The people here who rail against the Obama "fans" are almost

[cali]

always the people who are the most clearcut examples of blind adoration. They freak the fuck out if anyone dares to criticize their heroes. Just try it criticizing anything that Chomsky or any other "icon of the left" says. Even the most mild criticism is met with outrage from the devotees. It's inevitable.

It's the hypocrisy, stupid.

[sharp_stick]

1. Most people that idolize an individual for any reason

will fall for the same thing. If you put someone up on a pedestal it's pretty hard to admit that they might not need to be up there all the time.

The thing that surprises me the most about this is how many people around here seem to idolize individuals at all. I didn't expect that from what I assumed (incorrectly I guess) was a pretty well rounded group of people.

[cali]

6. yeah, the idolization of anyone is a big turn off to me.

or at least something I find extremeely annoying, but I find it amusing that the harshest crictics of Obama, and the people who are given to sneering about adoring Obama supporters, are inevitably some of the biggest idolizers around.

[sharp_stick]

15. I went back over some threads

I hadn't noticed it before but you're right most of them don't even pretend to hide it. If I had the time it would be kind of fun to do a little analysis of it.

[Winterblues]

17. Ponzi was considered the most Charismatic person known and

Everyone that ever met him believed in him absolutely. He had a smile that immediately disarmed all and had a way of seeming like you were the most important person in the world at the moment. Ponzi took in everyone he met because of his charm and intelligence. Not saying that has anything to do with Obama other than just a note of caution.

[sharp_stick]

25. huh?

You could have probably posted random hand smashes of your keyboard and it would have been more relevent to the post you replied to than this this.

Your "concerned" "note of caution" has therefore been ignored.

[Liberal Veteran]

2. We on the left have perfected the circular firing squad.

If such a thing can be called perfected. I don't always agree with our president, but for the most part, I think he's doing a bang up job. Given the midden heap he was left by that fucktard chimp, it's not surprising that some of the decisions he has made would be less than I could hope for. I figure we can worry about tricking out the car AFTER we get it running again.

[Cant trust em]

14. I'd prefer that to the Republicans going in lock step with the almighty leadership

At least we have the brains to think for ourselves.

[Autumn]

3. I'm going to have to recommend this ,absolutely

right.It's the hypocrisy, stupid.

[jsamuel]

4. Well, if you or anyone disagrees with what someone says, that is fine. What I don't like is the

personal attacks on people. Especially when people are attacked simply for disagreeing with another person on policy.

I have seen people here personally attack "idols" because they disagree with Obama on policy.

[pacalo]

5. This must be really bothering you personally if you thought it worthy of starting a thread on it.

People have different opinions. Get over it.

[cali]

7. I just like to point out blatant hypocrisy that's largely escaped notice

that's all.

[pacalo]

8. Wrong. The hypocrisy is on both sides.

And the irony of values -- in ref. to the poor kids pirates who were shot -- of some posters is just as entertaining.

[cali]

13. sure it is. never said it wasn't.

[Echo In Light]

9. It's funny, cause I've had to defend Chomsky's position on 9/11 numerous times

...re this exact sort of thing. It usually goes like this:

I'm discussing politics or 9/11 or some related field online {I only frame it that way since the hundreds of real life convos I've had re 9/11 never produce the crusading, name-calling types one encounters all too frequently online}, and let's say I've sourced Chomsky on another subject, but then the topic delves into 9/11. At that point the naysayers LOVE to try throwing it in your face that Chomsky doesn't publicly support the inside job angle, with the idea being, since I DO think it was an inside job, while Chomsky does not, it's somehow illogical that I should then agree with or cite anything from Chomsky at all.

It's that all-or-none aspect that's usually proffered by those who fancy themselves as being superior-super-duper-smart guys lol

[cali]

11. well, I don't frequent the dungeon, but that's not what I'm referring to anyway

I'm simply noting that quite a few of the people who are most contemptuous about Obama fans, have their own idols who they can't stand to see criticized in any way whatsoever.

[Echo In Light]

16. And since you would likely cast me in that anti-Obama category, I offered an example of how...

...that's not the case with myself, and those whose views and research I've admired throughout the yrs.

[cali]

22. I wasn't thinking of you, as it happens.

I've never noticed that you did what I discuss in the OP.

[Echo In Light]

31. I frequently point out here how there's very little actual difference in name brand parties, so...

...I figured since you took the time to begin a thread against those who espouse such views that you likely had a specific group of user names in mind.

[NeedleCast]

10. Too many people with a black and white vision

[Cant trust em]

12. I wish I could say that only Republicans and George Bush suffered from that affliction

but I am usually proved wrong on this site.

[Marrah_G]

18. IBTL-

[cali]

19. why should it be locked?

seriously, I'm simply pointing out a DU phenomenon. You don't seem to like it, so I'm gathering you've alerted. I'll leave it up to the mods to decide.

[omega minimo]

20. Cali, you're capable of healing the divisions, not continuously deepening them

:toast:

[cali]

30. OK, you have a point. I would really like to have a discussion about

people not trying to shut down criticism- particularly reasoned criticism. When you can't politely say that you disagree with X because of Y without a how dare you question X and "you're throwing X under the bus", it's frickin' frustrating.

[Marrah_G]

34. I agree with you whole-heartedly on that.

I am tired of being told to STFU because I don't think exactly the way the "in-crowd" does. I'm tired of being expected to shut up and put things that matter to me in the closet so as not to anger the cool kids.

It's frustrating and has been going on for a year now.

We should be able to have a rational conversation even if we disagree.

[omega minimo]

43. If that's the case

"We should be able to have a rational conversation even if we disagree."


Another way to contribute to that climate is to not represent yourselves in a thoughtless and antagonistic manner on other topics, destroying civility as you go.

It may not be who you really are or how you want to be perceived.

[Marrah_G]

46. I've spent most of the 8 months ignoring rather then fighting.

I cleared my ignore list of 400+ people yesterday.

(I know exactly the topic you are talking about and frankly I think that on this topic you are delusional, for whatever reason.

I decided weeks ago not to engage you any further on this topic.

If you wish not to hear my opinions on the sanity of those who believe they are some special sort of evolved human, superior to most other mundane human beings, then kindly do not bring it up.)

[omega minimo]

47. to the editorial "you"

"We should be able to have a rational conversation even if we disagree."

If that's the case, another way to contribute to that climate is to not represent yourselves in a thoughtless and antagonistic manner on other topics, destroying civility as you go.

It may not be who you really are or how you want to be perceived.

It doesn't matter what the topic is, "if you want to have a rational conversation even if we disagree," be consistent and contribute to that climate.

Or if you think what the topic is does matter and that justifies bad behavior -- that's not "rational conversation even if we disagree."

The irrationally hostile behavior and attitude of "if you don't expect abuse, don't bring it up" aren't creating the climate you claim to want here.

The irrationally hostile behavior (far different than expressing "opinions") may not be who you really are or how you want to be perceived or remembered.

[Marrah_G]

50. It's not "abuse" and you are not a victim.

[omega minimo]

53. Irrationally hostile behavior" is the opposite of "rational conversation even if we disagree"

Irrationally hostile behavior is abusive.

Irrationally hostile behavior is not expressing "opinions."

It may not be who one really is or how one wants to be perceived or remembered.

You may be "victim" of your own unintended consequences.

It seems "rational conversation even if we disagree" is a consistent practice, not an arbitrary claim for when it's convenient.

Too often people claim to be expressing "opinion" when all their posts contain is -- yes- abusive, irrationally hostile behavior.


edit sp

[Marrah_G]

59. Not doing this anymore

Enjoy your own little world of delusion where you are the victim because people just won't understand that you are one of the special, gifted, indigo/crystal people who are the next step in evolution.

I'll end this by saying I think you are mentally unstable and should really seek some help.

I would react the same way to anyone who thought they could shoot fire out of their fingers or lightening bolts out of their asses.

I will not be conversing with you any further on any topic.

[omega minimo]

60. You may not care

You may not care what others think of you. I care about what I think of you. If you (and others) swoop down out of nowhere and act "mentally unstable and should really seek some help," that's how you'll be remembered. I share with you and Cali that interest in "rational discussion even if we disagree."

If you want to have "rational discussion even if we disagree," be consistent about it, it will contribute to a culture of it.


Your continuing irrational hostility over misrepresentations of claims I never made is "your own little world of delusion." I'm sure you're not enjoying it.


The need for some to feed their hostility with their own deluded projections seems to be about paranoia about inferiority. The projection that someone else is trying to be "superior" is what's mentally unstable. The aggression masks the deep fear, that no "rational" discussion can soothe.

[omega minimo]

35. From what I've seen, the dissension b/w those with different views on constructive criticism being

consistent with support of our President and participatory democracy (simplification of all the stuff going on) were largely being amped up with hostility by OPs that IMHO looked like plants, trying to divide us.............

Sometimes when folks are complaining, like one OP did today about "Obama haters" or some such, some of us never actually see what they're referring to..........

You can have sharp elbows but recently I've seen some very accommodating behavior from you. :toast:

[NashVegas]

21. When the Criticism of a Chomsky or a Krugman Comes From Someone With a Blatantly See-Through Agenda

And that agenda is "blast anyone who disagrees with Obama's policy," you really don't think anyone is going to freely hand you that one, do you?

Because, honestly? Noam Chomsky and Paul Krugman have been respected by the overwhelming majority of DU, right up until Obama took office.

It's not hypocrisy, it's telling people with an agenda where they can stick it.

JFC, we saw RWers pull this shit for a decade, you think we can't recognize what's going on when a bonafide Team Obama member does it?

[cali]

27. lol. I suggest you do a search. I criticize Obama not infrequently

at all. In fact, dear, I just criticized his speech at Georgetown. Now try again, because your argument is blatantly false. And you might want to do something about your delusions and paranoia. I understand there's help for those problems.

:hi:

[NashVegas]

38. What An Interesting Thing To Say

But I'm afraid it has nothing at all to do with what I was writing about. Krugman and Chomsky are regularly published, aka, paid to write, for commercial outlets that distribute and validate their opinion pieces. et tu?

On edit. I just saw the thread you refer to. Sorry, dear, but xchrom has you dead to rights.

[cali]

39. so now in order to critcicize a published opinon writer

one has to be a published opinion writer? That's supremely silly.

[NashVegas]

41. Nope

But one should at least come up with a well thought-out counter argument, if one wishes not to have their backside handed to them.

[cali]

44. and that's exactly what I did over on the Chomsky thread

only one person wanted to engage on that level. And sorry, you did indeed insinuate that one had to be a published opinion writer to criticize.. published opinion writers.

[NashVegas]

54. To Some People

What you wrote looked more like ankle-biting, Cali. Just because you were looking for something that wasn't in that quote, or that interview, doesn't mean it was never there.

[omega minimo]

58. "well thought out"? "on that level"?

the transcript showed a qualified statement in context, that was turned into a statement he didn't make, turned into a red herring others were asked to defend.

[leftstreet]

23. Should Johnny Depp reprise his role for the Somali Pirate movie?

I can't decide

:shrug:

[Echo In Light]

32. LOL...Pirates..lions, tigers and bears {oh my!} I'm now awaiting an attack from ghouls/goblins/UFOs

Why doesn't the PR groups responsible for packaging and selling illegal wars of naked aggression get on board with something the movie going U.S. populace can really get behind?!

[Romulox]

24. Why are 90% of the OPs posts telling others what to do or think in a hostile tone?

:shrug:

[devilgrrl]

55. I like that she feels the need to point out the obvious. As if everyone was born yesterday.

:eyes:

[mike_c]

26. angry much?

:shrug:

[bigtree]

28. It's not the adulation that bugs

. . . it's the substance-free self-righteousness about their 'faith' and confidence' in the president; a posture which is effectively used to dismiss entire, detailed arguments centering on policy.

It's not the dissenters who are so focused on the president's personality that they can't find time to bother to sweat the details. The 'it's all good' crowd has it's own hypocrisy to account for, in my view. Too many policies which were fought here, tooth-and-nail, are being brushed aside as unimportant or irrelevant because of some 'faith' in the president's intentions.

The intimidation is all you cali. That's your game, as with this very post. You work to marginalize dissenters here like you're part of some high school clique. It's amazing that you're posturing as if you have some lock on conventional wisdom in these bullying posts of yours.

It's stupid, stupid.

[Uzybone]

29. Most people have thier sacred cows

[populistdriven]

49. so whats yours?

[Political Heretic]

33. Try me.

:)

[arcadian]

36. Channeling Carville?

It suits you.

[Taverner]

37. Exactly. Try criticizing Cindy Sheehan or Code Pink in front of them

You get the same kind of ire you would if you suggested the trinity is not monotheism to a Devout Catholic

[Marrah_G]

42. I've critized all those groups/people at one time or another !

I think I am just a critical sort of person.

(But I've also praised them, so maybe all is not lost. )

[Mari333]

40. I am an equal opportunity critic. nt

[rucky]

45. How about those people who do those things to those people then

do something else to someone else?

I can't believe those people!

[populistdriven]

48. The worst ones are the self annointed Troll hunters

as if they ever caught anything in their life besides a disease

[Luminous Animal]

51. Given that you misread the Chomsky interview

and proceeded to support your position on that misreading and have refused to address this fact on the thread, I find your criticism of Chomsky's defenders disingenuous.

[walldude]

52. Yep.. there is a mindset here, a stunningly

neo-conish style of taking someone who has a disagreement in ideology and making them into some kind of "hater" or "lover". Like in Obama hater or Pirate lover. If you disagree with Obama's financial plan or his pro-drug war stance then you are a "hater". Doesn't matter how much time and money you put into his campaign, it doesn't matter how much you praise him for his Stem Cell bill or how much you support him otherwise.

I expected many things when Obama won. DU becoming the liberal version of FR was something I did not forsee.

[Marr]

56. I've noticed a lot of the self-professed "moderates" seem to have a penchant for trolling.

[HughMoran]

57. Sadly, it's true

Also see "Krugman", "Chavez", "Counterpunch" and other individuals/groups that seem to be infallible those who would not hesitate to post an article calling Obama "dumber than a bag of hammers".

[bvar22]

61. LOL !

Mirror....meet the OP.

[GeorgeGist]

62. Did you know that "fan" is short for fanatic.

fa·nat·ic
n. A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

[Smith_3]

63. Not me. I simply hate everyone.

;)