HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Stuff That (Increasingly ...

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:11 PM

 

Stuff That (Increasingly Desperately Disillusioned) Obama Supporters Say

Stuff That (Increasingly Desperately Disillusioned) Obama Supporters Say
by Abby Zimet
January 17, 2011

From Maine's own Mark Roman and Lisa Savage. So sad, so true.




http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/01/17-5

332 replies, 76587 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 332 replies Author Time Post
Reply Stuff That (Increasingly Desperately Disillusioned) Obama Supporters Say (Original post)
Better Believe It Jan 2012 OP
xchrom Jan 2012 #1
ddeclue Jan 2012 #2
SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #3
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #201
SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #202
bigtree Jan 2012 #4
hootinholler Jan 2012 #45
grantcart Jan 2012 #61
Beacool Jan 2012 #5
one_voice Jan 2012 #6
Better Believe It Jan 2012 #10
joshcryer Jan 2012 #13
Occulus Jan 2012 #24
joshcryer Jan 2012 #27
Occulus Jan 2012 #39
joshcryer Jan 2012 #43
Occulus Jan 2012 #52
one_voice Jan 2012 #21
Cherchez la Femme Jan 2012 #64
SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #81
Cherchez la Femme Jan 2012 #82
SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #84
EFerrari Jan 2012 #90
SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #108
CakeGrrl Jan 2012 #121
Number23 Jan 2012 #125
NatBurner Jan 2012 #312
joshcryer Jan 2012 #124
Cherchez la Femme Jan 2012 #134
SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #139
joshcryer Jan 2012 #144
CakeGrrl Jan 2012 #147
joshcryer Jan 2012 #149
SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #150
jeff47 Jan 2012 #184
SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #188
jeff47 Jan 2012 #190
SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #194
jeff47 Jan 2012 #295
Capn Sunshine Jan 2012 #275
jeff47 Jan 2012 #296
joshcryer Jan 2012 #299
jeff47 Jan 2012 #306
joshcryer Jan 2012 #287
jeff47 Jan 2012 #297
joshcryer Jan 2012 #298
jeff47 Jan 2012 #305
phleshdef Jan 2012 #322
Cherchez la Femme Jan 2012 #146
EFerrari Jan 2012 #153
SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #178
msanthrope Jan 2012 #219
Number23 Jan 2012 #239
SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #246
msanthrope Jan 2012 #255
tabasco Jan 2012 #292
Cherchez la Femme Jan 2012 #94
SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #110
Capn Sunshine Jan 2012 #276
Sheepshank Jan 2012 #326
one_voice Jan 2012 #172
phleshdef Jan 2012 #206
msanthrope Jan 2012 #218
moodforaday Jan 2012 #157
one_voice Jan 2012 #169
jeff47 Jan 2012 #186
GeorgeGist Jan 2012 #212
one_voice Jan 2012 #227
yodermon Jan 2012 #7
Better Believe It Jan 2012 #11
EFerrari Jan 2012 #41
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #129
joshcryer Jan 2012 #138
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #151
joshcryer Jan 2012 #156
Cherchez la Femme Jan 2012 #68
joshcryer Jan 2012 #8
ClassWarrior Jan 2012 #66
joshcryer Jan 2012 #69
ProSense Jan 2012 #9
alcibiades_mystery Jan 2012 #20
Number23 Jan 2012 #100
Son of Gob Jan 2012 #112
RZM Jan 2012 #12
joshcryer Jan 2012 #14
RZM Jan 2012 #15
joshcryer Jan 2012 #17
RZM Jan 2012 #19
Better Believe It Jan 2012 #23
RZM Jan 2012 #25
LeftyMom Jan 2012 #28
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #31
LeftyMom Jan 2012 #38
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #42
LeftyMom Jan 2012 #44
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #47
LeftyMom Jan 2012 #50
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #51
mythology Jan 2012 #264
Cherchez la Femme Jan 2012 #73
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #46
treestar Jan 2012 #59
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #78
Number23 Jan 2012 #101
Electric Monk Jan 2012 #104
Number23 Jan 2012 #111
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #106
Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #193
Union Scribe Jan 2012 #122
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #123
Union Scribe Jan 2012 #133
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #140
SwampG8r Jan 2012 #166
Puglover Jan 2012 #175
Bobbie Jo Jan 2012 #313
progressoid Jan 2012 #243
RZM Jan 2012 #249
progressoid Jan 2012 #259
SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #26
joshcryer Jan 2012 #29
Iggo Jan 2012 #180
SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #197
Cherchez la Femme Jan 2012 #76
MADem Jan 2012 #128
joshcryer Jan 2012 #136
moodforaday Jan 2012 #159
MADem Jan 2012 #162
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #145
FSogol Jan 2012 #168
Bobbie Jo Jan 2012 #158
dionysus Jan 2012 #281
emilyg Jan 2012 #35
joshcryer Jan 2012 #37
RZM Jan 2012 #96
Cali_Democrat Jan 2012 #103
RZM Jan 2012 #115
Bobby S Jan 2012 #127
joshcryer Jan 2012 #131
RZM Jan 2012 #132
MADem Jan 2012 #126
TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #220
hughee99 Jan 2012 #328
RZM Jan 2012 #329
hughee99 Jan 2012 #330
frazzled Jan 2012 #16
bigwillq Jan 2012 #18
Skip Intro Jan 2012 #22
countingbluecars Jan 2012 #30
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #32
Better Believe It Jan 2012 #34
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #40
Electric Monk Jan 2012 #56
Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #62
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #71
Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #74
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #77
Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #79
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #83
Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #87
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #91
Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #93
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #97
Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #99
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #102
Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #105
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #109
Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #114
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #118
Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #135
SwampG8r Jan 2012 #173
Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #177
SwampG8r Jan 2012 #179
LeftyMom Jan 2012 #85
Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #89
Iggo Jan 2012 #183
Quantess Jan 2012 #266
Better Believe It Jan 2012 #189
Bobbie Jo Jan 2012 #160
Kaleko Jan 2012 #53
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #75
Kaleko Jan 2012 #88
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #92
Kaleko Jan 2012 #95
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #98
Kaleko Jan 2012 #120
LiberalLovinLug Jan 2012 #236
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #142
Cherchez la Femme Jan 2012 #148
bvar22 Jan 2012 #285
Art_from_Ark Jan 2012 #294
Fumesucker Jan 2012 #154
NuttyFluffers Jan 2012 #210
unapatriciated Jan 2012 #251
Cameron27 Jan 2012 #267
Caretha Jan 2012 #195
EFerrari Jan 2012 #54
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #72
unapatriciated Jan 2012 #254
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #257
mfcorey1 Jan 2012 #60
Kaleko Jan 2012 #70
TransitJohn Jan 2012 #33
EFerrari Jan 2012 #36
ProSense Jan 2012 #49
Cherchez la Femme Jan 2012 #80
SwampG8r Jan 2012 #174
ProSense Jan 2012 #176
SwampG8r Jan 2012 #185
progressoid Jan 2012 #225
Kaleko Jan 2012 #273
Cali_Democrat Jan 2012 #228
Karmadillo Jan 2012 #48
provis99 Jan 2012 #55
Cherchez la Femme Jan 2012 #57
joshcryer Jan 2012 #58
Aida F Jan 2012 #63
mfcorey1 Jan 2012 #65
Aida F Jan 2012 #67
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #86
Cherchez la Femme Jan 2012 #107
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #116
Cherchez la Femme Jan 2012 #137
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #141
dionysus Jan 2012 #282
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #143
SidDithers Jan 2012 #200
dionysus Jan 2012 #245
msanthrope Jan 2012 #221
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #260
FSogol Jan 2012 #223
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #237
Scurrilous Jan 2012 #224
Number23 Jan 2012 #240
Scurrilous Jan 2012 #268
Number23 Jan 2012 #270
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #274
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #280
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #283
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #289
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #293
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #301
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #302
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #304
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #314
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #315
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #316
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #317
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #318
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #320
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #321
Number23 Jan 2012 #319
FSogol Jan 2012 #170
Renew Deal Jan 2012 #205
Son of Gob Jan 2012 #117
Bobbie Jo Jan 2012 #161
scheming daemons Jan 2012 #165
Better Believe It Jan 2012 #191
scheming daemons Jan 2012 #208
Better Believe It Jan 2012 #215
SidDithers Jan 2012 #226
DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #233
SidDithers Jan 2012 #241
DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #242
SidDithers Jan 2012 #261
Caretha Jan 2012 #262
Caretha Jan 2012 #263
DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #288
Bobbie Jo Jan 2012 #232
Better Believe It Jan 2012 #238
Bobbie Jo Jan 2012 #277
SidDithers Jan 2012 #167
Caretha Jan 2012 #203
SidDithers Jan 2012 #204
Caretha Jan 2012 #207
SidDithers Jan 2012 #211
Caretha Jan 2012 #214
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #235
Electric Monk Jan 2012 #230
FSogol Jan 2012 #171
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #284
CakeGrrl Jan 2012 #113
cliffordu Jan 2012 #119
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #130
DeathToTheOil Jan 2012 #152
Fumesucker Jan 2012 #155
DonCoquixote Jan 2012 #163
Fumesucker Jan 2012 #196
bvar22 Jan 2012 #308
SidDithers Jan 2012 #164
DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #234
AngryAmish Jan 2012 #181
Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #199
spanone Jan 2012 #182
SidDithers Jan 2012 #198
progressoid Jan 2012 #217
mfcorey1 Jan 2012 #213
WI_DEM Jan 2012 #187
truth2power Jan 2012 #192
NuttyFluffers Jan 2012 #209
progressoid Jan 2012 #216
dionysus Jan 2012 #222
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #229
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #231
dionysus Jan 2012 #244
SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #247
SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #250
DevonRex Jan 2012 #248
dionysus Jan 2012 #252
DevonRex Jan 2012 #253
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #271
Arkana Jan 2012 #256
msanthrope Jan 2012 #258
Number23 Jan 2012 #265
Scurrilous Jan 2012 #269
great white snark Jan 2012 #272
Capn Sunshine Jan 2012 #278
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #303
Better Believe It Jan 2012 #307
FSogol Jan 2012 #310
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #311
Better Believe It Jan 2012 #323
MNBrewer Jan 2012 #279
bvar22 Jan 2012 #286
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #291
Blue_Tires Jan 2012 #290
T S Justly Jan 2012 #300
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2012 #309
Better Believe It Jan 2012 #324
Bobbie Jo Jan 2012 #325
Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #332
Sheepshank Jan 2012 #327
Safetykitten Jan 2012 #331

Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:35 PM

1. Du rec. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:37 PM

2. Brilliant! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:39 PM

3. Am I in the right place?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:51 AM

201. Yes, it's a forum. Are you looking for a megachurch, perhaps?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #201)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:58 AM

202. What is megachurch, and why should I care about that?

This is supposed to be Democratic Underground, where we are generally supportive of Democrats.

It's ok to be critical of Democratic Policies and President Obama, but "bashing" supporters is never a good idea. This OP is non productive and flame bait. It broad brushes an entire group of DU members, and I might add...how do we know that everyone in that video didn't say more? Is that all they said, or was it just sound bites? It really is irrelevant in this situation, I know. But so is "megachurch", whatever that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:40 PM

4. go to hell

stuff enlightened, sincere Obama supporters say

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:05 AM

45. Which hell specifically?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:06 AM

61. Go Darcy, Go Darcy!

One strawman deserves another.

This one is funnier;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512215

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:44 PM

5. Great video.

They must have been lurking around here. I think that I've read every one of those excuses on this board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:45 PM

6. That's a bullshit swipe...

at Obama supporters in general. There are things said in that silly video that are actually true. the video says " Stuff Obama supporters say"...meaning all supporters. So congrats on insulting anyone that supports the president. You must be so proud.

He doesn't have the support in congress...

He did pass a healthcare bill...

He is a constitutional lawyer

He did end DADT

His family is beautiful....why is that a bad thing to say?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to one_voice (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:55 PM

10. Lighten up. It was humorous and as you point out it simply repeated

 


many things that have been said by some Obama supporters that "are actually true".

I don't believe any Obama supporter with a thick skin and a sense of humor or President Obama himself would feel offended or insulted.

It did point out out some of the weaker arguments we have read on DU in defense of President Obama's policies, that is true.

But, just compare the video to the sometimes brutal and really nasty personal attacks we read on DU against progressives who raise the mildest objection to or criticism of President Obama's policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:04 PM

13. I haven't seen 90% of those comments "said by Obama supporters."

It's a derisive caricature of an entity that is certainly a minority at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:21 PM

24. See, that's weird, because I was watching it thinking

"these two must be DUers, to be getting so many of these right".

I see most of those comments at least once a week here on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #24)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:28 PM

27. Can you show me one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:59 PM

39. I've already put in a full day's work, thanks.

Digging and looking for it is exactly as easy for you as it is for me, but I'm beat and that sort of research appeals to me just now about as well as a mix of vodka and milk would.

We have a Google box up there somewhere, though. Is that blacked out, too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:04 AM

43. You said it happens weekly.

Sorry, thought it would be easy enough to find. In my experience such posts are not that common, particularly from the most vocal supporters here. Now, you could try to actually diminish ones criticism and make it out to be something it's not, but that's what we call a caricature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:35 AM

52. Maybe my last comment was what we call an exaggeration



Doesn't a caricature of a thing imply at least some truth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:15 PM

21. No surprise...

that YOU"D find it humorous.

You tell me to lighten up, then proceed to complain about "brutal and nasty" attacks against progressives. Maybe YOU should lighten up and grow thicker skin. How 'bout that...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to one_voice (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:09 AM

64. Technically

Last edited Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:53 AM - Edit history (1)

he didn't end DADT -- the Log Cabin Republicans, via our court of law, did.

Nor did he 'get us out of Iraq' -- he tried to keep our armed forces (and highly paid mercenaries) there, as long as they weren't to be held to the law of the land, i.e. they should be held immune from Iraqi law.

The Iraqi's were having none of it.

Yet, strangely, I don't quite see those being redacted from Teh List!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #64)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:31 AM

81. The Republicans are responsible for ending DADT?



Sorry I couldn't make it past that statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #81)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:33 AM

82. Look it up.

Log Cabin Republicans, but Republicans nonetheless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #82)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:36 AM

84. Where should I start?

You said Republicans are responsible for ending DADT.

Where should I look it up, in Dreamworld?

I've seen it all now. Giving Republicans credit over Obama or Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to EFerrari (Reply #90)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:25 AM

108. Yes they are a drag if you read your link

which leads to another link...

On November 12, the Supreme Court denied the application to vacate the stay.
With the injunction stayed, enforcement of DADT resumed, but under stricter guidelines.
On December 22, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. His signature began the repeal process but repeal was not immediate and DADT remained in effect. The Justice Department asked the Ninth Circuit to suspend LCR's suit in light of the legislative repeal. LCR opposed the request, noting that gay personnel were still subject to discharge. On January 28, 2011, the court denied the Justice Department's request. On February 25, the Department of Justice filed its response, in which it no longer defended the constitutionality of DADT but asked the court to consider how the repeal of DADT has placed the case "in a different posture" from when the judge granted an injunction on October 12, 2010.
On July 6, 2011, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the stay of Judge Phillips' ruling and ordered the military to cease enforcement of DADT. The Court cited the military's progress in implementing the repeal of DADT and the brief filed on July 1 by the Department of Justice in Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management arguing that classifications based on sexual orientation, as found in DADT, should be subjected to heightened scrutiny. Pentagon officials said that they are "taking immediate steps" to comply.
On September 29, 2011, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's decision, ruling that the legislative repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" rendered the case moot. The dismissal left the lower court ruling without value as precedent. On November 9, 2011, the Court denied LCR's motion to hear the case en banc, stating that none of the judges voted to rehear it. LCR announced that it would not appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States



The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 (H.R. 2965, S. 4023) is a landmark federal statute that establishes a legal process for ending the Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) policy (10 U.S.C. § 654), which since 1993 prevented openly gay and lesbian people from serving in the United States Armed Forces...

Originally the Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate intended to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy with an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. However, the defense bill failed to clear a Republican filibuster in the Senate due to objections of the procedures from which the bill was being debated. In response, Senator Joe Lieberman introduced the stand-alone repeal bill in the Senate, and Congressman Patrick Murphy introduced the same bill in the House.

The Act was passed by the House of Representatives on December 15, 2010, with a vote of 250 to 175, and by the Senate on December 18, 2010, with a vote of 65 to 31. President Barack Obama signed the bill into law on December 22, 2010.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Ask,_Don%27t_Tell_Repeal_Act_of_2010

Obama Vows to end DADT Oct 2009



Obama to Congress Jan 2010


It's one thing to be critical of Democrats and President Obama, but it's quite another all together to give credit to Republicans.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #108)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:45 AM

121. Obama Derangement Syndrome

Causes all sorts of bizarre statements, does it not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CakeGrrl (Reply #121)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:00 AM

125. You got that right. I have truly SEEN IT ALL here

And none of it has been pretty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CakeGrrl (Reply #121)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:58 PM

312. lol

pretty much

as soon as i think i've heard it all

BAM!

republicans ended DADT

freakydeaky

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #108)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:55 AM

124. Nice job.

Shame it's buried in this thread and few will read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #108)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:14 AM

134. Check your dates

"Way back in 2004 it was the Log Cabin Republicans who brought DADT to court (Log Cabin Republicans v. United States"


"On September 9, 2010, Phillips ruled that the ban is unconstitutional. On October 12, Phillips issued an injunction banning the military from enforcing the policy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States


The President had no option but to follow the courts ruling, therefore it was the Log Cabin Republicans v. United States court case which ended DADT.

On September 29, 2011, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's decision, ruling that the legislative repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" rendered the case moot.

---After the fact!

Nobody is saying Obama wasn't going to, eventually, end DADT -- he was just scooped by the LCR court case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #134)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:23 AM

139. I checked the dates and I read, did you?

Even what you just regurgitate back to me with different words in bold doesn't support your claim that Republicans are responsible for ending DADT. Your last bold print tells you all you need to know. If their case was rendered moot, how are they responsible for ending it? Democrats were not scooped by anything LOL

Democrats and President Obama ended DADT, not Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #139)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:47 AM

144. It's crazy land. Democrats overwhelmingly do something. Republicans get credit.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #144)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:54 AM

147. It's an indicator of the hatred of the POTUS that people are willing to

contort things to give REPUBLICANS credit before they acknowledge something positive that President Obama, the Democrat whether they want to acknowledge it or not, has done.

Truly bizarre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CakeGrrl (Reply #147)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:02 AM

149. I'm sure, even, if the right wing SCOTUS shot it down, Obama would've been blamed.

"He didn't have to defend the case!"

Republicans get credit when it goes the progressive way, Obama gets blamed when it goes the repressive way. It's always been like that. I don't understand it, myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #144)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:34 AM

150. Thanks for adding the Vote tally Graph

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #144)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:22 AM

184. The thing is that vote was after the law was unenforceable.

The ruling the Log Cabin Republicans got rendered DADT unenforceable. Appeals began. Then Congress repealed the law.

Basically, the Log Cabin Republicans moved faster, but the appeal process would take quite a while to complete. Then the Democrats in Congress made the appeals moot. But we can't pretend Democrats were 'first-across-the-line' any more than Republicans can pretend their candidates are sane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #184)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:33 AM

188. It was still being enforced when the vote happened

On November 12, the Supreme Court denied the application to vacate the stay.
With the injunction stayed, enforcement of DADT resumed, but under stricter guidelines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #188)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:39 AM

190. Yes, appeals were pending, which is what I said

But there was no particular reason to expect the Log Cabin Republicans to fail in the end.

Then the Democrats lept in and repealed the law before the Log Cabin Republicans could finish what they started. But we can't pretend they did not get there first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #190)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:03 AM

194. Not quite what you said

You said "The thing is that vote was after the law was unenforceable.", which is what I responded to.

"The Democrats lept in" well I guess we can't ignore that Democrats, specifically Rep Martin T Meehan was trying to repeal it with Congress either, since 2005, then again in 2007 and 2009.

Either way in the end, the Democrats were responsible for ending it. The highest court in the land ruled against LCR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #194)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:28 PM

295. Now you're being fast and loose

The ruling against the LCR was on the basis of the case being moot. By the time it got there, the Democrats had finally passed a law to repeal it...but DADT remained in force for quite a while.

"I guess we can't ignore that Democrats, specifically Rep Martin T Meehan was trying to repeal it with Congress either, since 2005, then again in 2007 and 2009."

0 Democrats in the leadership were actively trying, and 0 Democrats in the White House were doing more than lip service to changing the law. The LCR victory seemed to galvanize the leadership into finally doing something about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #184)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:10 PM

275. Did you read that on Republican Underground?

You're certainly really, really into giving credit to republicans for Obama's executive order, in spite of the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capn Sunshine (Reply #275)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:32 PM

296. What executive order do you think repealed DADT?

So...executive orders can repeal laws now?

Here's the timeline:

LCR wins -> Appeals start, as usual decision is stayed pending appeal -> Democrats in Congress realize they should finally start moving before they look really, really bad. -> Congress changes the law -> LCR Appeal ruled moot, since Congress had changed the law (but the policy was still in force) -> Secretary of Defense and service chiefs certify ready for end of DADT -> DADT ends.

You'll note that doesn't start with Democrats doing something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #296)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:11 PM

299. Timeline is fail. It neglects the hard work of the 111th Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

DADT was not a priority, but to say it "doesn't start with the Democrats doing something" is the most farcical display of double-speak I've ever witnessed.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act was a Democratic endeavor, pushed for years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Readiness_Enhancement_Act

LCR is getting far too much credit as designed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #299)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 09:04 AM

306. Single-payer healthcare has been proposed in every congress since the 50s.

So clearly we have single payer health care, right?

Oh wait.....

I'm not arguing that no Democrats were pushing for repeal. Some were trying. But the Democratic House, Democratic Senate and Democratic White House failed to move forward until the LCR won their lawsuit.

In your mind, what, exactly, was preventing Congress from doing anything earlier?

Sure, there could have been a filibuster in the Senate, but not the House. And you really should go read that 2nd link. Even with majorities in both chambers, the bill you are pointing to did not get out of committee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #184)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:08 PM

287. No, it didn't. DADT went into a less strict form, but it was waiting on the SCOTUS.

If the SCOTUS voted for DADT, where would we be?

Meanwhile, a niche group of Republicans do not represent the Republicans as a whole.

Thus it is inaccurate to say "Republicans ended DADT" since that is a generalization about all Republicans.

It is more accurate to say "Some Republicans started a process that may have resulted in the ending of DADT."

Either way they are getting far more credit than they deserve.

Republican ideology, Republican representatives, Republican voters, they all overwhelmingly rejected the repeal of DADT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #287)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:35 PM

297. SCOTUS effectively ruled in favor of DADT.

The SCOTUS ruling happened after Congress put forward their plan to end the law. So SCOTUS decided the suit was moot, since the law in question was being dismantled anyway. But that ruling allowed DADT to remain in force for many more months. Depending on how pedantic one wanted to be, they ruled DADT could remain in force.

"Thus it is inaccurate to say "Republicans ended DADT""

It is also inaccurate to say "Democrats ended DADT". They had their thumb up their asses on that subject until the LCR made them look bad.

And I'm not giving the credit to the Republican party. You are putting words into my mouth.

This is a case where the not-religiously-insane parts of both parties managed to get something done. It just so happens that that portion of the Republican party is quite small. But this is not a clean "D" win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #297)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:55 PM

298. The LCR didn't "make them look bad." It was political gamemanship, and it *worked*.

Look at us, bickering over whether the Republicans ended DADT or not. Their approach was not guaranteed to succeed. And Obama and the Democrats had been pushing the repeal of DADT for years before the LCR made their move. There were other more important things such as HCR and stimulus stuff to get passed (this, btw, is why single issue voters threw Obama under the bus over DADT, because their single issue was more important).

The vote tally shows that in fact that, no "parts of both parties managed to get something done." It was an overwhelmingly Democratic party move. Look at the vote tally. Mostly Democrats. And yet, because LCR filed a lawsuit that wasn't guaranteed way to end DADT, they get more credit, at least to be as put in a category of "parts of both parties," when it was, again, an overwhelmingly Democratic Party move.

In fact DADT could've set worse precedent if it was upheld, which it could've been; I agree with you SCOTUS ruled "in favor" of DADT, but without leaving precedent, it's basically not a predictor of what they would've done, I don't know how it would've actually went and I fully admit that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #298)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 08:55 AM

305. You are bickering over whether the Republicans ended DADT or not

I'm doing no such thing. I'm pointing out that all the Democrats were standing around saying "bad law!" but not doing a damn thing about it until someone else made it impossible to ignore any longer. The fact that that other group has "Republican" in their name does not mean the Republicans get credit.

"And Obama and the Democrats had been pushing the repeal of DADT for years before the LCR made their move."

If only the Democrats had majorities in both houses of congress and the presidency. Why, they could have done something years earlier....oh wait, they did have those majorities and the White House. It's really odd to claim they were "pushing" for something yet couldn't even get a bill on the floor until after someone else got the ball rolling.

"And yet, because LCR filed a lawsuit that wasn't guaranteed way to end DADT, they get more credit"

Yes. Because they were actually DOING SOMETHING. Democrats had majorities in both houses and the White House yet didn't do anything to repeal DADT for roughly two years. There wasn't anything in their way, they just didn't bother to move forward. Thus, they ceded a lot of the credit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #305)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 08:44 PM

322. 2 years isn't a long time to overturn a law like that. You just THINK it is.

You've just fell victim to the instant gratification mentality that plagues a good deal of this country, so much that you actually think 2 years is a long time. And you are dead wrong on your timeline. The President ordered his people to start putting together a study to figure out the best way to prepare for the social changes in the military, if any were relevant, way before that 2 years was up. The problem isn't that they took too long. The problem is, you don't have any patience and your sense of what constitutes a "long time" is seriously flawed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #139)


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #108)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:48 AM

153. You try reading the link. I know the story already.

What it shows is that the administration was dragged into repeal kicking and screaming. They did everything possible to try t sabotage the LCR's case. Try reading the sentences you didn't cherrypick because they are not favorable to the president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #153)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:16 AM

178. The Republicans are not responsible for ending DADT

Your link doesn't support that. It also doesn't support that the administration was dragged kicking and screaming and did everything possible to try and sabotage the LCR case. FYI anytime a case is brought against the United States, the U.S. Dept of Justice has to defend laws, it is what they do. Unless you believe a defendant doesn't deserve legal representation.

The fact of the matter is, the Democrats and Obama are responsible for the passage and signing of the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. It's ok to criticize the administration and/or Democrats but it's not ok to try and give Republicans credit for doing something they did not do. That's when criticism is no longer criticism but has gone too far in rhetoric.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #90)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:52 PM

219. Here's a question--how does a stayed and mooted case overturn a law?

Answer: It doesn't.

The repeal of DADT did not happen through judicial action--it happened because of congressional repeal, despite the fantasies of the FDL crowd.

The case you cite is irrelevant and non-precedential. While an amusing outlier, its only value is to those who would use it for propaganda to preach to those too ignorant of basic civics to know better.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #219)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:59 PM

239. KILLING them, as usual msanthrope

KILLING them.

While an amusing outlier, its only value is to those who would use it for propaganda to preach to those too ignorant of basic civics to know better.

You got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #239)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:23 PM

246. agreed

I can truly, no TRULY say I've heard it all now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #239)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:09 PM

255. Thank you. I truly think FDL thinks its members are the stupidest people on the Internets.

They publish so much stuff that is demonstrably wrong that I can only assume that they think they can get away with it with their readership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #90)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:05 PM

292. LOL.

pwned again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #84)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:57 AM

94. All laid out for you

I posted this over a month ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100232148#post236

Way back in 2004 it was the Log Cabin Republicans who brought DADT to court (Log Cabin Republicans v. United States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States) which ruled FOR them (i.e. AGAINST DADT).
Obama had no option but to discontinue DADT, even though they asked for an injunction against the ruling. Prior to that there had been a lot of foot-dragging INCLUDING his DOJ using, in court, the Bushie argument that gays were prone to incest and bestiality.

Read http://www.thepostgameshow.com/?tag=barack-obama for more Obama DADT & DOMA goodness (with "America's Pastor' thrown in for good measure).


Still want to argue? Take it up with history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #94)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:29 AM

110. See post 108

Republicans are not responsible for ending DADT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #110)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:15 PM

276. yes, Republicans are not responsible for ending DADT

unless its really, really important that the President gets no credit for doing it.

You had best believe that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #82)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 12:24 PM

326. And yet all I heard from 99% of all Republicans was that ending DADT was a mistke

amd many even run a platform of reinstating it.

wow...Giving Republicans credit for something they wanted no part of.

Desperation to flog Obama and this importnt accomplishment, is amazing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #64)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:54 AM

172. Wow...

Everything that's wrong..Obama's fault. Obama does something good, and Repugs get the credit. That's exactly how THEY argue. Good job!

I think I've seen it all on DU now.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #64)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:25 AM

206. Barack Obama pursued and successfully overturned the ban on gays in the military. PERIOD.

Until the Supreme Court makes a final say, the lower court cases are not a finality. What the President did, was a finality. Historians will report it this way. He will rightfully be remembered by historians as the President that INTENTIONALLY changed the law and gave us a big civil rights victory. And there isn't one damn thing you can do to change that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #64)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:45 PM

218. This might be the worst Civics Fail I've seen on DU.

For the hell of it, can you explain to me how a stayed and now mooted case overturned 10 USC 654?

Specifically, explain to us how, in our constitutional system, a stayed and mooted case overturns a federal law. I'd be interested to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to one_voice (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:25 AM

157. OK, you asked

He doesn't have the support in congress...


So you're saying he's powerless? Then maybe he should not have been elected. But do beware the fallacy of "it's not the leader's fault, it's the people around him". Citizens (en masse) tend to believe that about every worst dictator, the likes of Stalin included. It really is a fallacy and is almost never true.

If Obama cannot do so much as close Guantanamo, maybe he really should not have been elected.

He did pass a healthcare bill...


"A" healthcare bill. Not the one he promised, and not the one people deserve. Watered down, dictated by the corporations, putting more money in their pockets. Great job.


He is a constitutional lawyer


Now explain how that matters or how it makes indefinite detention, extrajudicial assassinations and new wars taste any sweeter. Looking at what Obama has done, he seems to have as much respect for the constitution as Dubya did, he just never comes out and says it's just a damn piece of paper, because he knows better.

He did end DADT


Yeah, just what we needed: more willing cannon fodder for the military. You don't think it's a coincidence, do you, that of all the human-rights issues and progressive causes the only one he delivered on is the one that lets him send even more people to his criminal wars?

His family is beautiful....why is that a bad thing to say?


Um, because he won the presidency, not a fucking reality show? Look around, dictators tend to have handsome wives. I'm sure it makes the Gitmo prisoners feel much better about Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moodforaday (Reply #157)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:50 AM

169. Um..ok...

He passes a health care bill (by the way I didn't comment of the content) BAD Obama....

DADT ends....BAD OBAMA...cuz he's using teh gays for his evil reasons. What a fucking asinine thing to say

I didn't realize fucking complimenting someone was a bad thing..

How bout this...

President Obama is a good husband and father. His wife rocks, and his children are beautiful.

Oh, snap...what did I just do, Gitmo is still operating and I fucking complimented the president and his family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moodforaday (Reply #157)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:26 AM

186. "extrajudicial assassinations"?

So....what process do you think the constitution requires for assassinations?

'Cause all the copies of the Constitution I can find leave foreign policy 99.9999% up to the Executive branch, with Congress declaring war the only non-executive activity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to one_voice (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:01 PM

212. You failed logic ...

didn't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #212)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:51 PM

227. No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:45 PM

7. they want hugo chavez-style leadership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yodermon (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:00 PM

11. Who does? Who is they? Progressives? Liberals? The video makers? "professional leftists"?

 


If you believe that a brutal dictatorship is running Venezuela are you suggesting that any progressive who questions any of Obama's policies wants to see a dictatorship in the United States?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yodermon (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:59 PM

41. You say that like it's a bad thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:04 AM

129. Lol, I was just thinking the same thing. Chavez is able to get his government to

do such Liberal things as provide free education, free healthcare, provide housing for the poor, diminish poverty and illiteracy in his country by 50% at least, since he became president. I'll take that kind of leader, one who actually cares about his people.

This right-wing anti-Chavez garbage started showing up on democratic boards for some reason, a couple of years ago. Before that the left supported Latin America's democratically elected left leaning governments. Interesting how that happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #129)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:21 AM

138. Not really, there has always been a strong, but small opposition to Chavez from the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #138)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:45 AM

151. Very small. But since we learned from the Wikileaks cables

how much money is being spent on anti Chavez propaganda, it explains the weekly MSM articles that have appeared. And you get to know the so-called 'journalists', the Latin American versions of Judy Miller.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #151)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:18 AM

156. Then there's the fact that most "right wingers" in Venezuela are far left of our Democrats...

...but are regularly vilified. You look at slanders against HCR. Fortunately the Venezuelans aren't going to listen to foreigners meddling in their affairs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yodermon (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:13 AM

68. Oh, SNAP!

No, Freepers never say that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:46 PM

8. Choice quotes from the video:

"You wouldn't send your children to those schools either? What President's family has gone to the public schools in DC? Name one."

"What's the big deal, if you haven't done anything wrong you don't need to worry about terrorism laws. Those are for, like, terrorists. Indefinite detention? I don't even know what that means."

"Do you know they have an organic garden now at the White House?"

"Most of the people who oppose Obama are actually secret racists."

"He supported a Latino woman to the Supreme Court."

"What is Bagram, what does that mean?"

"He's got such a beautiful family."

I disagree with these childish, petulant, cruel characterizations of Obama supporters.

And I don't need to "toughen up." It's called maturity, civility, to disagree with these petulant, irrational, hateful comments about Obama supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:11 AM

66. Do I smell a DUDQ reunion in the air?...



NGU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ClassWarrior (Reply #66)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:20 AM

69. Nah.

The posts and responses speak for themselves. I doubt there will be an H&M outrage discussion. Bashing DU Obama supporters is par for the course here. I don't mind it so much, but I do think we could use more civility, such calls have fallen on deaf ears, unfortunately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:50 PM

9. "If he said what he really wants to say, he'd be assassinated"

I supposed this is one of those clever ads by so-called "progressives"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #9)


Response to ProSense (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:07 AM

100. Yep. The same "progressives" posting a dozen times in this thread denying every

accomplishment the president has had while simultaneously giving props to Republicans. Gotta love this place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:33 AM

112. alcibiades_mystery

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:03 PM

12. Have your fun now

 

Because in three months when the Mittster has wrapped it up, I don't think Skinner will take kindly to these types of posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:05 PM

14. I think you and I crossed paths on this before...

...maybe it was "REX"? Anyway, it'd be interesting if that happens. Doubt it though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:09 PM

15. I don't doubt it at all

 

Skinner's been clear on this. Once the Republican nominee has it locked up, anti-Obama posts will not be tolerated. Like I said last time, I think the process will be one stern warning via PM, followed by Tombstone-apolooza. Posts like this will not fly once Mitt has it locked up. Bank on it. If I'm wrong, I'll buy you a drink of your choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:11 PM

17. Not necessary!

If you're right I can put down the drink that it takes to read these posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:14 PM

19. i'll email you a Johnny Black on the rocks as an attachment

 

Can we do attachments in PMs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:19 PM

23. So you're claiming that absolutely no articles that express any criticism of President Obama's

 


policies on any issue will be allowed on Democratic Underground after the Republican Party convention.

Do I understand you correctly?

You're suggesting that Democratic Underground for all practical purposes will be transformed into an adjunct of President Obama's re-election campaign committee and that robust debate and discussion among progressive DU'ers on political issues will no longer be permissable on discussion boards.

Do I have that right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:25 PM

25. Well, the site is called 'Democratic Underground'

 

In the TOS the admins expect posters to support Democratic candidates for office. Since Obama is a Democrat, he's included in that. Some criticism of Obama from the left will probably be allowed, but not the types of criticism that you post. I'm not an admin and it isn't my decision. That's just my prediction.

I'm not trying to disparage you here. If you don't much care for Obama, that's your business. God knows there's plenty not to like. But election season is a different story for a political board with 'Democratic' in the title. I don't think posts that say that Obama is awful will be allowed to stand in an election year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:29 PM

28. The video isn't mocking Obama, it's mocking a small but very vocal segment of his fanbase.

I suspect that in many cases they're the sort of people who jump from one obsessive fandom to another, most of them apolitical in nature, and this is just their current stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftyMom (Reply #28)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:42 PM

31. So now we're making fun of Obama supporters? I thought us Liberals were above that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:58 PM

38. As I said, a small segment who engage in particularly obsessive behavior.

Every fan base has a few people who take it toooooo far. If Obama supporters were Trekkies, the people being poked fun at would be the people who have their weddings in Klingon costumes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftyMom (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:00 AM

42. I doubt any Trekkie would poke fun at a Klingon wedding. Starting to see my point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #42)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:04 AM

44. I'm a Trekkie. I just poked fun at people who have Klingon weddings.

Most people in any subculture are capable of observing that some people within the group lack a sense of proportion, and in general they tend to poke fun at that behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftyMom (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:20 AM

47. But you didn't poke fun at them. You just mentioned them without poking fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:30 AM

50. I brought up a ridiculous and extreme behavior as an analogy.

Merely pointing out that marriage in full Klingon regalia is on the outer boundary of weird in an already strange subculture implies some degree of mockery, as does using it as a somewhat extreme example for purpose of the analogy.

Now are you deeply offended on behalf of people who cut their wedding cake with a bat'leth or do you have a point to make?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftyMom (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:32 AM

51. I'm offended that someone would post a video that makes Lefty's look dumb and stupid.

Some people may believe these people are serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftyMom (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 06:01 PM

264. As opposed to the obsessive behavior that goes into

every single post of the original poster criticizing Obama?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:22 AM

73. As long as you're not a "Professional Leftist"

'cause every right-thinking, real Liberal knows how bad they suck.



Do I really need a sarcasm tag?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftyMom (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:12 AM

46. I know exactly what you mean

about "the sort of people who jump from one obsessive fandom to another", like the ones who yell:

"Michael Moore for President!"
"No! Matt Damon for President!"
"No! Cenk Ugyur for President!"

There was even an "Andrew Cuomo for President!" contingent here once upon a time - they didn't last very long.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #46)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:04 AM

59. Don't forget the Gov. of Maryland!

He said a cool thing one day on the TV and sure enough, there were DU calls for him to take the Presidency!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #59)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:27 AM

78. Well, the presidency does seem to be

a moving target for some - you know, "the sort of people who jump from one obsessive fandom to another".

I try to keep up, but it's not always possible. Today's perfect presidential candidate is often tomorrow's under-the-bus occupant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #46)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:10 AM

101. + a million. I just saw one particularly special Obama "detractor" call for Stephen Colbert

to run for president.

Yep. Stephen Colbert. No, I'm not joking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #101)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:16 AM

104. Are you talking about this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #104)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:29 AM

111. No, but thanks for posting that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #101)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:20 AM

106. And Stephen Colbert IS joking

which seems to be over the heads of more than a few folks.

Not to worry - for some, the perfect president is like a bus. There will be another one coming along any minute now. But don't get too attached to him - because there will be another one coming along a minute after that one.

Well, it's good for the economy. Think of all the "THIS GUY for President!" yard signs that get sold every forty-eight hours - followed by, "No, THIS guy!" signs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #106)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:00 AM

193. Joking is not the word for what Stephen Colbert is doing. He's making satire of the

entire process, mocking the hell out of the worst elements in our system. There is far more than a laugh sought with such work. A joke is a thing you can pay for. What he is doing priceless, and far surpasses a mere gag.
Sorry, he's engaging in interesting parodies of the electoral process designed to educate, enlighten and clarify. A joke just seeks a laugh. This parody, it has inside it many, many jokes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #46)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:49 AM

122. "Once upon a time" eh?

Awful lot of new posters on this thread who know a LOT about DU history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #122)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:54 AM

123. Newsflash

You don't have to be a registered DUer to be able to read what gets posted here every day.

Did you know that? I bet you did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #123)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:13 AM

133. Curious

that anyone would follow months and months of posts on a board and never join it. But, no, I'm sure that's the answer. There couldn't possibly be another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #133)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:24 AM

140. Well, for some people

things are very black-and-white, cut-and-dry.

That would be people with no imagination, no concept of real life reasons why someone would choose to be a lurker rather than a participant.

If you're into the "conspiracy theories" behind such attitudes, there are entire websites devoted to same. You might want to check them out.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #133)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:46 AM

166. i find curious the quiet lurking

for soooooooooooooo long and then the multiple post jump ins

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SwampG8r (Reply #166)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:08 AM

175. Maybe that is what gives

them the courage to be so aggressive once they do begin to post. All that knowledge that they have quietly been gaining by lurking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #133)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 02:06 PM

313. LOL...says the guy who

Just registered in 2010?

Quite the DU Historian yourself, there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:14 PM

243. It also has 'Underground' in the title.

As in not mainstream Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #243)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:38 PM

249. Is that what that means?

 

I don't know about that. Maybe you're right, maybe not. But 'Underground' can be interpreted in a number of ways.

My guess is that it had more to do with expressing opposition to the Bush administration, since Skinner has stated that the inspiration for the site in the first place was his desire for a forum dedicated to opposing Bush, especially given the manner in which he became president. I've never heard him say the site was inspired by antipathy toward the Democratic mainstream or intended to serve as a place for registering opposition to the Democratic mainstream.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #249)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:24 PM

259. Well, for a lot of us

it's been much more than just expressing opposition to the Bush administration. It's also a forum for liberals and progressives to voice concerns when our own party wouldn't. In fact a lot of us not only criticized the Bushies but also the Democrats that enabled them. When Democrats do things that deserve criticism while the "mainstream" of the party prefers to look the other way, we have to speak out.

In the 7+ years I've been here, I've seen plenty of criticism of Democrats as long as the discourse is civil and honest. And frankly, the criticisms of President Obama I've seen expressed here are tame in comparison to the "discussions" of our candidates during the primaries.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:27 PM

26. You call this criticism of President Obama?

Do I have that right? As I recall the poster you are responding to was talking about posts like this one. How are you being a critic of President Obama with posts like this? This is non productive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:29 PM

29. I thought this was just a lighthearted parody.

I didn't realize it was criticism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:17 AM

180. You never loved him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggo (Reply #180)


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:25 AM

76. They must not have signed the oath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:03 AM

128. This OP is not an article about issues. This is a video about how "stupid" Obama supporters are.

It's a deliberate piece of voter-suppressing snark. It does not support the goal of electing Democrats to office, frankly.

You might want to go over the TOS one more time. No more 'rules,' but there's a point in time where you're taking your chances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #128)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:18 AM

136. Voter suppression, yep, name of the game. It's disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #128)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:36 AM

159. Waa, were you offended?

So it's okay to make idiotic, meaningless arguments in discussion about life-and-death issues ("nice family", "constitutional lawyer"), but it's not okay to call people on that? Yay for free speech and all progressive causes! With such supporters, who needs right-wingers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moodforaday (Reply #159)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:43 AM

162. Offended by what, specifically?

I don't offend easily. I thought the little video was stupid and flame-baitish, but I wasn't "offended" by it. It could have come straight out of the RNC, it had so little thought put into it.

I thought a "Go to hell" is about what it deserved, too.

You fling shit, you shouldn't be surprised if it gets flung back. Give as good as one gets, and all that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:48 AM

145. If you are perceived by most as someone trying to depress the vote for Barack Obama

Last edited Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:59 AM - Edit history (2)

I feel certain you will be relieved of your posting privileges here, yes.

There is a such thing as constructive criticism of the President. This OP is not that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #145)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:49 AM

168. +1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:35 AM

158. No, of course you don't "have that right."

by the time you add a ton of straw to the mix, you have yet another misrepresentation.

Your posts are full of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:21 PM

281. better to support democrats than be a stooge of rience priebus....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:55 PM

35. Why?

 

This is not ObamaUnderground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emilyg (Reply #35)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:57 PM

37. I'm sure you're quite familiar with the PUMA purge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emilyg (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:59 AM

96. Except once the Republicans have a nominee

 

It will be Obama Underground. Because there will be a clear choice between a Democrat and a Republican. From what I can tell, Skinner doesn't share the Marxist or anarchist leanings of many DUers. He's a loyal Democrat and it's his site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #96)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:15 AM

103. Do you think there are a lot of marxists and anarchists on this site?

And if you do, do you think much of DU is made up of folks on the fringe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #103)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:41 AM

115. Yes and yes

 

DU is far to the left of the Democratic party mainstream. The Socialist Progressives group has 111 members. That's pretty high for a group. The Barack Obama Group has 186.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #115)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:00 AM

127. Yes

 

Starting with the DLC, we know where the party has gone. OBAMA 2012!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #96)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:06 AM

131. Interestingly, there are Marxists and anarchists here who support Obama.

They will be allowed to post as they were during 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008.

Why? Because they aren't kneejerk single issue posters.

I really support Obama because I find the "Marxists" and "State Socialists" to be a much much more dangerous threat than social democrats. Their ideology is far more dangerous than a social capitalist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #131)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:12 AM

132. I agree with you

 

There are people of all stripes who support Obama here. But generally speaking, if you're a Marxist, you probably aren't keen on the Democrats, Obama, or the two-party system in general. And why would you be? If you believe all of that, you aren't likely to support a man like Obama.

Ironically, though I'm far from a Marxist, I support the president for some of the same reasons many of them do. He doesn't stand for me or represent what I believe in, but he's closest thing to that that's viable. And that's enough for my vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:00 AM

126. Indeed. That is in the TOS, and he also said something about folks who get themselves a

"reputation." So, even if posts are alerted on and permitted to stand, it does create a permanent record of sorts, that comments were sufficiently disturbing to cause an alert in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #126)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:38 PM

220. And the true purpose behind pounding alert is out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 12:40 PM

328. This video gives a bunch of reasons to support Obama.

Some reasons that some other DUers will also be suggesting. Why would it be blocked?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #328)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 12:44 PM

329. I'm talking more about the headline

 

I don't think Skinner is going to want Obama supporters to be characterized as 'desperately disillusioned' during the general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #329)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 01:03 PM

330. You may have a point with the title. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:10 PM

16. The presupposition of that title is that ...

It was made (and is apparently being promoted) by people who are not Obama supporters, i.e., Obama opponents. Pretty soon, that's going to be a nonstarter here. If this is advocacy for not supporting Obama in the upcoming elections, then ... well, you know the drill. Get the licks in while you can.

PS: I didn't bother watching the video, because any link to common dreams is a label that says 'self-indulgent hyperbolic bullshit' to me.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:13 PM

18. LOL. Great stuff!



K and R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:18 PM

22. LOL. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:35 PM

30. Trash n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:44 PM

32. The OP seems to only REC articles that are negative of Obama. Not even a REC for the pipeline. SMH

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:53 PM

34. You don't do a very good job monitoring posts. You "missed" this one:

 



» General Discussion (Forum) » Center for Biological Div...

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 08:03 PM

Better Believe It

Center for Biological Diversity: Obama to Reject Keystone XL Pipeline

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002184040

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:59 PM

40. Nope. Not showing up in your recs on your profile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:51 AM

56. ROFL, they posted that thread. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:08 AM

62. Seriously?

It's exactly this kind of thing that makes some of think the loyalty patrol are a little...intense. And BBI posted it and you didn't rec it either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #62)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:20 AM

71. What's exactly this kind of thing? Me pointing out facts?

The "loyalty patrol" are probably "intense" because the professional crybabies are seemingly delusional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #71)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:22 AM

74. What "fact" did you point out with that post?

You missed the fact that he was the OP...yes? And professional crybaby...well, I'll be adopting that formula to what I think about people who count the recs on other people's profiles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #74)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:25 AM

77. You missed the fact that that wasn't the point of my fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #77)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:27 AM

79. Your quote: "Nope. Not showing up in your recs on your profile."

He. posted. the. link. he. is. showing. you. in. his. post. It is a positive story about Obama. Do you need pictures?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #79)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:36 AM

83. My point was that ALL of the OP's recs were for negative articles about Obama. That was my point.

And Ironically, although the poster did in fact post an article he/she still in fact still didn't rec it. Which means that a glance at the OP's recs it shows that all the OP recs are negative articles about the President. That on top of posting this BS. It stereotypes the Left EXACTLY how the RW sees them (earthy, ex-hippie, un-informed). It wouldn't surprise me if it was made by a RWer either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink