to see homosexuals suffer. And so you name drop the same names of the small handful of anti-gay individuals that Obama has given the time of the day to and you use that to make your case. And you ignore that the pro-gay rights advocates he has given the time of day to far exceed the number of names that you obsessively drop. Meanwhile, Obama is up there in Washington handing out executive orders and overturning bad laws in the interest of gay rights. He is appointing gay people to high positions and signing laws to grant them more protection from hate crimes. You are running your mouth about crazy preachers while Barack Obama has actually been making the lives of GLBT people easier and closer to fair. That must really get under your skin.

If I'm wrong about you, then please, explain to me which rights that have been denied to GLBT people have you won for them and ultimately granted them? Barack Obama has a list. What is your list?

[ZombieHorde]

115. Belittling the feelings of an oppressed group is so easy, children often do it.

Standing up for an oppressed group is harder, but there are some rewards. I suggest giving it a try sometime.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[ZombieHorde]

134. delete double post nt

[ZombieHorde]

135. To be clear, I was not calling any DUer a child, I was saying picking on oppressed groups

is easy.

The cartoon in the first link looks racist to me, and I said it was fucked up.

The list in the second link contains a large portion of bullshit, and should be called out as bullshit.

[Number23]

207. I really love you, Bobbie Jo

[Warren Stupidity]

152. Yeah how dare those gays be upset about an invite to a blatant homophobe.

nice. very nice.

[Name removed]

237. Deleted message

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

[BNJMN]

26. I was saying "fuck it" before any of you posers even knew it could be fucked.

[LWolf]

27. "...as people who want honest political discussion..."

:rofl:

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. Please post a link to the post endorsing Rick Perry

[bluestate10]

60. The post is an indirect, but clear endorsement for democrats sitting

home while President Obama is defeated. I posted several times in the OP. It was a rather clear endorsement for a republican president in 2013, to hell with the consequences.

[Electric Monk]

83. It's at the top of the Greatest page currently, but won't be tomorrow. Here's the link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1779365

[proud2BlibKansan]

175. That post does not endorse Rick Perry.

Good grief.

[Electric Monk]

179. Like I said in post #98, Some see what they want to see and disregard the rest.

nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

186. And some see what isn't there.

[MADem]

187. Yes it does. The poster would rather see Rick Perry as President SOONER, because he has a foolish

notion that sinking into the abyss politically is like bouncing off the bottom of a swimming pool, and that, if we suffer under the leadership of an asshole, we'll WANT to get an ultra-progressive in there as some kind of "contrast." I don't know when that's ever happened--even when we've voted for change, we've gotten INCREMENTAL change, not dramatic change. The thesis is horribly flawed and immature. It's a bit of GBCW and pouting and foot-stomping, all in one. It offers no solutions, just an "I'll show you how shitty it can get" perspective.


Here--read his words of "wisdom"--it's from the "I'll really give ya something to cry about" school of political thought:

And yes, maybe a jerk like Rick Perry will become president because of people like me, but I'll tell you right now, we are headed in that direction sooner or later on this crash course, and I would rather have it be sooner, so that we can hit bottom quickly and rise back up. So, to be blunt, right now I don't give a fuck about party politics. I want the whole goddamned system changed. To paraphrase Peter Finch in the movie "Network," I'm mad as fucking hell, and I'm not about to play this fucking game anymore."


Of course, anyone who is thinking about this cogently will realize that four years of Rick Perry brings us four years of Rick Perry's federal judges, four years of Rick Perry's Supreme Court noms, four years of Congressional candidates endorsed by Rick Perry The President, four years of Perry's civil service appointees who transition to career jobs in government and stay for-fucking-EVER, four years of the development of Rick Perry-Worldview lobbyists, journalists and corporate decision-makers....yeah, this little scenario is a GREAT idea--not.

It's divisive, it's absurd, and it is also against DU rules to advocate for the election of a Republican against a sitting Dem President.

[proud2BlibKansan]

190. 301 votes and it's not locked

Wouldn't it be locked if it violated DU rules and endorsed a republican??

[MADem]

192. Who knows, anymore? I think DU is no longer DU.

You're saying that because a moderator hasn't 'gotten to it' yet, then it MUST be OK?

Please. You have a mind, you are literate--that post says that a Perry presidency would teach us a lesson. Yeah, it'll teach us what it feels like to get fucked for four-to-eight years.

Great lesson. And the poster WANTS that to happen, 'for our own good.'

It's disgusting. Offensive. Wrong.

[Number23]

202. Gotta love the "Oh, it's not REALLY saying that" even though the OP says it SEVERAL

times in the damn OP.

This place is disgusting now.

[MADem]

213. I just cannot endorse it as it is now.

And I've been here since the very first day.

I had another sign-in, but then I lost my email account, forgot my pw, and began anew. But I was here from Day One. Way back.

I am just sick of it. It's not like it was. It used to be DEMOCRATS. Now, it's assholes who find shit WRONG with Democrats. I can't sit by and say "Oh, that's cool" when it isn't.

The worst D is better than the best R--and anyone with a brain knows that.

[MADem]

160. There's a link to it within this thread. NT

[proud2BlibKansan]

174. Gee, that's helpful.

[MADem]

180. When you read the thread, you'll find it, no problem.

Hint--it's actually within this SUBTHREAD.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[Sarah Ibarruri]

35. Also, if what you're saying is that you'll vote for Nader again, or not vote... (yawn)

That's not a threat. You're already doing it, and you seriously need a new threat. What you're already doing, you're already doing. Can't find anything new to do, can you?

[Spider Jerusalem]

39. There's really a pretty simple explanation here honestly

people who have the inclination to rant about politics on an internet discussion forum are generally going to be ideological partisans who represent the more extreme fringes of whatever party they belong to, hence Free Republic on the one side of the coin and DU on the other. Although quite honestly it's if anything more extreme at DU because a significant percentage of said partisan ideologues were labouring under the sadly mistaken delusion that Obama was a liberal saviour come to turn back everything wrought by Bush the Lesser (and maybe by his dad and Reagan too while he was at it) and have been bitterly disappointed that no, he's the centre-right pragmatist he actually said he was (if they'd fucking listened in the first place).

It also doesn't help too much that people have a really very disturbing level of naivete regarding how government works and what a president does; reading some of the things around here you'd get the idea that a president is some sort of omnipotent god-king who can make anything happen (for which see the story about Canute and the tide); now, I could be wrong but that's exactly the sort of presidency that people would be screaming blue fucking murder over if it were a REPUBLICAN doing it, no? And sure, let's just ignore Congress. And all those pesky Republicans and Blue Dogs because of course they aren't an impediment to the realisation of our perfect liberal utopia which Obama is clearly thwarting because he's a secret Republican. Never mind that you're not going to get public option healthcare through a vote in both houses, never mind that you won't get a vote to repeal DOMA through both houses, that the present Congress isn't going to vote money on infrastructure projects of further stimulus (see: debt ceiling stupidity), never mind any of that, we want a pony and we didn't get one so we're taking our ball and going home! And also never mind substantiative although flawed healthcare reform, never mind that DADT is overturned, never mind that decisive action through quantitative easing and fiscal stimulus kept the recession from turning into a depression, let's just ignore ALL of that while at the same time pretending that there's a Democratic politician who would somehow perform better in the present circumstances given current conditions and that the Republicans in charge would be a genuine nightmare that would make you long for the Obama administration the same way people who said the same things about Bill Clinton suddenly changed their tune when Bush was in the White House.

A lot of it is probably just people venting spleen, but at the same time a lot is also quite frankly stupid.

[RegieRocker]

42. People voicing their dissatisfaction is a good thing. Saying it's wrong

is manipulative. I see no solutions from you only vote for democrats and don't voice anything. You really think that will work?

[bluestate10]

63. When the dissatisfaction is 100% with democrats.

Without a single acknowledgment that republicans are obstructionist and are the problem, then the voicing of opinion is both wrong and distorted.

[RegieRocker]

85. Lol any real democrat hates republicans and doesn't need

to convince other democrats that they should hate republicans for this our that. WE however should be focusing on one thing. Ensuring our beliefs and wants are fulfilled by our elected officials.

[Edweird]

44. What?

[Horse with no Name]

46. A little intellectual dishonesty here eh?

That is NOT what that post says.
Disingenuous...be they name.

[BzaDem]

50. Actually, it is precisely what the post says.

"And yes, maybe a jerk like Rick Perry will become president because of people like me, but I'll tell you right now, we are headed in that direction sooner or later on this crash course, and I would rather have it be sooner, so that we can hit bottom quickly and rise back up."

[bluestate10]

64. The OP is right on target. nt

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

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

[lumpy]

164. Thank you . My thoughts exactly.

v

[SidDithers]

169. Fantastic post...

:thumbsup:

Sid

[Number23]

208. Damn! Amazing post

Nobody with a family... nobody with children... would *EVER* think so irresponsibly as the aforementioned thread.

Only whiny purity progressives with absolutely nothing to lose can afford to be so cavalier.

Plus a bazillion.

I think the whiny Batshit Bunch have overplayed their hand with that thread, to be honest. Their motives are as plain as day. They scream "liberaler than thou" at everyone but are all too happy to watch, gently gloating, while the country burns to the ground.

To hell with them.

[MADem]

233. Perry judges on the Supreme Court, Perry judges on the Federal Bench,

Perry civil service appointees transitioning to career executive civil service and staying in their respective departments for twenty or more years, creating shit/causing trouble, Perry lobbyists polluting the corridors of power for years on end....and that's BEFORE we even get to bad law and regulation.

Whiney purity progressives....or closet Perry boosters--the effect is the same.

Well said.

[MADem]

194. READ:

This is what he said:

And yes, maybe a jerk like Rick Perry will become president because of people like me, but I'll tell you right now, we are headed in that direction sooner or later on this crash course, and I would rather have it be sooner, so that we can hit bottom quickly and rise back up. So, to be blunt, right now I don't give a fuck about party politics. I want the whole goddamned system changed. To paraphrase Peter Finch in the movie "Network," I'm mad as fucking hell, and I'm not about to play this fucking game anymore."

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Hassin Bin Sober]

51. Is this a GBCW post? I couldn't get past the first paragraph.

You post so much garbage and shit-stirring crap - I don't want to bother.

Readers Digest condensed version would be nice.

[Horse with no Name]

52. If only....n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

157. one of several calls for a purge of the left from DU.

or at least that is my impression. How dare we?

[MADem]

167. How you can call someone who advocates election of Perry to "teach us a lesson" as someone from the

LEFT is beyond me. I can think of a lot of ways to describe someone from that perspective, from an 'eat your vegetables' uninformed scold on one hand, to an outright paid disruptor on the other end of the spectrum, but anyone who advocates the election of Rick Perry for ANY fucking reason is not a leftist, unless they are intellectually challenged and don't understand how serious the issues are, and how four years of GOP leadership in the White House could change this nation in ways from which we might never recover.

How dare 'we?' You associate yourself with those intemperate and flippant remarks?

How....misguided of you.

[Warren Stupidity]

176. he didn't say that. Those are your words, not the OPs.

Try reading it again.

[MADem]

177. Yes he did. You need to do the re-reading. Pay particular attention to the last few paragraphs.

Maybe you ran out of gas before that point, but the big finish is as I described.

[Warren Stupidity]

181. I've read it. We will have to disagree about what the OP meant.

Describing that OP as "advocat(ing for) the election of Perry" is in my opinion a major mischaracterization.

[MADem]

182. Let's go straight to the source. Enough of this.

And yes, maybe a jerk like Rick Perry will become president because of people like me, but I'll tell you right now, we are headed in that direction sooner or later on this crash course, and I would rather have it be sooner, so that we can hit bottom quickly and rise back up. So, to be blunt, right now I don't give a fuck about party politics. I want the whole goddamned system changed. To paraphrase Peter Finch in the movie "Network," I'm mad as fucking hell, and I'm not about to play this fucking game anymore."


He is expressing a specific desire that a Republican take the White House.

He wants "it" (the election of Perry) to happen "sooner," because, in his warped and unrealistic view, things will magically get better if the shit TRULY hits the fan--from his perspective. Now, that's a naive worldview if I ever saw one.

Just because his motives are, to his mind, pure, doesn't mean that he isn't advocating the election of Perry, to, in essence, teach us all a lesson...the old "I'll give you something to cry about" approach to politics.

This is a profoundly misguided and immature way to approach improving a party's responsiveness to their constituency. It's fringe, it's poorly structured, and most importantly, IT WILL NOT WORK. All something as ill-conceived as that will do is help the GOP to further entrench themselves, by spending four long years appointing assholes to civil service positions, where they'll sit for a time and then convert to career service. Then, we'll have them FOREVER.

[Bobbie Jo]

53. K&R

Fuck it.

[lame54]

55. Do you think Obama is flawless?

[Silent3]

65. Do you think the OP implies that Obama is flawless?

What does that stupid bit of throw-away rhetoric have to do with any important question?

[lame54]

71. no...

but if you add them all up

[bluestate10]

66. The OP didn't claim the President Obama was flawless.

The OP also didn't endorse the election of a republican president like an OP did last night.

[lame54]

73. ok

[mcar]

57. Wish I could recommend this a thousand times

Well written. Thank you for speaking out about this. :toast:

[bluestate10]

68. Yes. If only there was a super Rec that only the sane could use. nt

[mcar]

75. Too true

:-)

[Wait Wut]

58. This is fantastic, LoZo

I have to say that you've voiced my own opinions perfectly. I'm well aware of the "activist" mentality. I was one for years until even that didn't offer the passion that I desired. I expected the world and was continuously disappointed that I couldn't even win my city. It took almost a decade for me to get back into politics. Bruised, but wiser, I took some time to appreciate the larger picture. It isn't pretty, but it is necessary. We can't expect to drag the right to our way of thinking overnite. These are people that reject change and wish to impose their hypocritical lifestyles on everyone while insisting government "stay out of their lives". It's frustrating, but they still represent a large portion of our country. To think that as a divided party we can defeat right-wing hypocricy and succeed in pushing this country toward a better (and more Democratic) future is delusional at best and dangerous for the left-wing as a whole. It is only when we can understand the benefit of small progress that we can truly see the larger benefit in the future.

We have made progress in the past two years. More progress than we could ever have expected under a McCain, Bush or even many of our beloved past Democratic Presidents. Uniting under the positive, agreeing to discuss (rationally) the negatives, and pulling together for 2012 will give us 4 more years of progress. This means fighting for the House and the Senate, and working towards our cities and states becoming more Democratic, Liberal and/or Progressive. It means taking pride in the more generic label of "Democrat" while not forsaking our own personal hopes and dreams as Liberals, Progressives and Socialists.

I rec most of your posts, LoZo, but this is one that I wish I could rec 100 times.

[bluestate10]

74. Hail, Hail, my friend. I give you an internet kiss on both of your shoes. nt

[Ship of Fools]

67. Thank you, from someone new to politics.

[jaxx]

72. K&R

Although it doesn't show, I comment you for writing the OP. And most of the 2/3 who agree with you have moved on. Those of us who still post are just hard headed and won't give up the country to the disenchanted.

[leeroysphitz]

77. Oh, the DRAMA. Nobody is "endorsing" Perry and you know it. n/t

[bluestate10]

81. The OP referred to an OP from last night that was exactly what this OP stated.

An explicit, if somewhat indirect endorsement of a republican being sworn in January 2013. The OP last night nearly made me throw up, that was before I became absolutely pissed and started writing replies.

[Joe Fields]

95. explicit/indirect? hmmmm....you sound confused, if not downright contradictory.

[MADem]

185. You know what you said--and you have overstepped.

Why are you here, if you hate us so much?

Your words--not mine:

And yes, maybe a jerk like Rick Perry will become president because of people like me, but I'll tell you right now, we are headed in that direction sooner or later on this crash course, and I would rather have it be sooner, so that we can hit bottom quickly and rise back up. So, to be blunt, right now I don't give a fuck about party politics. I want the whole goddamned system changed. To paraphrase Peter Finch in the movie "Network," I'm mad as fucking hell, and I'm not about to play this fucking game anymore."

[Joe Fields]

225. Why are you here if you don't support democratic principles?

[MADem]

235. Why are you here if you support Rick Perry for President?

And I don't give a shit if you support him because you think we have to "hit bottom" in a naive and warped fashion. The "take your medicine/you want pain? I'll show you pain" approach to political life is not the approach of an educated or rational person.

You don't have the right to tell me that I don't support "democratic principles" because I don't buy the ill-thought-out horseshit you're selling. That's just not on.

You overstepped. You made a huge error in judgment, and that's just as well--I know precisely what I am dealing with when I see your name. There is NO EXCUSE for anyone who understands the consequences of your intemperate little "idea fest" to endorse Rick Perry on this board for ANY reason.

[MADem]

184. No, they are wishin-n-hopin that Perry wins so we'll REALLY have something to cry about...

Let's go to the source--the writer says that his actions and the actions of others like him could result in the election of Perry, and he specifically says he would "rather have it sooner" (it being the election of the Republican asshole Perry) because in his blushing innocence, he erroneously thinks that we will "hit bottom quickly and rise back up."



And yes, maybe a jerk like Rick Perry will become president because of people like me, but I'll tell you right now, we are headed in that direction sooner or later on this crash course, and I would rather have it be sooner, so that we can hit bottom quickly and rise back up. So, to be blunt, right now I don't give a fuck about party politics. I want the whole goddamned system changed. To paraphrase Peter Finch in the movie "Network," I'm mad as fucking hell, and I'm not about to play this fucking game anymore."



Quite frankly, I have no patience for people who tout this kind of asshattery. An election of a Republican puts GOP stooges on the Supreme Court, on the federal bench, and in every branch of government FOR DECADES TO COME. If people of this POV hate the Democratic Party and think it is full of corporate evildoers, and think there is no difference between a Republican and a Democrat, well, my opinion is as follows--there's the door. Go play on the Green Board. Stop being devisive as we head towards a general election. That is just not acceptable to me on a Democratic, as in THE PARTY, forum.

[Morning Dew]

78. "you better be real nice and not be rude to me if you want me to vote for the Democrats"

is so entirely not a factor in whether I vote for a candidate or not.


It's refreshing that your OP was more than one line.

[MADem]

188. I'm not a fan of the "take my ball and go home" manner of playing the game, either. NT

[bluestate10]

79. I don't Rec often, but you OP got one from me.

I noticed the Unrec birds are out in droves. Fuck them my man, keep giving the word.

[Silent3]

80. +6.023*10^23

So much of what is said here could almost be excused as "blowing off steam", people expressing themselves in an emotional rather than factual way out of quite understandable frustration. But then the overblown rhetoric gets treated as if it's serious politics, and people are soon saying in all seriousness stupid "let it all burn down!" shit, not caring about consequences any more, putting expressing their anger over concern for the good of the country.

[bluestate10]

84. The issue that guide me is concern for the good of the country.

I don't want to see conservatives in charge. I am a moderate and don't expect to be anything else, but I can absolutely live with rule by progressive politicians, because I feel that all of what is being pushed for by progressives is right. The issue that I have with progressives is the pace of change. I feel that one can't scare the shit out of people that are not at a certain point of political maturity, to do so creates counter-productive results.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[Joe Fields]

88. I think it's time for you to say "fuck it" too, and join with me.

It's one of the few ways to change this political system.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[Melinda]

108. What you said - Thank you!

Every word you wrote leaped into my throat and caused my eyes to become wet. I'm but one real life liberal activist and voter of what will be 38 years this November. I became politically active at a very young age - thanks to war. I (along with most of those who hold my (our) views most certainly am not an imaginary keyboard participant such as described by the OP. The attacks against me and those like me by the OP do not promote solidarity among liberal Democratic voters on DU; and the policies promoted by those elected to represent us most certainly demand that Democrats vote out those representatives in 2012.

Your wonderful piece of writing deserves to be an OP of its own. Thank you again Kentuckian.

:applause:

[Electric Monk]

146. Sadly, it's been deleted. I'd like to have read it, as I'm sure others would as well.

[Pisces]

96. Excellent post!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

105. Solidarity with what? A label?

[fishwax]

106. it's cute that you seem to think the statements of manipulation are coming only from one side

[MADem]

220. It's cute that you think this is a "All In Together" Political Board

This is DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND. It's a private forum with a DEMOCRATIC (as in THE PARTY) focus, and it also has rules.

Refresh yourself as to them. If you aren't ready to support DEMOCRATIC incumbents for reelection, you are in the wrong place.

That's not my call--it's in the damn rule book.

Cute, huh?

[fishwax]

230. I have no idea how your comment is supposed to apply to me

I'm familiar with the rules here, and I abide by them. :shrug:

[lamp_shade]

107. Bravo !!!

[Warren Stupidity]

114. You should stick to inane one liners. nt.

[paulk]

123. what's a solidarity Dem?

speaking of "soiling with dirt" I'm reminded of the CO Democratic Senate primary in 2010. You remember - that's where Obama personally endorsed and raised money for one of the candidates, then lent him the use of his OFA organization for GOTV - in a competitive primary - an incumbent who had been appointed to office 2 years prior - now I know that some will say that's business as usual, however even cursory research will show this to be false. It was an absolutely unprecedented act for a sitting President to become involved in a state's competitive primary.

correct me if you disagree, but I've always felt that the main reason for being a party member was to participate in your party's primary - to be a part of choosing your candidate. What is the point of being a Democratic Party member if the leader of the party is going to, in effect, strip you of that role?

I've posted this several times and gotten no answer.

Now, you're probably thinking this is kind of off topic - but is it? You want us to back the party - to participate - to be a "solidarity Dem" - and I have to ask - why? Why should I? The only argument is that the alternative is worse. For some, however, it can't get much worse, having already lost everything. It seems to me Democratic leadership has amounted to little more than death by a thousand cuts - and maybe "joe fields" is right - it's going to take a President Perry to wake the American people up - to change the system - because, quite frankly - the system doesn't work anymore. I hasn't worked for quite awhile, actually.

In any case, I do think that his OP is worth at least considering, if nothing else than as a POV - one that is held by an increasing number of people...

[DevonRex]

125. Great post. KnR. Nt

[ZombieHorde]

126. Too long; didn't read.

Just kidding.

I think "statements of manipulation" are made by those on all sides on DU. Critical thinking isn't directly taught in most public grade schools.

Visit the Ask the Administrators forum and see how many questions are "why was this locked (or deleted)," and the answer is "personal attack" or "broad brush attack." Many posters, on various sides, don't even know if they are posting personal attacks. Obviously there is some grey area, such as this post, but many of those posts are easily black and white.

I think what we really need is critical thinking education in our grade schools.

this question of whether or not we should work for Democrats has now become the #1 discussion on Democratic Underground

Just a guess, but I think gun control may actually be the #1 discussed issue on DU. The gun forum is extremely active, and gun control is the only topic discussed.

[Fumesucker]

150. The problem is some personal attacks are allowed to stand..

If you are sufficiently opaque and use adequate circumlocutions you can attack others, depending of course on who you are.

It makes it difficult to realize that you are not allowed personal attacks when you see others doing it and getting away with it.

[Ignis]

249. +1

:fistbump:

[NNN0LHI]

151. Too long; didn't read ... LOL

>>>I think what we really need is critical thinking education in our grade schools.<<<

I think you are right about this. Even if we exposed our youngsters to just the basic principles of critical thinking I think it would help out a lot.

Too long; didn't read ... LOL

I got a tickle out of that one.

Don

[MADem]

191. Well, if what you say is true, maybe the forum needs reworking.

The forum rules say that people who advocate defeat of Democratic candidates get the kabash. If that kind of shit is allowed to stand, then maybe the forum should be renamed and the rules changed.

If I wanted to hang around a place that advocated Republicans for President--regardless of the reason behind that wish--I'd go to that place full of crazy people.

If this is going to be a forum for participation by all political parties, it might be time to just make that happen, instead of allowing people to game the rules with "hit rock bottom with a GOP president so we can come back up" nonsense posts.

We shouldn't be discussing whether or not we should work for Democrats--this is Democratic Underground. People who want to support independents or Greens or what-have-you need to go do that, if that's their goal, and stop shitting in the punch at this party. IMO.

[steve2470]

127. This is by far the best thread you've ever posted

Do more of these, please.

[MADem]

133. +1 nt

[joshcryer]

138. To be fair, there are threads like this daily. They go unnoticed. Loco...

...became somewhat of an icon with his divisive one liners and so now people are paying attention.

If he did daily threads like this they'd get 1-2 responses and no one would give a shit about the message.

[steve2470]

141. Good points, thanks ! nt

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[emulatorloo]

143. You should write longer OP's more often. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

147. < yawn >

ZZZzzzz...

[fishbulb703]

153. Sounds like some good DLC talking points. nt

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

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

[fishbulb703]

241. DLC =/= Democrats, and an ironic response from the guy w/ a Colbert avatar.

[Arkana]

161. Ah yes, the old "Burn it to the ground, then people will listen to us!" strategy.

Guess what, scorched-earthers: The only thing that will happen if you proceed with that is that the system will burn to the ground and an even worse one will replace it. Your enemies on the right will have no use for you, and the friends on the left you stabbed in the back will hate you for it.

[MADem]

170. +1,000,000 nt

[billh58]

162. Thanks for the small

ray of sunshine in an otherwise shit-storm of "Independent" poutrage. You are entirely correct that the very vocal minority on DU in no way represents the thinking of mainstream Liberal Democrats nationwide.

The Republican "enablers" who threaten to withhold their votes (and are encouraging others to do the same) because President Obama has "betrayed" them are out-of-touch with reality. Thankfully, they are not representatives of those of us who will not only re-elect President Obama, but will also work very hard to elect and re-elect Democrats to more local, State, and Congressional offices.

The Atwater-like framing that having to make a choice between two "bad" candidates is a disingenuous notion, and is a flawed argument for not voting. When the vote is between a Democrat and a Republican, the only sensible choice is a vote for the Democrat. A Republican president, and a Republican majority in a Teabagger-leaning Congress at this time in our short history would be a disastrous turn-of-events for this nation.

Republicans have proven many times over that they simply cannot manage the American economy responsibly. The coming election is much too important to our fellow citizens, and our children, for anyone to sit home and pout.

[spanone]

163. k&r...

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

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

[SidDithers]

166. K&R. Great post...nt

Sid

[Rex]

168. Don't have a clue as to who the solidarity Dems are.

Is that a small group on DU?

[Romulox]

171. I see a tremendous need to CONTROL from the OP, expressed daily.

Understand that control and conformity, not agreement or consensus, appear to be the OP's goals. Ideology comes second, if at all.

[neoconn]

172. AMEN.......My thoughts exactly..

[Whisp]

178. excellent. K&R

[MadHound]

183. Speaking of statements of manipulation, you give a great example,

And that these overblown, overly dramatic complaints are coming from you, of all posters, gives little credence to your view.

The fact of the matter is that you, and many like you, don't want to recognize that this party is a big tent. As such, in order to work together, each party in this big tent needs to be rewarded. The liberals(and please don't kid yourself, you are not liberal) haven't been rewarded in a generation or more. They are justifiably restless and resentful, essentially being told to sit down, shut up, and work for the good of a party in which they draw very little reward from.

But hey, carry on with your martyrdom, carry on with your purge of the left. For the fact is, no matter what you say, what you do, the real reckoning is going to come in November of next year, and if Obama and the Dems lose, the only one you can blame is yourself and others of your stripe.

[LoZoccolo]

193. You're making an argument that I should welcome and coddle people

who threaten the well-being of everybody else in the tent, or to destroy the tent while trying to build another tent. Either that, or you think I don't want liberals in the tent, which is not true because they generally are the most loyal Democrats. But I'll say this - for as long as a certain small subset of liberals likes to take the abusive and creepy position of harming the rest of the people in the tent, actually physically harming them, because of their failure to first persuade that tent (remember that our candidates are picked by party membership), yes, they will be treated as a hazard, and with suspicion, until they have repaired their reputation. That will happen sooner, if they begin sooner. But I'm only addressing those who seek to effect change through destructive means; most liberals do so through constructive means.

[Rex]

195. So you are saying that there are 'Dems' out there trying to physically

hurt others with violence in the party? First I've heard of that.

[LoZoccolo]

197. Yes, via the Republicans.

I said this in the OP.

[MadHound]

219. So you think that demanding a reward for the left's loyal service and votes is coddling?

Or worse yet, physically threatening people.

Tells a lot about your lack of knowledge of how the big tent works. One group doesn't get to reap all the rewards while others are neglected. The left, right, and center, women, the LGBT community, teachers, unions, etc. etc. are all supposed to get a bone thrown to them. Sadly, this administration, this Congress is throwing bricks instead of bones.

You simply cannot expect any group to tolerate such a situation, to do so is demanding the impossible. You've got to keep all groups that make up the big tent satisfied and involved. Past Democratic presidents and Congresses understood this, but not the current generation.

[LoZoccolo]

223. If the demands involve the violence likely in electing Republicans, they'll be alienated.

[Lucian]

189. Woah...you actually posted a thoughtful post.

I'm...surprised.

[Major Hogwash]

196. Is it that time already?

Hell, I thought we'd have to wait for another candidate to announce they were running before we quit supporting the one we supported just 2½ years ago.

[AlabamaLibrul]

198. blah blah blah... I found the phrase "my fellow solidarity Democrats" laughable

I was genuinely surprised to find this to have actual content inside the post though.

[TNLib]

199. I'm not happy with Obama but I plan on voting for him.

Who knows and maybe we'll get lucky and he'll be more progressive during his 2nd term since he won't have to worry about re-election. But I do think any GOP candidate will just really pull this country down.

[great white snark]

203. Well said! "Hurt feelings" are not a valid reason to withhold support.

I've always found that the most prolific Obama bashers have very thin skin.

[alarimer]

204. You ignore that much of the criticism of Obama is valid.

He has done nothing but break campaign promises from the beginning. He has continued Bush policies of war and torture and increased government surveillance of the citizenry. That's for starters. Not to mention the refusal to fight for anything. He may well be incapable of doing so, as a matter of his personality. I don't know but I do know that he has been terrible for this country. I expected better and I refuse to be scolded for wanting something better and expecting our elected officials to do what they promised.

A good deal of the problem, though, is the poisonous right-wing. They are tremendously ignorant and hateful people. They are collectively as close to evil as anything I can imagine. The idea that you let poor people starve or die from easily treated illnesses rather than taxing some billionaire a little more makes me sick. Obama has the bully pulpit. He could go out there and lay the blame right where it belongs, at the feet of Republicans and conservatives. He could call them out. But he chooses not to; he chooses instead to try and "work" with these monsters, even though they refuse to compromise. And Democrats do nothing but compromise and give away the store. Every single fucking time.

I am so sick of it. So sick of Democrats with no backbone. So sick of the Washington revolving door, where Wall Streeters get everything they want (from Democrats most of all) and poor people get fucked. Every single time. So no, I am through with the Democratic Party. They only way to get anything good to happen is to start at the bottom and primary every single one of the fuckers. Hopefully some of the worst corporate lackeys will fall. But we need to keep doing it until they are ALL gone. And that the rest get the message that you cannot win unless you stand up for actual progressive principles. I think this will take many years probably but a few key losses and the rest may realize that real people, with real concerns are a force to be reckoned with. We thought we had that with Obama but we were wrong. He is Hoover, not FDR.

[mvd]

215. Great post

Very well discussed without baseless smears and insults. That's the kind of post that will draw more to my position and yours. The only thing I disagree with is the Hoover thing because this really is the Bush depression. Obama is like Clinton with a weaker personality, IMO.

[LoZoccolo]

224. "He has done nothing but break campaign promises"

That's bullshit, and I stopped reading the post because of it. He has kept at least some campaign promises, and this has been documented. Do not lie to your fellow Democrats with this kind of hyperbole, if you want the kind of respect that makes people want to listen to you. Lying about things like this does not help us set a course based on the facts. This is deliberate manipulation. Don't do it, but if you do, don't complain that people won't listen to you and that the left is so alienated.

[woo me with science]

229. Very well said. nt

[Number23]

210. I haven't posted this much in one thread since I started coming here

Thank you for this. This is really a beautiful OP.

Your point about "statements of manipulation" is absolutely sublime. I have no doubt that the reason "Teh List!one!," whathefuckhasobamadone.com, Politifact, the Gallup polls, and the other 4000 types of comprehensive information that show that this president has achieved much and is supported by many are mocked and ignored is because they CANNOT be manipulated.

People who routinely minimize the president's accomplishments ignore this data because then they would have to admit that they are wrong or not nearly as smart/informed/sophisticated as they believe. So they call this information "propaganda" or "bullshit" while clinging to the idea that because their 8 equally clueless and politically naive friends/family feel the same way that they do, that THIS is the true measure of the country. It is laughable in its utter stupidity.

[Number23]

211. Lozo, you should also know that you got 92 recs (as of this post) for this OP

Considering how unhinged GD is now, that's pretty cool. Congrats!

[Name removed]

216. Deleted message

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

[Rex]

239. Yeah and the thread that started all this got 309 recs!

...

[lame54]

242. how do you determine that?

[Rex]

243. Must be friends with the mods.

Who else would know that kind of information.

[LoZoccolo]

246. Yeah it must be, even though the information is available even to people who aren't logged in. n/t

[Number23]

248. You're so kind to even bother responding to these people.

[Marr]

244. I'd like to repeat lame54's question-- how did you determine that? n/t

[Iggo]

222. Rec for 2+ sentences.

:thumbsup:

[cliffordu]

226. [phone]

Christ I wish I could beat the shit out of the fake activists with this. I really really do.

PLease keep writing like this.....If I could, I would.

c

[Scurrilous]

236. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Marr]

240. Must not be many working class people at these coffee shop pow-wows you go to.

I go to meetings, too-- but there are mostly working class, union people there. They are pissed.

By the way, your complaints about manipulative comments would carry more weight if you could link to this Perry endorsement you claim exists.

[LoZoccolo]

245. It doesn't exist; I lied.

The people who are talking about it upthread, and the person who went to ATA to complain, and also the people who started other threads about it are all lying too. We have a secret forum where we plan all this stuff.

Also, Skinner is lying when he's in ATA pretending that it exists and explaining why it wasn't locked. Also, it wasn't really on the front page.

[Marr]

247. Ok then.

I can only tell you that I meet a lot of very angry registered Democrats these days, and almost all of them are complaining about how their party seems way too cozy with Wall Street and way too detached from their own interests.