Mindless, unquestioning support for a leader is always a bad idea.

[yardwork]

Here on DU, we used to laugh at the fools on FreeRepublic who mindlessly supported "their" president no matter what he did. When the vast majority of the country had recognized what a failure Bush was, we used to mock the "30 percenters" who wouldn't tolerate any criticism or questioning of their president.

Beware lest you become what you despise.

[jody]

1. Excellent post.

:thumbsup:

[yardwork]

3. Thank you.

[bos1]

224. Pointless, flamebaiting posting is always a bad idea. n/t

[jody]

227. And "Pointless, flamebaiting posts to logical OPs are also always a bad idea". n/t

[omega minimo]

253. Pointless flamebaiting posting that proves the OP's point is a good idea

:think:

[yardwork]

293. I was thinking the same thing. Thank you.

[omega minimo]

294. funny how that works. You're welcome

:toast:

[cali]

2. Agreed. Fortunately there are literally only a handful of DUers

who fit into the catagory of mindless supporters of President Obama.

[Solomon]

6. Thank-you. Took the words out of my mouth. We don't

engage in "mindless" activity. That's reserved for freepers.

[cali]

8. well, there are a few who seem to unquestioningly support Obama

but then there are at least as many who unquestioningly support Chavez.

[tomp]

173. once again, the strawman. nt

[Two Americas]

337. ROFL!

Chavez?

You forgot to mention those who unquestioningly support Pol Pot.



...

[Dr.Phool]

341. Pol Pot? Isn't he a congressman from Texas?

I think his first name was Ron.

[omega minimo]

255. So you're mindful about the mindless support of the president.

[tomp]

172. hogwash. nt

[DrToast]

4. Mindless questioning is also a bad idea.

[tomp]

179. mindless questioning? what's that? nt

[Skittles]

250. any questioning, no doubt

:thumbsdown:

[defendandprotect]

202. To the contrary, I have only seen very intelligent challenges to Obama and the

new administration ---

Try responding to the issues ---

[Jakes Progress]

311. But if they only respond to the issues

they will have no defense. You can't expect them to be logical when logic and reasoning will prove them pointless.

[CreekDog]

321. really? like the thread where the OP couldn't decide whether Obama was "stupid" or "corrupt"?

but thought, "probably the latter".

very intelligent. :eyes: :sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

342. Obviously, that happens on both sides . . .

if it's objectionable enough, alert a moderator.

On the other hand, move on to the ISSUE . . . !!!

[LaurenG]

5. I'm glad he's the president - mindless support though is rare around here

I think there are a fair amount of DU'ers who've been disappointed in some of the decisions he's made so I don't think there is too much "mindless support" going on here.

[salguine]

9. I don't know if it's widespread or just from a very vocal minority, but when I've

questioned or voiced disappointment with President Obama on any matter, I'm routinely ripped a new one.

The last guy, when I expressed outrage that the President seemed perfectly happy to allow the torturers walk free, informed me that I was a "douchebag".

[cali]

19. lol. could it have had to do with your characterization of Obama as happy

to allow the torturers to walk free?

[zeemike]

22. Perhaps it is your choice of words.

The Precedent seems perfectly happy to allow...Implies that he enjoys letting the people go free...is not that a little over the top?
How do you know he is perfectly happy?
And declaring that people are mindless because they have the best possible president in their lifetime and want to support him is also a little over the top.

[salguine]

71. Semantics. let's say "content". The point is,

what possible rationale could any sane person have for not prosecuting these monsters? Obama is a professor of Constitutional law. You can't tell me he doesn't know how thoroughly the Constitution was eviscerated and how appalling these crimes were. I would rather lose everything I ever had, or ever would have, than to have the knowledge that I allowed these people to walk scot-free on my conscience.

[yardwork]

76. Now there you go again!

Obama is "the best progressive president" of all time! He's "fabulous!" Anyone saying differently is a right-wing troll.

Sounds to me like you're talking down to some people. Shame on you! That kind of mindless nitpicking is just as bad as fascism!

[salguine]

101. Thank you for not including a picture of Bo the dog with that.

[yardwork]

103. I could photoshop Bo in Riff-Raff's arms for you.

[zeemike]

125. Are you trying to say that words don't matter?

Like Ben Franklin once said "the art of politics is doing what is possible"
Did it ever cross your mind of the impossibility of doing what you suggest?
Arresting a number of high ranking military people and probably half the CIA and other agencies of the government.
Throeing the country into chaos and probably starting a civil war....
But you say you would do it anyway out of principle.
All I can say is thank god we have a sane man in charge.

[The Wielding Truth]

240. Common sense and rational thought is what we need to focus

on restoring our democracy. Nipping and fussing that all things are not perfectly addressed in an immediate manner is foolish and extreme.

He is not perfect but he is the best we have to offer now and we need a leader who is not right wing to even out the mess that has been made by 8 nasty years of untold abuses.

I agree with you that if we could handle wrestling away power from an entrenched greedy bunch of embezzlers that has owned us as well as Obama, then we or you should do it.

He has won our allegiance and I have seen him try to so his best to work us out of this awful mess.
I have seen him handle many challenges with methodical smart decisive action and maybe if we support him as he asked we will have placed the democratic train back on the tracks.

I say let him have the wheel until we are out of danger. He has moved us in the best direction, and when the extremely slanted Fox and cohorts snip at his every move, it is important that we give him the leeway to play politics with the CIA.

[HamdenRice]

151. When you post something like this, all you're saying is that you don't understand the law

Several lawyers here have pointed out several times that Obama is basically legally correct on this issue: a subset of the torturers cannot be prosecuted by the Justice Department.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8347886

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8350107&mesg_id=8350336

You may not like the way our legal system works, but Obama was basically stating the orthodox position of how it works and what he can and can't do. All you and many others seem to be saying is that either you don't know how DOJ opinions work or won't accept how they work.

But the "rationale" for "any sane person ... not prosecuting these monsters" is well known and has been stated over and over. Obama isn't "content"; he's simply stating facts. If you don't like those facts fine; but don't project happy emotions onto people who state facts.

And acceptance of these facts doesn't mean one "mindlessly" supports Obama. It means one understands what a DOJ opinion is.

[Baby Snooks]

223. Fine then turn them over to the International Criminal Court...

All it takes is a resolution by the Security Council. What a way to restore our honor in the world. Submitting the resolution for investigation of our own war crimes. But it won't happen. And reality is reality. Barack Obama does not care about restoring our honor.

Who does he serve? He does not serve us. What does he serve? He does not serve the Constitution or those who wrote it.

[mitchtv]

142. splitting hairs

besides he said "seems ", not "is" perfectly. NO, IT IS NOT OVER THE TOP , IT's THE TRUTH. No nice way to say it

[tomp]

174. the best possible president? talk about mindless support. nt

[Fire1]

70. Don't feel bad. Last night I found out that some of us are

even 'riff raff!' LOL!!

[yardwork]

86. Riff Raff is here??!

[Fire1]

Good one! lol!

[defendandprotect]

203. Forget the "douchebag" insult and remember what they want to do is SHUT YOU UP . . .!!!

[SkyDaddy7]

214. Same here!

Except I was called a mindless "douchebag" for supporting President Obama's economic plans & actions. Fair & Balnaced, I guess?

[JDPriestly]

226. After Rahm Emmanuel's statement this morning that Obama will

not prosecute those who authorized the torture, I am not just disappointed, not just disillusioned, I am utterly disgusted.

I have read too much about Germany and Austria in the 1930s not to recognize the signs. When torture is too much trouble to prosecute, then there is no rule of law -- no law at all. Forget it. The die is cast. Our great dream, our hope for democracy has been dealt its final blow.

Enjoy your stay in the White House, President Obama -- the maids, the chefs, the pomp and circumstance, the gardens, the adulation, because by refusing to take on the heavy mantle of moral responsibility that comes with the office, the burden of doing the right thing no matter what, you are reducing your presidency to the superficiality and flattery of the office -- just as Bush did.

If the United States does not require its leaders to answer for violations of the Geneva Conventions, what country will?

[flyarm]

230. Justice Louis D.Brandeis said..........

Justice Louis D.Brandeis

"Our government is the potent, the omnipresent, teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself;"

[LostinVA]

7. K&R

[Diane R]

10. Relentless bashing of a fabulous Democratic President after just 3 months is a worse idea.

[Skwmom]

59. Oh yes. Why don't we just wait for Summers and the other

stooges to completely destroy this country before we protest. That's a great idea.

:sarcasm:

[yardwork]

94. Anything else would be un-Progressive, apparently.

The New American Way is to allow Democratic Presidents at least three years or so before any dissent is allowed. Don't complain on anonymous "progressive" message boards, either, or you'll get your ass banned from them.

[Hutzpa]

120. There is a simple solution to all this

aggravation you're putting yourself through....go create your own community/blog and
do all the criticizing you want, since HIDE THREAD don't work for you.

Seems to me you're actually upset at folk for supporting their President.

[Starry Messenger]

123. Your hide thread button is broken?

Or is your name Skinner?

[Hutzpa]

127. Did you read my post or

you're trying to be a nuisance....which is which???

[Starry Messenger]

129. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8354087&mesg_id=8354603

[Hutzpa]

134. You're on your own buster

because your link took me to your response.

Cherrio......:hi:

[Starry Messenger]

136. Oh well.

At least you are keeping the thread kicked. That's something, anyway.

[tomp]

178. so if we don' t like what someone says we have to avoid the thread....

...and not comment on it? you're saying we who oppose certain actions of obama are the source of our own aggravation?

the same could be said of all the knee-jerk and hypersensitive obamaphiles as well.

no one on this board is under any obligation to "support their president".

[yardwork]

190. Unfortunately, apparently the new house rules say that we are, in fact, under an obligation

to support The President. Those who fail to comply are now being escorted from the premises. It's a private board and the owners make the rules. It's a shame to see what it's come to, though.

Thank you for your posts in this thread! Don't think I've seen you around before. Glad to meet you.

[tomp]

199. wow, hadn't seen the new rule. i've been around....

...since very near the beginning, and nothing has changed here regarding closed-minded posters, or the administrator's preference for democratic party support over open discussion. this board is, in effect, an organ of the party showing just how small the tent is in the end.

thanks for the nice post.

[Vanje]

218. Check out this thread, particularly its locking message

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5464598

DU Administrator, EarlG's message includes this instructive paragraph:

But the bottom line is that it's our job to facilitate discussion here. If you are running around repeatedly referring to other members of this community as "cheerleaders" or "bots", or even using "Obama supporters" as a derogatory term - then you will eventually get into trouble. You don't have to agree with everything Barack Obama does to be a member of DU, but if you can't call yourself an "Obama supporter" then one can't help but wonder what you're doing here.

So, apparently calling DUers, "Freeper" "PUMA" "Whiner","Poutrager","Tea-bagger" "crybaby" "HillaryBot" is A-okay if you sling it at someone you think is making a criticism of the president , his staff, or their actions.
You can go on and on about "wanting ponies", But calling an obama supporter a cheer-leader can get your ass banned.

Fair and Balanced. Yes indeed.

[closeupready]

248. Is this rule written or unwritten?

Very curious to see if Skinner actually implemented such a rule - my gut says no.

On the other hand, I COMPLETELY agree with your OP, yardwork. I am this close to leaving this board - temporarily or permanently, I'm not sure.

[laugle]

251. This is a discussion forum.

It's seems to me, if you want to only hear good things, you should start a FAN CLUB!

To discuss the pros/cons & strengths/weaknesses of the new administration does not mean we don't support the president.

"Those who do not remember the past, are condemned to repeat it!"

He can only benefit and be a better president, if he hears from the people he represents......

[Dawgs]

153. Summer and others are completely destroying the country?

What are you basing that on? Pulling something out of your ass again?

[Skwmom]

191. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. n/t

[defendandprotect]

204. Actually, we should have been jumping on these very poor appointments very much earlier . . .!!!

[Vanje]

219. Damn right, we should have

Summers?
Geithner?
Vilsak?
Fucking Gates!!??? Gates! What the fuck.

[defendandprotect]

281. Those and . . .

DLC/Emmanuel

Summers and Geithner ... both are very damaging to any progressive agenda.

:scared:

[brentspeak]

65. FDR, Truman, and JFK haven't been in office for quite some time

[SemiCharmedQuark]

95. You think DU would have thought those 3 were fabulous during thir admin? Because I really doubt it.

Atomic Bomb.
Japanese Internment Camps.
Missle Crisis.
Vietnam.


Although I do agree it's *WAY* too early to say Obama's presidency is fabulous or terrible.

[defendandprotect]

207. Well, would you have supported a SEGREGATED armed service--???

Would you have supported SEGREGATION, INC. in the time of FDR?

Would you have supported the unnecessary bombing of Japan?

And, Democrats most assuredly found great fault with Truman . . .

who replaced Henry Wallace, the man who should have succeeded FDR!

Yes -- I appreciated JFK -- and not sufficiently.

JFK turned around the missile crisis without war ---

And JFK was REMOVING troops from VN when he was assassinated --

an assassination which was actually on a "people's" government!


It's not too early ---- it's way too late on Obama.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

211. My point is that it's very easy to look back and say "Wow, those guys were great"

*NOW*

But if DU were around during their administrations, they would have been extremely controversial.

[defendandprotect]

280. And I'm saying to you -- though you seem to . . . .

not be able to hear it --- that there was plenty of criticism . . .

including from the left on all of these presidents!!!!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

282. Yep, there was. And as I've said in other threads, that was a good thing.

It's one of the reasons that the second new deal was so much better than the first. I don't see why you seem to think I've said otherwise.

:shrug:

My point is that it isn't as though if Roosevelt were president now the perceived *bashing* would stop. There would still be complaints and criticisms. Some justified. Some not. DU wouldn't have simply adored Roosevelt. It would still be the hotbed of issues that it currently is. And that is with the most progressive president we've had in the last 60 years.

[defendandprotect]

292. Yes . . . . value issue based criticism . . . it's good for democracy---!!!

[Dawgs]

154. +1. Of course you've already gotten some remarks from DU's 'experts'.

Or mindless Krugman followers.

[tomp]

180. here's the problem: he's fabulous in your opinion, not objectively.

some think he is not fabulous. you can't just decide on your own that he is fabulous and reject everyone else's ideas,...not if you want to be considered open-minded.

[yardwork]

192. Open-minded is no longer considered to be a virtue, now that "the Democrats" are "in charge."

Apparently open-minded skepticism and critical commentary was only good when the "other guys" were in power. Now that "our president" is in power we're supposed to cheer heartily and drown out (or hide thread) anyone saying anything different.

That's exactly the problem here.

[tomp]

198. and it's very hard to convince someone that they are not open-minded...

...when the believe they are.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

217. Why are you surprised that some people tend to be partisan on a partisan website?

[yardwork]

291. I'm talking about posts that seek to intimidate and bully people.

I'm surprised that DU allows comments like "cunt" and "somebody didn't get their pony" and "poutrage" and "too bad Obama won't fail like you want him to" to stand in response to even very polite, calm, well-reasoned critiques of specific actions and policies.

That's not just being partisan. That's acting like FreeRepublic, and it's disappointing to see here on DU.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

305. I agree there.

But they also allow "worshiper" "Obot" "apologist" "Kool Aid drinker" to stand. Neither really advances a cause.

As far as "cunt", that should (and I thought wasn't) allowed at all.

[yardwork]

308. A longtime DUer was recently banned for use of terms like "Obot."

The poster who has frequently called others "cunt" is still here, although references to the posts in question have been deleted. Message - it's ok to call someone a cunt on DU, but not ok to cut and paste the (undeleted) posts.

Not cool.

[Hutzpa]

239. You want Open Mind

go to Twitter or CNN they might be able to help you out.

[laugle]

252. You are correct! And judging from the number

of recommendations to your OP, many share your views.

[HopeOverFear]

11. Now it's time to question your questioning of the mindless questioning

:eyes:

[QC]

20. In an Era of Responsibility like the one in which we find ourselves today,

one must always be mindful in all things.

[Hutzpa]

42. Where was that mindful of all things

when Bush and his cohorts where raping the country???

We have a Black President and all of a sudden he should be
held accountable for things he did not do or things he has
not done yet....now that takes the cake.

[yardwork]

47. DU was founded in January 2001. When Bush and his cohorts (sic) were raping the country

some of us were right here exercising our rights to criticize him.

Now all of a sudden we're not allowed to criticize the president?

[Hutzpa]

91. If its unfounded and dumbfounded, YES! n/t

[tomp]

182. what does his blackness have to do with anything?

and for the record, no one is holding him accountable for the past, only for current actions. you may find it a little hard to get your head around, but there are actions obama is taking that are bad in their own right and for which he is accountable.

[polmaven]

216. I'm afraid you are going to have to point out

to me what any of this has to do with the president's race. The Freepers may have a problem with it, but please show me which DUer has ANY problem with his race!

And, are you saying we should not hold this president accountable, now or in the future, for what he has done or not done, as we should with any president?

[greguganus]

270. What does his race have to do with being held accountable? Get your head out of your ass. n/t

[Two Americas]

336. are you kidding?

You seriously want us to believe that people here were not critical of Bush and cohorts?

I do agree that there is good reason to be suspicious - that as usual throughout the society, a Black man is going to be held to a higher standard and that racism takes many subtle forms.


...

[yardwork]

31. It's a new era. Responsibility lies with the followers. Otherwise fear wins over hope.

[LostinVA]

44. It is fascinating to me that some people don't realize they're in the company of a new era

Until it's pointed out to them.

[yardwork]

48. Some seem unable recognize that this Era of Responsibility is upon us.

Perhaps they've allowed fear to win out over hope?

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

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

[QC]

168. In an Era of Responsibility like this one, such behavior certainly does not

represent the triumph of Hope Over Fear.

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

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

[hileeopnyn8d]

12. Luckily,

there are no shortages of threads warning us about this, lest we forget or something.

Does the talking down to people really work here?

[HopeOverFear]

14. talking down works a LOT

how else would we know what to think??

:sarcasm:

[QC]

56. In an Era of Responsibility, people have to decide for themselves what they will think. n/t

[yardwork]

58. Otherwise, Fear wins Over Hope.

And that's a bad thing.

[QC]

64. True. I would not want to be responsible for fear winning over hope, not in any era.

[Jamastiene]

167. Every time I read one of your posts, I think of the Cranberries

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJEySrDerj0

[Peacetrain]

13. Have not chatted with any mindless supporters of the President

in here.. Committed supporters, yes, but no mindless. Mindless support of anyone is not good.. No one can disagree with that.

[tomp]

183. mindlessness is in the eye of the beholder. nt

[Solomon]

15. The more we get a feel for how this administration works

the more we will heal.

[BlooInBloo]

16. BWAHAHAHAAA!!!

[Number23]

130. + 46

[AtomicKitten]

301. ditto

oy

[FrenchieCat]

17. True. However, mindless is relative.

Some DUers do underestimate the intelligence of other DUers quite frequently.
I find that to be a flaw in those who believe themselves to be so smart and informed
to where they believe that they can determine how mindless and unquestioning
others are. It borders on exhibiting a superior complex that is on its own,
is also quite dangerous and should be avoided as well as despised.

[HopeOverFear]

23. it's simple jealousy. "Stop worshipping Obama...and worship me instead"

that's all it is. :rofl:

[stray cat]

25. I think you actually hit the nail on the head - blindly follow the poster on DU!

and than they may stop calling you a blind follower of Obama.

[Vanje]

143. Its clearly an era of responsibility...

when DU members stop worshiping the president in favor of worshiping one another.

[TankLV]

328. Hey! - That's MY crusade!

Only it only involves worshiping ME, and has nothing to do with Obama or anyone else...

everyone should be like my Golden Retriever - except don't follow me into the bathroom when I need to take a shit, please...

[Hutzpa]

34. Frenchieeeeeeee

that'll be all....

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[shagsak]

38. Frenchie - nailed it

[yardwork]

43. You mean like this?

A true liberal/Progressive would not...

[FrenchieCat]

46. No...like this......

yardwork (1000+ posts) Sat Apr-18-09 02:59 PM
Original message
Mindless, unquestioning support for a leader is always a bad idea.
Here on DU, we used to laugh at the fools on FreeRepublic who mindlessly supported "their" president no matter what he did. When the vast majority of the country had recognized what a failure Bush was, we used to mock the "30 percenters" who wouldn't tolerate any criticism or questioning of their president.

Beware lest you become what you despise.

[yardwork]

49. Now where did I say anything about intelligence in that post?

I'm not saying that I haven't, at some point, posted a derogatory opinion about your intelligence. In fact, I probably have. But I just don't see it in that particular post. Maybe if you dig up some more of my posts, you'll find the ones where I call you unintelligent and talk down to you.

[FrenchieCat]

116. Mindless rings a bell. A mindless person is not one known for intelligence....

but thank you for playing. :eyes:

[Bluenorthwest]

131. In the title of the OP

mindless refers to an action, not a person. So, thanks for playing.

[FrenchieCat]

133. Intelligence is a person now?

Intelligence does not equal mindless in anyone's book.

It was asked, and It was answered.

[omega minimo]

317. Just remember, yardwork

"True. However, mindless is relative."


:rofl:

[Hutzpa]

67. Yup! I said it

what?? because yardwork is here I should be ashamed of what I am...that'll be the day.

[yardwork]

319. Please direct me to the thread that says "because yardwork is here you should be ashamed..."

I'd enjoy reading that.

[Skwmom]

83. If we don't cheerlead Obama and his wrecking ball

of an economic team, we think we are superior? The people who act superior are the idiots who treat the American people as a bunch of morons who can be easily manipulated.

About intelligence. It's true that some REALLY, REALLY, REALLY stupid people can rise to powerful levels. For example, the stooges in charge of our economy. But then there are some otherwise smart people who are just blinded by greed and the desire for power. In addition, never a truer statement was spoken than the mind has the infinite capacity to rationalize. I've seem some otherwise smart individuals rationalize some really, really, really stupid actions.

I'm starting to think that the main reason progressives have been so right about so many of the critical issues of our day is the simple fact that they are not blinded by greed or a desire for power.

[tomp]

186. which true of others, of course, but not you. nt

[HamdenRice]

18. And mindless left wing "tea bag bashing" of the best progressive president ever is also a bad idea

and that's basically what the "I didn't get my PONY!!!" crowd is doing.

[yardwork]

63. He's the best progressive president of all time.

And anything else is tea-bagging.

Absolutely. You betcha.

[HamdenRice]

149. Logic is your friend! Use it some time! It doesn't hurt your head, promise! nt

[Jamastiene]

169. How would you know?

[tomp]

187. but he's been in office such a short time.

how can you say he's the best progressive president ever, unless you've decided in advance? logic?

[Life Long Dem]

21. Of course.

[stray cat]

24. Disagreeing with DU or a DUer doesn't mean blind following

- it just means I don't agree with the opinion or rant. I don't think anyone here is a blind follower-ignorant of certain facts or rationale thought maybe but certainly not blindly following a leader

[wyldwolf]

26. far more knee-jerk complainers here than mindless followers

[Fire1]

80. That's for damned sure!

[Solomon]

27. What makes me laugh is this is a never ending cycle.

You only see these kind of threads when Obama does something really well. And I guess that happens because when he does something really well, people come on here to talk about it and some people feel that the praise is overboard, so they write one of these, triggering another cycle.

LOL. It never ends.

[JVS]

28. Whatever you say, boss.

;-)

[jesus_of_suburbia]

29. I'd say even worse is when dissent is ridiculed and belittled.

I don't care if someone wants to blindly support everything Pres Obama does, but I think it's terrible when someone who doesn't agree is labeled a traitor, a PUMA, a Freeper etc... It's pathetic.

[yardwork]

30. Hello Jesus! Long time no see. Thanks for posting - good point, too.

[HopeOverFear]

33. It's not worse, it's just as bad. Excited support is also ridiculed and belittled here

in other words, BOTH sides are wrong. So we're just going to have to come to some of agreement.

[yardwork]

45. No, worse. They're not equally dangerous to the nation.

Gag rules and mob silencing of dissent is far, far worse to a democracy than unfair criticism. Obama can handle criticism. What the nation can't survive is unquestioning support of leaders. That way leads to fascism.

[Hutzpa]

74. Where were you when

Bush the Fuhrer was in power???

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[polmaven]

220. I believe that that poster

was right here complaining along with the rest of us about the abuses of that mis-administration. Are you saying that any criticism of President Obama amounts to support of the last (p)resident? Way to go!

[HopeOverFear]

118. The only unquestioning support is in your imagination

[Starry Messenger]

122. And you know this how?

Hell if I know...

[Vanje]

144. Not acceptable in an era of responsibility.

We're better than that.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

156. yes, i agree,

[ShortnFiery]

269. exactly, people like to believe that they are valued as free thinking individuals.

On this we agree. :hi:

[tomp]

188. it's the same thing, essentially. nt

[Hutzpa]

32. Here is a question for you.....

what led you into writing this thread???? Whats the thinking behind this post???
other than taking a right-wing talking point and channeling it to DU.

Lets start there....:eyes:

[Starry Messenger]

35. How is that a right wing talking point?

Let's start from there.

[Hutzpa]

37. A true Liberal/Progressive

would not be advocating accountability after a President has spent short of three
months in office.

It took three fuckin years before people could even utter any disagreement with what Bush
was doing, and don't tell me it was because of 9/11, I'm not buying that BS.

If people can give Bush 3 years why not give Obama at least a year before we start looking
for mistakes or starts playing the blame game. The reason why I said its a Republican talking
point is simple, they have nothing to run on but to see an Obama administration fail.

Now, respond...

[Starry Messenger]

40. Respond to which part?

Are you talking about the media or DU? This website was started as criticism of the President well before 9/11...

Do you really want people to not voice their opinions for one year? That seems rather drastic.

Are you really saying that you think that people here who criticize want Obama to fail?? That's sad.

edit: corrected error of time frame.

[Hutzpa]

62. Now... Now... Now...

no misinterpreting my post, who said anything about letting him off the hook for three
years, hell if we have to do that so what???? from what he has shown me so far I can
trust him to make the right decision, some of us might not agree with his decision
but that does not mean those who agrees with him should be vilified for doing so.

[yardwork]

66. Should anybody be vilified, ever? Torturers, for example?

Would it be ok to vilify torturers? No? Better not rock the boat. Bygones.

Bigots? Should they ever be vilified? No? Big tent and all. Bigots are welcome too.

Anybody? Oh, I got it! Let's vilify lefties!!!

That's the ticket.

Pile on lefties. They are undeserving of the right to speak on DU. In fact, they're banned.

[Starry Messenger]

69. What did I misinterpret?

"hell if we have to do that so what??" Seems contradictory to me. Whatever.


Of course you can trust him. I never said you couldn't. But some people who have questions have had their positions misrepresented as rightist and conservative. I believe this is unfair. That is what I was responding to.

[Hutzpa]

85. Stating the obvious

"hell if we have to do that so what??" Seems contradictory to me. Whatever.

I'm stating that hoopla over holding President Obama accountable is BS, this is the right
using some Tea-Buggers as tools to do their dirty work.

If you have a genuine concern about President Obamas ability to carry out his job or him
making the wrong decisions then I don't think anyone would questions your motive, but when
you have a President that have not been in power for a year and people are all too eager to
put him down then it becomes obvious that this is not about what the people wants but some
faction of people looking to score cheap political points.

[yardwork]

88. I'm not following that very well.

Tea-Buggers?

Is that a homophobic slur?

[Hutzpa]

97. Nope, its a demented slur

and I don't expect you to.

[Starry Messenger]

100. You are not really seeming very clear to me, either.

I don't think anyone here wants the President to fail, at all. I can only hope you will feel reassured on that point.

[Starry Messenger]

114. OK.

You seem to be talking about the Republican tea-baggers and not Du-ers, so I guess we agree.

[Jamastiene]

171. "Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest

the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush."

Give me a break with your false claims about dissent.

This very message board was started as a place to disagree with Bush...from the very beginning; Day 1 of the George W. Bush "presidency."

From the "About DU" page:
"About Democratic Underground, LLC

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/about.html

[Hutzpa]

235. Seems to me you've got your facts all twisted

Yes, DU was founded to protest the illegitimate presidency of Bush, also it was founded on
the bases that everyone who becomes a member have the same agenda and motive which is first
as a Democrat and to work to get most progressive Democrat elected into office.

You conveniently chose the section that suits your argument living out one of the most important
information, which is;

Democratic Underground would not be possible without the participation of like-minded individuals from across the country and, indeed, from around the world.The content for the site is provided by people who feel that their views are not represented by the conservative "mainstream" media in the U.S. We accept article submissions from those on the left who wish to write, so that DU represents a variety of progressive viewpoints. We have a particular appreciation for satire and humor.

There are some here that have this tendency to insult folks' intelligence, this message board WAS
started to disagree with Bush and the Republicans NOT A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT and yes an
opening for you to criticize me for stating the fact about not critiquing a Democratic President.
So once again, in conclusion, get your facts right and don't get it TWISTED.

<tapping my finger in wait for your response>

[MessiahRp]

302. If the Democratic President agrees with Bush...

which this site was created to disagree with, naturally the response would be to disagree with the issues in which he and Bush are the same.

There is a lot of mention of left wing, liberal and progressive in that About Us statement that the Centrist/DLC/Blue Dogs that hound this board now seem to forget.

When Obama who is supposed to be a constitutional scholar (starting to wonder about his chops here) decides that the rule of law is something that can be broken at the whim of a despot with a note from his lawyer and chooses not to pursue those who clearly and willfully broke the laws of our land and the international treaties we have brokered with prosecutions, he clearly deserves to be loudly opposed.

Same goes for illegal wiretapping.

And the bailout plans as have been handled by Geithner would be torched if it were under Paulsen and Bush... but hey Democrats can be total hypocrites when its their guy.

Rp

[Starry Messenger]

307. Thank you for stating that so clearly.

Great post.

[Elidor]

231. Let me get this straight

You don't want anyone to examine anything Obama does for his first year, just let it all happen without comment, because life isn't fair? Wow. That's willfull blindness. It's one thing to keep an open mind, but to refuse to do your civic duty (examine what your government does and, where appropriate, react to it) because the new sheriff in town has a D after his name is in no way doing anyone any favors.

Everyone has a stake in this government's success. Silently watching it go by is not productive. Pressure from the right is always going to be there. If there isn't any from the left, we shouldn't be surprised when our desires are ignored because we couldn't be bothered to speak up.

[Hutzpa]

238. Who said anything about

not wanting anyone to examine the President, he himself has said he wants to be held accountable,
but thats besides the point, an unfounded criticism of the President is not acceptable, maybe
folks like yourself are confusing 'constructive criticism' and 'outright criticism' both have
criticism at the end but different objectives.

So...spare me the lecture of of having a stake in this government, I know that and because I do, I
don't need to throw it around needlessly...capesh! The question that should be answered by you is,
whether you understand whats at stake???

[Elidor]

254. Folks like myself? Are you at all familiar with ANY criticisms I've made of the president?

You said: "If people can give Bush 3 years why not give Obama at least a year before we start looking
for mistakes or starts playing the blame game." If that's not a case for 'stop criticizing Obama,' what would be? Obama, while not responsible for the sorry state of the union, owns his decisions in office. And there is much there worthy of criticism, though I've been pretty mild in my comments on DU.

[Hutzpa]

260. Incorrect

"If that's not a case for 'stop criticizing Obama,' what would be? Obama, while not responsible for the sorry state of the union, owns his decisions in office".

That is not what I'm implying, one more time, my argument is why jump on Obama with him being in
office for less than two months, lets wait and see the results of his decisions before attacking
him.

As a progressive, I'm willing to give him more time, why(?) because so far in my eyes he has not
done something I should waste my energy over. I want facts and explanation which I know he is
capable of doing, I'm not one for jumping on some republican talking point.

[Elidor]

266. It's not about how long he's been in office

That is not what I'm implying, one more time, my argument is why jump on Obama with him being in office for less than two months, lets wait and see the results of his decisions before attacking him.

But that’s a false analogy. No one is suggesting that he is to blame for not fixing everything in two months. Rather, people are pointing out that decisions he has already made are bad choices. Furthermore, you equate criticism with “attack,” a classic weasel-word attack in its own right. You equate dissent with disloyalty, and that's nonsense.

Let’s revisit the premise of the thread*: unquestioning support for a leader is always a bad idea. You proposed exactly that. You want a moratorium on criticism of Obama. And you think this would be a good thing.

Give him more time? Before what? Before we write the histories? By all means. But there is no prohibition on critiquing our own government. Anything less would be abdication of our civic duties. This is not to say "man the barricades!" But to say that we should be silent while his closest advisors advocate for the wealthy and connected is misguided. The time to speak up is NOW. Not later.

*For what it’s worth, the term ‘mindless’ in the OP is also a weasel word, and should have been left out. It doesn’t help promote rational discussion.

[Hutzpa]

278. What decisions he has made

that are bad choices(?) lets start from there.

Also, for whats it's worth, please be specific, no third party opinion.

Thanks

[Elidor]

295. Don't change the subject.

This thread is not about the many ways he can legitimately be criticized. It's about the fact that he can be criticized, whereas you want that to be off-limits. There are plenty of threads where specific criticism is the topic at hand, and I will use those threads to discuss what I disagree with. Meanwhile, you have neither denied wanting to shut down discussion nor rebutted the points I made.

[Hutzpa]

297. I knew you where a waste of space

and my energy, I asked a simple question, because according to your post your premise of
criticizing Obama is because he has made bad decisions....so, I asked you to name these
bad decisions he has made and for you to be specific and you came back with rhetorical
babble.

I've been ear-fucked the whole of today and I'm not prepared to take anymore.

So....one more time....PLEASE!!! what bad decision has President Obama made that
warrants your criticism of him this early in his Presidency? don't forget the
specifics.....Okay!!!

[yardwork]

284. That really sums it up very well. Thanks.

[Two Americas]

339. say what??

Who here gave Bush three years? I was speaking out against him a year before the election, and warning people about exactly what as to come - accurately.

Who here wants the Obama administration to fail? No one, I think. But I believe you are being sincere, so I am going to try to understand what you are saying. I think that this feud can be ended, and must be ended.


...

[MADem]

39. Absolutely. It's every bit as bad as constant, nitpicking, overarching, idiotic,

unceasing, and inaccurate criticism of leaders, too.

There's a middle way--gripe when it's not good, praise when it is.

Don't wait forever for your pats on the head, but don't get pissed if the pony wasn't delivered yesterday.

The guy is still new in the job, he's done a lot, and he's probably got a lot more he wants to do. Give him a little air. Rome wasn't built in a day--and everyone isn't gonna get everything they asked Santy for, either. That's just how it goes.

[yardwork]

41. Unquestioning support is much worse than individual nitpicking.

Unquestioning support - and the mob enforcement of such - leads to fascism. Individual nitpicking is annoying to those who have to listen. Put the nitpickers on ignore or hide their threads.

But to shut down critical discourse - how is that progressive?

[MADem]

61. No it isn't. Carping for little to no reason is just as idiotic as slavish 'do no wrong'devotion.

It suggests a problem with the one doing the broadcasting, more than it does about the object of the derision or adoration.

That HIDE THREAD feature works on the "Ooooh, Obama is so DREAMY!" threads just as well as it works on the "Barack is an asshole" ones, you know. Go on and try it. It will make you happier to not have to see the cheerleaders, apparently.

Amd 'mob enforcement?' I haven't seen any of that here--in fact, I've seen plenty of childishly griping threads as well as dumbass adoring ones. If people disagree with you, that's not 'mob enforcement.' That's discussion.

Just hit the button and live your life. Worry less about what other people think or do--you'll be happier.

[yardwork]

68. You've completely missed my point.

[MADem]

78. No, I haven't.

Your thesis is right up there in your opening post. I simply don't agree with it. That doesn't mean I "missed" it, because I don't go along with your view.

[yardwork]

81. Now who's talking down to somebody?

Gosh, I'm disappointed in you, MADem. You sound like you think that you are superior to me because you know what I'm thinking.

[MADem]

87. Who said anything about "talking down?" Not me.

If you think that my plainspoken opinion, that differs from yours, is "talking down" then you've got a complex.

I don't agree with you that your position is "worse" than the opposite of your view.

That's not "talking down." That's simply a difference of opinion.

You find such things on discussion boards.

If you're that hypersensitive, you really should start using the HIDE THREAD feature more often.

[yardwork]

90. So you disagree with FrenchieCat's comment upthread?

Some DUers do underestimate the intelligence of other DUers quite frequently.
I find that to be a flaw in those who believe themselves to be so smart and informed
to where they believe that they can determine how mindless and unquestioning
others are. It borders on exhibiting a superior complex that is on its own,
is also quite dangerous and should be avoided as well as despised.

[MADem]

99. I didn't even participate in that portion of the thread.

Why are you trying to involve me in your discussion with another DUer?

I have touted the merits of the HIDE THREAD function in several posts on this thread. That applies if you find the posters excessively nitpicking, or if you find them to be childishly uncritical, or even if you find them mindless/unquestioning/superior, what-have-you.

If you cannot bear the 'difference of opinion' heat, HIDE THREAD will get you out of the kitchen.

[yardwork]

105. I was just trying to get clarification. May I suggest that you hide this thread?

You don't seem to be enjoying it very much.

[MADem]

107. I'm not unhappy at all. Why in the world would you think I was?

Are you getting irritated because I'm not agreeing with your position?

[omega minimo]

318. carping about carping about carping about carping

[Starry Messenger]

84. .

"Carping for little to no reason"

Who gets to decide what "little to no reason" is?

[MADem]

89. Who gets to decide what "slavish devotion" is?

We could play this game all day.

If it's bothersome, I recommend the HIDE THREAD button. It beats a pointless pissing contest.

[yardwork]

93. You brought up slavish devotion, so it's up to you to explain what you mean by it.

[MADem]

96. I brought up nitpicking too. The dictionary is your friend as well, dear.

It's like obscenity--you know it when you see it.

And if it bothers you, that HIDE THREAD button will serve you well, so you don't have to LOOK upon it.

[yardwork]

102. You keep telling me to hide threads. Why?

Have I said anything negative about any one thread on DU? You seem to think that my OP is a reference to "slavish adoration" threads.

Let me spell it out for you. My OP is a reference to the recent banning, by DU management, of a long-time left-wing poster for saying too many negative things about Obama, which was followed by a thread that I never expected to see from a DU Admin. My OP is a reference to the piling on that occurs here every time anyone here posts anything remotely critical of the president.

My OP is a reference to the fact that this entire site is starting to slide toward a Democratic Party's FreeRepublic. Put up all the "adoring" threads about Obama you or anyone else wants. But I never thought I'd see the day when a site founded on Inauguration Day 2001 would shut down discourse the way DU does now.

[MADem]

111. I'm not TELLING you to do anything. I am offering that suggestion as a solution to your distress.

It is there for you as an OPTION. That is ALL I am saying.

You are angry, it would seem, at posts of a specific nature.

You also made your opening post without any context, and expected me--and anyone else reading your oblique thesis--to understand the context that you've provided just now, quite late in the game.

I disagree with your assertion that this place is sliding anywhere. I find that you can disagree without being disagreeable, if both --or more-- parties only TRY a bit. You treat someone like shit, you get what you give. Using personally insulting language about Obama to people who worked to get him elected (I am NOT one of those, FWIW--I supported another Democrat) and who continue to support him is unkind, at best.

I have noticed some threads that get really shitty about Obama. It's not enough to say "I don't like his policy on X"...the posters will sometimes use excessively dramatic and crude language to describe the President, who is not a "War Criminal" or a murderer, a "whatever-enabler," or anything of that nature. He's the guy pushing the broom after the drunken frat party--he's got a lot of work ahead.

It's not "discourse" that's being shut down I don't think. It's INCIVILITY, I suspect. Having not seen the thread in question or the admin thread you are talking about, I cannot say that to a certainty, but I would not be surprised if my supposition is correct.

DU does have a few rules--they're gently enforced, many of them, but they're worth reviewing every few months.

You can make a point without "casting that old asparagus," you know. Reasoned arguments, stripped of personal insults or hyperbolic invective, won't cause difficulty. It's the nasty, dramatic, and deliberately vicious language that causes trouble.

At least that's what I've noticed, when I'm in a noticing mood.

[sniffa]

176. Where's the admin thread?

[Starry Messenger]

98. I know.

Hide thread works well. However, people here have had their serious issues belittled by some of the more "happy" posters here. That to me seems more devoted than usually considered healthy. Hide thread doesn't seem to be working for them.

[MADem]

106. It's impossible to say "Consider the source" and move on?

People get excessively sensitive on this forum at times. They also "interpret" tone, when there's no real "tone" to be had. They'll read "Why do you think that is so?" as "Hummmph, you fucking asshole idiot jerk, why do YOU think THAT is SO??????"

Some, too, love to ascribe those motives (Well, you MUST be a .......!!!!! I'll bet you ALWAYS (or never) do.....!!!!!) and cast that old asparagus (I love that malaprop) at those with whom they disagree (You're a rightwing TROLL!!! I'll bet you voted for REAGAN!!!! You're a DINO!!!! You're not "sufficiently progressive!!!!" Waaaaah!).

It's all idiotic. Don't get so excited when someone doesn't share your view. Life would suck if we were all the same.

If you don't want to deal with people who simply shit on your views, and who cannot have a civil discussion, use that IGNORE feature. I only have one person on it, but woo-woo, that was necessary. It makes life better when you don't even have to read stupid shit from people with whom you share absolutely no affiliation nor affinity and who seek to goad and bother.

[Starry Messenger]

109. I use it liberally.

I do, really. I hope more people share views. However, the people on my ignore list tend to direct discourse at times and drive down interest in other topics. Part of the every day play of the nature of the forum, of course. It just seems sad that so many of us would be on separate tracks.

I keep a few people off who seem to spread cliches that (in my opinion) drive down interest in topics that I feel we should have a shared concern in. I don't get "excited" about it, really. I hope my tone has not seemed excessive here today.

[MADem]

112. I think people should do what makes them feel comfortable.

I also think that if it ain't fun, what's the sense of doing it?

You sound quite reasonable and logical. No gripes from me!

[Starry Messenger]

128. Thank you.

I just want it to tolerable here for people with many concerns and emotions coming from a point of view that has been customarily been considered progressive on DU. If enough people who hold those views get labeled as "insane" or holders of "unreasonable" views then interest in the topic wanes and other people feel too intimidated to post here.



(I did rec the OP. :) That was fun.)

[Moochy]

331. the owners

The Owner Class, The Owners of the Site etc. you get Owned.

[Hutzpa]

108. You know what MADem

Republicans don't like their feelings hurt, they want to belong but will complain
about everything and anything, thats how you can point them out from the crowd.

[MADem]

113. I don't think those are party-specific traits, actually. It would be nice if we could know them

quite that easily, though, wouldn't it? Almost as good as a Scarlet Letter!

[Hutzpa]

115. Right On !! n/t

[Midlodemocrat]

50. Darlin' you nailed it. And, you've ruffled more than a few feathers obviously

which means you struck a nerve.

:loveya:

[yardwork]

51. ....

:fistbump:

[LostinVA]

264. What is your agenda for agreeng with Yardwork???

I always knew Yardwork played Bunco

[yardwork]

285. I paid her to agree with me in this thread.

[BlooInBloo]

52. Concern noted.

[Two Americas]

340. concern about the concern noted

Although I must say I am concerned about your concern about the OP's concern. I hope that doesn't cause you any concern.


...

[AlCzervik]

53. Good job, looks like you struck a nerve.

:thumbsup:

[yardwork]

55. I LOVE the comment in your profile!!! Made me lol!

:rofl:

[saltpoint]

54. If ya want 'mindless,' and I am by god talkin' MINDLESS, please see under

'Jim Bunning.'

[yardwork]

57. Oh lordy. Now there's a sad case.

My state had Jesse Helms, though.

[saltpoint]

72. yardwork, I gotta say, if you live in NC, endured the Helms years, and are

alive and coherent at this late hour to tell the tale, you are surely among the heartiest of all souls and my hat is off to you forever.

Jesse Helms was a catastrophic bigot. I hated that man. I still hate him. He had his fans but I hate them too.

Ok, 'hate' is not the right word. But let's just say that on many a day in the 1980s, for example, I vividly wished Jesse would be the target of a completely spontaneous, inadvertent recreation of Hitchcock, in which 8 million raptors descended on his Senate office -- only his office -- and pecked him and his advisor, John Bolton, to a bloody pulp. It would certainly have been a triumph of Art over Politics.

As for Bunning, he's less perfidious than Jesse, but I honestly believe there are "cognitive difficulties" in play. He was awesome some years ago on the mound for the Phillies. A lot less awesome as a Kentucky Senator.

[yardwork]

75. Yes, Bunning is a sad case. Helms, on the other hand, was simply a Mean Racist Jerk.

It was embarrassing to live in NC when he was "representing" our state. He and his goon squad invented the kind of filthy campaigning that w put to good use. Elizabeth Dole used the same people and the same slimy techniques. Glad she's gone.

The air is getting a little fresher around here. North Carolina elected a Democratic president in 2008 for the first time since 1976! And we elected a Democratic senator and another Democratic governor.

[saltpoint]

121. I am totally on board with your assessment of Helms.

That is ol' Jesse to a T.

And of course it is not the progressive citizens of North Carolina who are to blame for Helms. Most of them supported Harvey Gantt and not Jesse and his intemperate, manipulative, deep-boned racist shenanigans.

And my god those tv ads he ran against Gantt. May Jesse Helms fry in the deepest of Hell's deep holes.

Agree also that things are looking up in your State. I am definitely NOT missing Liddy Dole!

Keep up the good work down there. It's paying true dividends.

[yardwork]

195. Thank you for the kind words about North Carolina! It's my adopted state

but I've grown very fond of it over the years.

[Jamastiene]

175. I couldn't agree with this post more.

Jessie Helms made racism the central theme of all of his campaigns, when he wasn't bashing gays. Most of the time he did both simultaneously.

Hey, Yardwork, guess what? We live in a blue state now. Did you ever think that would happen? :fistbump:

[yardwork]

196. It's an Era of Hope! And Responsibilty!

:hug:

[TheKentuckian]

232. Possibly the "truest" statement I've seen on DU

Bunning makes McConnell seem sensible, compassionate, and brilliant.

[mkultra]

60. dont forget the flip side of your obvious argument

That those same 30% would criticize whatever Clinton did no matter its impact. We mocked them for their blind hatred and ignorant negativity.


Beware lest you become what you despise.

[yardwork]

73. Blind hatred and ignorant negativity is boring, too, but I never used to worry about that on DU.

[mkultra]

141. me either...

DU used to be a welcome break from the ignorant bashers.

[liberalmuse]

79. So if President Obama does 80 things right, but 5 things wrong...

we're supposed to rake him over the coals here on DU? I don't understand. I fully support my President, but it is mindful, and well-thought out support. I'm not going to fucking rip Obama when he is doing so much right. It is mindless and extreme to dump out the baby with the bathwater. Loyalty can be a good thing, because not one of us is perfect. I'll tell you, I wouldn't want some people here for friends because they're no better than the fickle friends I had in 6th grade. You wear a wrong outfit, or fart, and your ass is dumped.

[yardwork]

82. I don't understand, either. Are you sure that you posted in the right thread?

You seem to have read a completely different OP from the one I wrote.

[Moochy]

162. The Straw Man does not have to directly relate to the OP

In order to beat it! Take that Straw Man!

[PeaceNikki]

104. That's the silliest arguement ever.

First of all, "right" and "wrong" are relative. We all have strong opinions and some issues carry significantly more weight than others. For example, a few things that *I* think Obama was very wrong on are: FISA, DOJ brief in Jewel and his stance on gay marriage. These are important things to me and the people I love. The hot-topic of late is the torture memos. I personally agree that not not attempting to prosecute the CIA is the right decision. It doesn't mean I support torture or don't want some justice. There are a lot of people who hold opinions different than mine and they have a right to them.

Secondly, your comparing it to a "friendship" is ridiculous. He's our president. An elected official, not my friend. As cool as I think he would be to watch a football game with, he's not my friend. My primary interest in him is not to make him like me or feel good, but to lead our country in the right direction.

Nothing that anyone has criticized him about can be compared to a wrong outfit or farting. Speaking up and calling out an elected official when they do something with which we don't agree is the right thing to do. Always.

[Hutzpa]

117. You stated FISA and DOJ

can you please elaborate on those two points please.

[PeaceNikki]

126. Here you go

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/09/fisa/index.html

and

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/09/tpm/index1.html

[Hutzpa]

132. Is this the best you can do??

by providing bloggers view as a tangible evidence that President Obama is supporting
FISA....:rofl:, let me make it easier for you and all the rest who thinks he is
supporting the notion that the phone industry should be protected, until he comes
out and make a statement regarding his position, he gets a pass from me. I'm not a
narrow minded individual that gets excited over nothing.

People are forgetting this man was a Professor of Law Legislature, he knows the Law
in to to... why should I whom have little knowledge of what he is looking at judge
him....WHY?????

Try again...

[PeaceNikki]

135. I am not in this thread to discuss the specifics of FISA, only the fact that I strongly disagree.

I am aligned with Russ Feingold on these issues as well. He knows a thing or two about the law, too. Feingold is not a narrow minded individual that gets excited over nothing. Nor am I.

http://feingold.senate.gov/statements/08/06/20080619f.htm

I won't be "trying again", so thanks.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

119. Yes, of course. This isn't a self-esteem exercise by proxy.

"So if President Obama does 80 things right, but 5 things wrong we're supposed to rake him over the coals here on DU?"

I don't know if there's anything we are supposed to do on DU but in general leaders are supposed to be raked over the coals for doing things wrong. People focus on bad moves because they are problems and people are motivated to correct problems.

It's true that nobody talks about the majority of houses that aren't on fire, the majority of children that aren't missing, etc.

And I never gave Bush credit for all the countries we didn't invade.

If I drive around the city and 80 traffic lights along the way are working and only 5 are broken I will complain about the five and probably not send City Hall a thank-you note for the 80. That doesn't make me anti-city.

[chill_wind]

124. Quite true.

eom

[Jamastiene]

177. Well said.

It's almost as if some have developed a borderline personality disorder. The "all or nothing" mentality.

Of course, President Obama has done mostly good. If he fucks up though, he fucks up. Criticism of actions we disagree with does not make us anti-Obama. It just means we disagree with him on some things.

I love your traffic light example. :thumbsup:

[yardwork]

197. Elegant rebuttal. Thank you.

[LWolf]

92. K & R nt

[CBR]

110. You know what else I have seen DUers and others criticize

freepers and the GOP for? Their unwillingness to deviate from the wishes of a certain wing of their party/ideology -- can't see the forest through the trees. For example, there is a thread on DU today laughing at the freepers for calling McCain a RINO, among other things. Mitt Romney was not conservative enough for them.

[leftstreet]

147. That's a good point

How often the 'left' pounced on the Republicans for allowing the Christian Nutwing to control the party message.

[hileeopnyn8d]

137. This thread is ridiculous

Ninety percent of it sounds like the type of bickering you'd find on a high school kids facebook.

It helps no one, it solves nothing.

[PeaceNikki]

138. How much political discussion on the internet "helps anyone" or "solves anything"?

Really?

If you think any, you might be delusional.

[hileeopnyn8d]

139. Well then,

I guess we should all log-off.

And I'm sorry, I don't remember calling you any names, is there a particular reason you felt the need to insinuate that I'm delusional?

[PeaceNikki]

140. I said if you think you're helping anyone (but yourself) or solving anything, you might be.

I didn't call you any names.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

157. the internet is known to solve all political problems. nt

[hileeopnyn8d]

161. I wasn't talking about

solving all political problems. I didn't address "political problems" at all. I was addressing the ridiculous back and forth childish bickering taking place in this thread, and about 5868596 others. Most of which has little to do with politics.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

163. this place has become idiotic. in the sense that dissent is viewed with immense suspicion

and people do not like shades of gray. i support a lot of what obama has achieved and disagree with him on very few issues. however my issue is when people in principal cant handle dissent. idiotic.

[hileeopnyn8d]

164. I think we're in total agreement!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

165. yay for shades of gray. nt

[yardwork]

286. I post on DU strictly for entertainment now. Long ago I recognized it was helping nobody.

Well, it's helping the Admins make a living. That's it.

[cboy4]

145. K&R

:thumbsup:

[Occam Bandage]

146. Yep. Have you seen any?

[yardwork]

212. Yes. There are examples right here in this thread.

Response to OP making a general statement about the importance of dissent to democracy: "But Obama isn't going to fail. I know that will disappoint you."

What's the purpose of a post like that other than to attempt to intimidate and bully dissenters in order to shut down the conversation?

Other examples:

Sounds like somebody didn't get their pony.
Poutrage.
You don't know shit.
PUMA
Too bad your candidate didn't win.
Cunt.
Tea-bagger.

These and other insults are routinely directed at perfectly, calm, well-reasoned posts made by people who fully supported Obama throughout the primaries and general election, and have posted many positive comments about him and his administration. The intent is clearly to intimidate and bully people into never saying anything critical about Obama, ever.

There are posts in this thread stating that we should give Obama at least three years before we dare question or criticize anything he does!

Smells like FreeRepublic to me.

[earth mom]

243. Yep it smells like it and it stinks to high heaven. nt

[CakeGrrl]

148. OK. Show us an example.

I can quote someone saying "Hillary can do (almost) no wrong in my eyes." I remember that distinctly.

No one who claims "mindless support", and there have been several who open open up new threads just to bemoan or lecture upon that claim, can come up with a quotable example, whereas I can easily recall several bashing descriptors used against Obama.

I have never seen anyone offer anything 100% slavish in defense of EVERY action of the Obama administration.

Personally, I'd chalk this up to an overexposure to the "PHOTOS" threads, which I will freely admit I enjoy most thoroughly. If that is construed as mindless support, then the lecture in the OP has fallen short on me. :evilgrin:

[yardwork]

288. ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8354087&mesg_id=8355702

[CakeGrrl]

304. Looks like a false equivalency to me

It isn't fair to place someone's opinion - and they're as entitled to it as you are to yours - alongside some outright name-calling. The namecalls should be alerted. That's for the admins to sort out, and I'd guess some of them don't even violate DU rules so much as you don't like that someone responded that way.

As for that first quote, just yesterday someone jumped on one of the threads that questioned whether torture would be punished, and stated quite flatly "Obama isn't going to do a damn thing about torture."

That's as plainly stated as the quote you put up. I'd say the person who said that isn't interested in opening up a dialogue; they just want to play hit-and-run.

But as wrongheaded as I think that attitude is, I don't pursue it because it will probably end up wasting my time.

Based on the number of recs and high-fives your OP received, it seems like there are plenty of people with whom you can discuss what you want to discuss...or failing that, with whom you can sit in an echo chamber and reinforce each other's views.

But you're not going to get unanimous sign-on to your opinions either - at least if there's enough independent thought out there, I'd hope not.

Several people have called your OP a 'vanity post', and I have to wonder what the positive, constructive goal of it was. Do you really think that labeling some unnamed people as "mindless followers" and encouraging others to tsk tsk about 'them' is a good influencing strategy?

[yardwork]

312. Disagreement is always healthy. Intimidation that shuts down discussion is not.

There's a much larger issue at stake than simple fairness.

The "positive, constructive goal" I had in mind when I started this thread was to jolt DU management out of their complacency.

[CakeGrrl]

327. Defining "intimidation" is a slippery slope, if your true goal is to get the admins to do that

I'd guess they're trying to strike a balance. If they deferred to every person's personal threshold of sensitivity, there'd probably be very few posts or threads on this forum. If there's a reason for not taking action when someone drops the c-word, I'd hope they gave you an explantion. But someone saying 'You must not have gotten your pony' shouldn't, IMO, be grounds for censorship. Some might consider it smartass snark, but it's not, as far as I understand the rules, a rule violation.

People who bluntly call others "fucking worshippers" are practicing a form of intimidation in my opinion, yet some who say things like this are not TSed, nor do I think they ought to be, because the bar for banishment will become lower and lower until there's nothing left. They can simply be sidestepped if they're obstructing dialogue.

It seems to me there are plenty of people around here with whom to conduct a civil exchange of ideas if the mood strikes.

[HamdenRice]

150. Looks like the OP got her ass handed to her! What mindless support?

There is, however, a lot of pointing out when the criticism is bullshit and poutrage. That's not mindless support. It's pointing out that poutrage is mindless rage often over trivia and false reports.

[elizm]

152. But Obama isn't going to fail. I know that will disappoint you.

[yardwork]

208. Your post is an example of exactly what I'm talking about.

Your response to my OP is to assume that I "hope that Obama will fail" and to make a personal, ad hominem attack on me.

Thank you for proving my point right here in the thread.

[Danger Mouse]

155. DU has been doing mindless unquestioning support for years now.

See Kucinich, Chavez, Sheehan, Moore, Gore, etc. etc.

[scheming daemons]

158. I unquestionably agree with everything yardwork says....

he's my leader.


oh.... wait.....


:sarcasm:

[QC]

159. Sounds like you didn't get your pony!

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

160. Deleted sub-thread

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

[cliffordu]

170. Well.....

:rofl:


When you come up with one single idea better than the Prez has come up with, I'll worship you. How 'bout that??

Just because I don't freak the fuck out every time he does something I think doesn't make sense doesn't mean I'm a fanboi, it just means I'm waiting to see his whole plan unfold before I toss him under the bus.

Lets see where we're at in regards to torturers a year from now. They aren't going anywhere, and neither is the evidence.

[TankLV]

181. Also be careful not to become the angry old guy screaming "GET OFF MY LAWN" too...

just sayin...

complaining for "just because" isn't a grand scheme either...

[yardwork]

205. Interesting comment from somebody who said they wouldn't even vote for Obama.

I fully supported Obama long before you did. Of who's lawn are we speaking?

[TankLV]

213. I never said that...

I said I preferred Hillary - but I'm a STRONG defender of Obama - have been since his NOMINATION...

bite me, asshole...

I voted FOR Obama, and would do so AGAIN...

[yardwork]

215. Maybe I'm thinking of somebody else, then.

In any case I was a STRONG DEFENDER of Obama even before his nomination, including voting for him during my state's primary.

Bite yourself.

[bluedawg12]

222. Before you call a fellow DU'er a vlugarity and then misreperesent your prior actions

You ought to look at what you have posted in the past.

"As of now, I can never vote for a gaybashing pandering idiot like obama..." -TankLV

This is exactly what the OP was getting at, IMHO, the OP said only one thing: "Mindless, unquestioning support for a leader is always a bad idea."

You spun that into a negative misinterpretation, and a dismissive personal attack:

"Also be careful not to become the angry old guy screaming "GET OFF MY LAWN" too..."

When she pointeds out another truth:

"Interesting comment from somebody who said they wouldn't even vote for Obama."

You lied and called her an asshole.

"I never said that...
Edited on Sun Apr-19-09 06:34 PM by TankLV
I said I preferred Hillary - but I'm a STRONG defender of Obama - have been since his NOMINATION...

bite me, asshole...

I voted FOR Obama, and would do so AGAIN..." - TankLV.

Well, you sure did say that and it is on record on DU. Quite obvioulsy you have changed your opinion, but, that's not what you replied. You denied you ever said that, which is not true.


Which reminds me of exactly how true this statment is:

"Mindless, unquestioning support for a leader is always a bad idea."

[greguganus]

271. Busted! n/t

[yardwork]

287. Thank you. I knew that was him.

Numerous posts from that DUer stating that he would never, ever vote for Obama. Yes, he changed his mind. Good. Another vote for Obama that joined mine. Bygones.

But talk about grumps!...

[bluedawg12]

221. Unquestioning approval and dissent are both a bad idea.

It's not either we agree with everything, or disagee with everything, there are options in between.

There is no reason to interpret the OP's POV as meaning: we should disagreee with everything.

This is a true statement:

"Mindless, unquestioning support for a leader is always a bad idea."

[Jamastiene]

184. I don't get the devoutrage.

Most of us who have small qualms with a few things President Obama has done get called all kinds of names. All we hear is "poutrage" this and "poutrage" that.

Upon closer inspection of the quantity of threads on DU, I have noticed far more threads based on devoutrage, the outrage that someone somewhere might disagree with President Obama on something.

Geez, we went from a president who did nothing we could ever agree with to a president who is vastly better. If we complain about one little thing from time to time, it doesn't mean we don't like President Obama. It just means we disagree with him on something.

Dissent is not against the law. We have a right to hold our government responsible for its own actions. We have a right to dissent. This is not a dictatorship. We finally got rid of the dictator after 8 years of pure torture.

[bluedawg12]

193. Some on the left used to know that,"the tactic of lobbying the government was futile" (1)

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Giordano

[mvd]

189. I like and support Obama, but yes, constructive criticism is good

It helps to create a healthy democracy.

President Obama has done a lot of good things already: ordered Guantanamo closed, signed an economic stimulus that won't benefit the rich the most, has an exit plan for Iraq, expanded health care for kids, signed the Lily Ledbetter Act, re-established diplomatic ties throughout the world, engaged in stem-cell research, recognized global warming, released torture memos, set a large area of wilderness for protection, said we do not torture, etc.

So far, I've been wary of his Afghanistan plan, want him to be more action than words with the bankers, disagree with his appointment of Arne Duncan, disagree with moving on on everything from the spy program to torture prosecutions, wonder about how ambitious his health plan will be, think DADT should be ended, among others. But on these, I can't really get on him too much this early.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

194. I think that the main problem here

is that some of us (myself included) get irritated and annoyed when some fellow DUers seem to become overly hysterical and start inflammatory threads every time they disagree with something that Obama has done or said. It is certainly one thing for somebody to disagree with, for example, Obama's apparent decision not to prosecute any officials for torture and to want to express their opinion about the subject by starting a thread about it and discussing it with fellow DUers

However, it always seems quite OTT (at least to me) to declare that his Presidency has failed, "change" has failed, or that Obama himself is now a "war criminal" or is Bush/Cheney incarnate. I think that it's the latter kind of threads that tend to exasperate the rest of us "mindless" and "unquestioning" Obama supporters and start "flame fests"- although it seems like it would be much more productive and healthy for this forum for those of us whom don't have a tendency to engage in such hyperbole to simply ignore those whom do rather than try to shout them down, question their patriotism, or simply accuse them of being Pumas, Freepers, and trolls.

I don't necessarily disagree with Obama on everything (i.e. I don't understand why the administration is continuing to respond to legal challenges about detention policies with Bush-like arguments) but I try not to get myself overly excited about my concerns. Obama really has not done or said anything to make me want to give up on him, particularly this early in his Presidency but I understand that some people feel different. I understand that he's got a lot on his plate and although I know that he can handle (and actually is handling) a lot of things at one time, I understand that he can't change everything overnight. If other people want to jump ship on Obama and declare him a failed President, then they are within their rights to do so and to try to find another forum, party and/or candidates whom they believe is a better fit for their ideology/perspective. Or even stay here and continue to complain. Nobody should be trying to force anybody to believe anything that they don't want to believe- here or elsewhere. However, when people start inflammatory threads like this one or others similar the ones I mentioned above, it's hardly surprising that they generate the kind of heated discussions they usually tend to do, particularly for us "mindless" and "unquestioning" Obama supporters.

[DFW]

200. I mindlessly, unquestioningly believe every word Obama said.....

...when he said this:

"I Am Not A Perfect Man, I Will Not Be A Perfect President"

He knew it, and said so long before he was even elected. As long as he intends
to TRY to be a good President, he's already light years better than his predecessor.

I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, while also mindlessly,
unquestioningly believing the wise words of the greatest Republican president
(my opinion on that) of the 20th century:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand
by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally
treasonable to the American public." --Theodore Roosevelt

[ooglymoogly]

201. Mindless or not, I am glad he is our prez. nt

[yardwork]

206. I'm very glad that he's our president, and I sent him quite a bit of money and helped elect him.

I agree with many of the actions and decisions that Obama has made and I've said so here on DU. Nor do I care one way or the other about photo threads or cheerleading threads.

My OP is in reference to those who shut down any form of dissent or criticism of any of the president's actions. That is not beneficial to a democracy.

[bluedawg12]

210. Mindless, unquestioning support for a leader is never a good idea.

That statement,as is your OP statement, are true.

The power lies with the people, not the elected officials. That is a good reminder.

"We are on our own, and have only our own reason and our judgment to rely on."
-The Audacity of Hope (2006)

[ooglymoogly]

246. I get it, I get it...I was just being snarky about the mindless right or wrong crowd.

I thought it was a funny play on words. Everybody here knows I have had bones to pick with O. Who the hell wants a mindless prez. especially after 8 years of having one. When O is right kudos when he is wrong we need to hold his feet to the fire and get the democratic ship of state headed in the right direction based on the laws our founding fathers laid down...The principals of the constitution.

[leftcoastie]

209. I'm somewhat appalled

with what I see coming out of this administration on the war, "terrorism" health care and banking fronts, but then again, he's been in office for less than 100 days. I will criticize when warranted, and applaud when deserved. I will not partake in a circular firing squad. That will not serve the job at hand.

[TheKentuckian]

225. I think few, if any are mindless in critique or support

but I do believe there is a general inability/disdain/unwillingness from "bots" and "haters" to see a full spectrum that is dangerous and not too different from "our friends" across the aisle.

I also believe some forget that the majority of us are Democrats and therefore at least somewhat partisan. Some, like myself, believe that (and not without reason) that a crappy Democrat generally trumps even a pretty good Republican and in general nothing is more contrary to our general aims than once again allowing the foxes to run the hen house. The bad just too clearly outweighs the benefit of teaching a lesson or making a point. Perhaps quite wrongly (though, I think a pretty strong affirmative case can be made) that anything that causes the Republicans to come back to power is simply not beneficial to the country.

I'll take a Bayh over a McCain anytime and twice on Sunday. Some might believe there is little to no difference in the two but I promise a review of the votes as a whole will tell you differently.
Of course dissent is crucial to a free society, it is impossible to have such a thing without it but too much of even a good thing, even a fundamentally necessary thing can be toxic. I think if some could moderate there dissent to avoiding being done with the Democrats, Obama has failed, I should have voted for Nader (again), and they are all the same then the defense corps would chill and the dialog could be more productive.

I think everyone would make better cases without all the emotion. This is politics, wearing your heart on your sleeve is going to get it crushed in a full contact sport. Sadly perhaps, this is a game even though the outcomes are life and death for real people. The possible, what is best, and what can be expected are wildly different things, no matter how much they shouldn't be. The process and system are not entirely (or maybe even mostly) sane. Trying to make them be makes it near impossible to accept the results.

[flyarm]

228. Justice Louis D.Brandeis

Justice Louis D.Brandeis

"Our government is the potent, the omnipresent, teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself;"

I fully agree with the OP!!!!!!!!!!

K&R and thank you!

[billyoc]

229. The most radical revolutionary is a conservative the day after the revolution.

You ain't seen shit yet.

[democrank]

233. Thank you, yardwork

[yardwork]

283. Thank you!

[HughMoran]

234. That means you - the 3 people here that don't question anything

The rest of you fall in line and rec this thread

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

[Grinchie]

236. Agreed, unfortunately there are a lot of child like adults that still believe in a Father Figure

They are trained from birth to be compulsively loyal to parents, abusive or not, and in later years are compulsively loyal to the Homeland or father figure of the nation when the parents are out of the picture. The church reinforces this belief trough religious beliefs as well.

Once this dogma disappears, as it has for so many enlightened DU'ers here, the blind faith for any authority figure wanes, and real research and critical thinking takes place.

Of course, since we are more difficult to manipulate through centuries old techniques of social control, the Elders tend to see us as a threat to their goal of a mechanized human organism will to work their lives away as vassals to the ruling class.

Gandhi was right. People unwilling to maintain the oppression laid upon them can remove it at will. The trick is to divide them against one another, use fear to cause them to hesitate, and social, moral, religious, economic and educational means to continue to remove the connection we have to all living things.

[Dawgs]

237. Yet you, or anybody else, can give one single example of a DUer that has acted like this.

You're just making shit up because you want to be noticed.

Everyone else that recommended this thread has some other agenda.

[bluedawg12]

241. This answer is a perfect example of resistence to even discussing dissent.

You are not even discussing the OP's statement, you go on a personal attack, call them a liar ("making up shit") and accuse them of an "agenda."

When all they said was a basic truth. They were not talking about any specific thread.

If the OP had posted an example of any DU'er, which they did not, as you coyly ask for, that's a call out.

[Starry Messenger]

247. My agenda for reccing it was to encourage people to read it.

Providing 'examples' is against the rules.

[bluedawg12]

263. My "agenda" is that especially when we disagree we will be heard.

"There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president. And we know the government can't solve every problem.

But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree."

President Barack Obama
Election victory speech
Victory speech in Grant Park, Chicago, Illinois (4 November 2008)

[LostinVA]

262. Yardwork is not a poster who "males shit up" and "wants to be noticed"

She is a well-respected, long-time poster, and has served as a mod known for her integrity and fair-handedness.
And, what agenda would these other people have? Including me?

[Just-plain-Kathy]

242. Amen. K&R

[earth mom]

244. Thanks for speaking the truth.

:thumbsup:

[quickesst]

245. Bullshit....

There is a huge difference in blind support, and looking ahead further than the tip of your nose, or gripe, whichever comes first. He's made some moves that have me wondering, but I'm pretty sure I'm beginning to see a method in his "madness". That aside, and whether I'm right or not, it would be prudent to insure that Obama is elected again. The alternative should be on everyone's mind. But then, if Palin or Jindal win in 2012, what we've been seeing on DU lately will seem like an ordinary day here, which begs the question. Are some democrats/liberals/progressives happier when the object of their righteous thunder is a republican? Thanks.
quickesst

[closeupready]

249. wow, 65 Recs. Yardwork is so not alone.

n/t

[Two Americas]

256. the ongoing debate here

There are two groups of people here looking at things two different ways, and the same debate is happening over and over again.

One group sees the party, and the Dem politicians, as the most important thing. Their support for left wing causes is dependent upon what is best for the party and the politicians, because they think the better the party and the politicians do the better the chance for left wing causes to be advanced. That is the "bigger picture" for them. Anything that helps achieve partisan success is good, anything that interferes with that is bad. They call their opponents "purists."

Another group sees the left wing causes as most important, and their support for the party and any politician is dependent upon that. They think that this is the best way to strengthen the party as a tool for advancing left wing causes, and the best way to look at the politicians. That is the "bigger picture" for them. Anything that helps advance left wing causes is good, whether helping partisan success or not, and anything that interferes with that is bad. They see their opponents as compromisers.

People in each group see those in the other as helping the opposition. People in each group see those in the other as disloyal.

One side is saying "I support the party and the politicians first and foremost, even if that means transient compromises on the causes."

The other is saying "I support the causes first and foremost, even if that means criticizing the party and the politicians."

I am strongly biased on this, as I am firmly in one of the two camps. I have tried to be fair and accurate with this post, however.

Is there any way to reach an understanding between the two groups so we don't keep having the same arguments over and over again?


...

[Starry Messenger]

259. Good post TA.

Hammer meet nail.

I wish I knew the answer. There are certainly virtues to either position. I am glad our party is ascendant because that gives us all a chance to see the changes we wish to see made. Everyone here agrees that we'd be in a hopeless position if the Republicans were in power.

As Political Heretic has stated, most concerns are with direction of this implementation, not the speed at which it gets done.

As far as board communication, I do not know. Even though we are all anonymous here to one degree or another, I think the more we listen to each other's personal stories and background we can have more understanding.

There are people here with whom I have disagreed with violently, only to hear a story about what their lives have been like for the last few decades and gained insight. I listen harder when they speak, even if I don't like what I'm hearing. If a person is upset, making snap judgments or telling them to shut up and sit down just puts them in an even more defensive position.

As long as people here trust that nearly 100% of people here are Democrats of one stripe or another I hope we can find some common bond.

My .02

[Two Americas]

335. thanks

Good post.

We can't even get the two sides to agree that there is a disagreement, or what the disagreement is about.

Seems to me some are putting party and politicians first.

Others are putting principles and ideals first.

That is as to be expected I would think, and not the end of the world. Such a minor and predictable source of disagreement - not one that should be so difficult to overcome. If we cannot as a community negotiate that barrier, it is hard for me to imagine that we can negotiate any barriers.

Seems to me that there are times when putting party first is wise, and times when it is not.

I think the MSM whips people up into a partisan circus of us-versus-them - as though it were a sports contest. Everything is either Republican or it is Democratic, and we all must choose one of the two teams, see everything in stark either-or terms, and cheer lustily for our team. Their intention is no doubt to cause just what we are seeing here. I think if everyone here boycotted cable news for a month, this argument would disappear.

I wonder if the Democratic party can survive its success.



...

[bluedawg12]

272. Progressives are a true coalition of the willing.

Accepting the realization that critique of policy is not the same as wanting this administration or any Democratic Party office holder to fail.

I look to President Obama’s own words.

He welcomes dissent and he acknowledges that this is a victory of the people and the voice of the people needs to be heard even after elections are over.

“I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to. It belongs to you. It belongs to you.” (1)

The other thing is that within the party, some seem to feel that every policy criticism is meant to destroy this Presidency and the primacy of the Democrats for the this election cycle.

It is not.

Disagreement with policy is expected from a thinking, caring, engaged electorate and the promise is that dissent will be heard.

“The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you, we as a people will get there.” (1)

The other thing that would help is accepting the notion that the progressive cause is not the same as the conservative Republican party and cause, which strikes me as being much more homogenous and monolithic. We keep repeating the rightwing framing of progressives, and Democrats in particular, as being prone to forming a “circular firing squad,” meaning we are always self defeating.

Such utter rightwing bullsh*t.

The reason why progressives “appear” to be more vocal and may seem harder to
correl into lock step is because we are historically more of a diverse coalition. But we are a coalition.

It’s easy to get middle aged, well to do, homogenous groups of people to shout “Drill baby! Drill!” There is no art to that.

On the other hand, nothing is quite as condescending as having fellow progressives deride another’s cause with some catch phrase, “It’s a pony!” “It’s poutrage!” “It’s jealousy!” Come on. This is dismissive
nonsense.

For labor, for feminists, for unemployed workers, for the middle class, for those living in poverty, for the homeless, for the uninsured, for the gay community, for ethnic minorities, and so on and so on, their concerns are legitimate.

For one group of progressives to sit back and say, “We got ours, what’s problem?” is a not only dismissive it is divisive.

To be reminded, “You offended me, see if I vote for your issue (fill in the blank) next time,” is counter productive. We will need this coalition in the future. Eight years is a very short time and the enemy’s hot putrid breathe is down our necks for the mid-terms.

That’s all it takes is not panicking every time someone dares to speak truth to power.

“This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were.” President Elect Barack Obama, Victory speech in Grant Park, Chicago, Illinois (4 November 2008)


(1) President Barack Obama
Election victory speech
Victory speech in Grant Park, Chicago, Illinois (4 November 2008)

[maryf]

322. One way is to stop the insults

and for each side to really stop and read each post before they Knee-jerk a reaction...ya think?

[Two Americas]

334. yes

It has become little more than an exchange of insults.

[pecwae]

257. Too late to rec, but here's a kick.

[winyanstaz]

258. Sorry I was too late to recommend this but I can still say its a good post.

Sometimes I am very impressed with Obama, other times I am very disappointed. However, I am still trying to wait and see how he does before I start getting upset.
Just because sometimes some of us may be upset with him (like when he keeps some of Bush's policies), doesn't mean we don't appreciate a lot of the good things he is doing as well.
Its great he is creating jobs..its wonderful we are getting a tax break finally. We can be happy about the good and still speak out when we think he is moving in the wrong direction.
We must all feel free to speak out and say how we feel. As long as we are not advocating violence and hate there is no reason not to be able to speak. Thats only fair and right and what freedom is all about.
We will not all agree or be in lockstep all the time..and thats alright too.
We are not meant to be cookie cutter human beings. We are each unique and that is a lot of what makes America so great.

[Lord Helmet]

261. Mindless negativity is also bullshit.

[LostinVA]

265. Glad Yardwork isn't like that

[Lord Helmet]

268. the OP is just another dumb vanity post with finger pointing

[bluedawg12]

273. There was no vanity and no finger pointing, just a reminder, the election was for us.

"It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled." -President Barack Obama.
Victory speech in Grant Park, Chicago, Illinois (4 November 2008)

These people will continue to speak and expect to be heard as promised.

[Starry Messenger]

277. Thank you bluedawg12.

That's a wonderful quote. Sounds like the guy I happily voted for! :thumbsup:

[politicasista]

324. Right. This election wasn't about him or other pols. It was about us

period. :hi:

[yardwork]

325. That is the truth - very important point.

[politicasista]

333. Yep. n/t

[bluedawg12]

274. The value of dissent today is as valuable as it was before Nov 4th.

Mindless fear of dissent and debate of issues is not progressive.


http://www.barackobama.com/2008/07/01/obama_talks_patriotism_the_val.php

"Barack Obama spelled out his view of the meaning of patriotism and the value of dissent today in a 30-minute address in Independence just four days before America celebrates the Fourth of July. In the wake of sniping from Republicans and Internet critics, the Illinois senator said he was surprised to find his own patriotism being questioned as he launched his campaign for president.

Obama said he would not allow his own patriotism to be questioned in a remark that drew ringing applause in the Truman Memorial Building. "I will not stand by as others question mine," he said. Obama added, "I will not question the patriotism of others in this campaign."

[Two Americas]

338. they are not equal

We should always err on the side of suspicion of those in power, and tolerance of critics and dissenters. Always.


...

[ShortnFiery]

267. Good advice yardwork. We've tangled in the past but, IMO, I'm with you now.

:thumbsup:

[yardwork]

289. Thank you!

[Sparkly]

275. Indeed.

:thumbsup:

[CTLawGuy]

276. blowing things out of proportion and losing perspective

is also always a bad idea.

[natrat]

279. yea but when you look at these "things" in agregate it is kind of a big deal,ya know

[AZBlue]

290. Yes, that's true. And mindless, unquestioning criticism is a bad idea too.

Logic is somewhere in the middle.
(That comment is not directed at you, yardwork, but others here on DU. Thanks for the post!)

[kid a]

296. captain obvious strikes again!

[bluedawg12]

298. Reinforcing the obvious is a good move.

[OwnedByFerrets]

299. Kicked, since its too late to Rec

[yardwork]

300. I love ferrets.

[OwnedByFerrets]

306. All ours are rescues....you can see some of their pics here on

my products.

www.ferretscorner.com

comments welcome:)

[yardwork]

309. Neat! Thank you for the link and photos.

[OwnedByFerrets]

313. YVW

[WI_DEM]

303. Mindless, daily rantings at Obama by the same people always give them away too

it goes both ways.

[wisteria]

310. True. n/t

[CreekDog]

314. Straw Man argument, most here don't stand for mindless, unquestioning support

it doesn't take any intelligence to associate a straw man argument with many at DU and then criticize them for taking a stand you imposed on them rather than one most of us actually believe in.

:eyes:

[yardwork]

315. I didn't mention your name, did I? If it doesn't apply to you, skip it.

Do you always go around taking offense at things that don't apply to you?

[CreekDog]

316. I didn't take personal offense, I just thought to imply that lots here were doing this was wrong

it fits a pattern here of calling Obama supporters names that liken us to a cult.

[yardwork]

320. Where did I say that "lots here are doing this?"

Where did I say anything about a cult?

[politicasista]

323. True

And I really like and support President Obama and love the First Family. :fistbump: Is he perfect? No. Will I disagree with PO on some things? Yes.

I don't think people should shut down dissent. President Obama dosen't either. :) Which is why I have been checking out Essence.com and reading their Obama blogs more now. They have nice coverage without all the name calling and stuff.

Good post. :hi:

[yardwork]

326. I'll look up Essence.com - thank you for the tip.

I too like and support President Obama. His family is wonderful. Michelle Obama is a breath of fresh air. I love her style and she is a great example of a strong, intelligent woman.

I disagree with several of President Obama's decisions, actions, and appointments since he was elected in early November. That doesn't mean that I'm angry that I "didn't get a pony" or filled with "poutrage" or "want him to fail."

It means that I'm exercising my obligation as a citizen of the United States to keep an eye on what my elected leaders are doing and telling them when I disagree.

[politicasista]

332. You're welcome

I agree with you. And there is nothing wrong with civil disagreement. :hi:

[TankLV]

329. Great - now what am I supposed to do with all the votive candles and my shrine?!!!

they're not cheap, ya know...

[omega minimo]

330. Monument to Bo?

:hi:

[Skidmore]

343. The thread that will not die. Vampire thread.

Rises regularly on my screen. Well, I'm driving a stake through its black heart. After I post, I'm hiding it. Sick of seeing it.

[yardwork]

344. How violent of you!

I find that simply hanging garlic on my computer monitor keeps the vampire threads under control.