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, 66142 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


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #83)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:42 AM

87. Some people don't like to rec their own posts. They think it's stupid and self-aggrandizing.

Why didn't you just click on the link to go see the nice positive story that he posted? Have you recc'd it yet? I don't click on people's profiles and count, so I'm not sure if you did, but if you didn't, it might be nice to get it on the greatest page as a move towards credibility. Your credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #87)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:51 AM

91. What are you talking about?! I DID click the link, that's not the point. Whoosh over your head.

My credibility? Says who, You? Another smug elitist that continues chasing away any of the sane thinkers in this party. The people with ZERO credibility are those who cry because Obama didn't get to their pet issue or feel disappointed in him because the entire fucking universe revolves around them and their whiney nit-pickey fucking pet issues. I can't afford a republican President. Is that plain enough for you or are you going to rally the troops to "stay home on election day and send Obama a message!".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #91)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:56 AM

93. A smug elitist who recommended his link, so I'm one up on you.

Sane, hmm, don't want to get a hidden post. Let's say, if I met you on a bus, I'd move to a different seat. Fair enough?

What whiney nit-pickey issues might those be, oh man of the people? Please, spell it out for a smug elitist like me. I warn you though, it's the Republicans who usually call teachers "elitist" so your credibility with me just took another dive down. But, please...do elaborate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #93)


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #97)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:06 AM

99. Aww.

I hope this is *exactly* the kind of behavior you exhibit when making calls to GOTV. Should go over so well on aggrieved potential voters. Did you rec BBI's nice thread on the pipeline yet? One would think you are shying away from doing so out of spite! But that can't possibly be true, surely you'd want to be the 5th vote, the one that gets it on the Greatest Page. I mean, if you care about the issue. SMH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #99)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:11 AM

102. And THAT kind of smug condescending elitism. Keep it coming. You are becoming a parody of yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #102)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:18 AM

105. I'm only the mirror for parody.

Did you rec the nice positive Obama thread of BBI's? Your deep caring for the pipeline issue was so touching, I can see how you were moved to draw BBI's attention to it. You didn't feel a flood of relief that the poster had posted an in-depth link that would put your fears to rest? Funny, it's usually Republicans who call leftists who care about the environment "elitist". Or people who exhibit a love of words and logic. But perhaps OFA has opened up a new branch to channel your abilities?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #105)


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #109)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:37 AM

114. Oh my yes!

Why would I want this to end? I imagine how President Obama, who I voted for in the Primaries and the General in 2008 would think, reading posts like yours and I chortle. Republicans called him an elitist too. Code for something else, I'm sure. He'd be *proud as punch* to know that his putative "supporters" were using it on a liberal board in his "defense"! Pat yourself on the back!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #114)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:43 AM

118. There you go again, making believe you know what would make people "proud as punch".

That's pretty smug, and elitist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #118)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:16 AM

135. Well gosh, honey.

There's a hidden post for you now. You can find that in your profile, I think, under Transparency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #99)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:56 AM

173. i gave it the number five nt (out of spite over this conversation) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SwampG8r (Reply #173)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:13 AM

177. Thank you!

It really is a good post. I'm surprised that many of the people abusing the OP here for never posting a positive story didn't rush to rec it. I'd think they'd be interested in wide circulation of a story that would win voters, that being their stated goal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #177)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:16 AM

179. it is a good post i didnt

feel it was undeserving of the rec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #79)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:37 AM

85. Apparently the problem is that he did not rec his own post.

Failure to be sufficiently self-aggrandizing, or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftyMom (Reply #85)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:43 AM

89. +1

I should have read your post first. It took me 3 minutes to think of "self-aggrandizing" as the phrase I needed. D'oh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #71)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:21 AM

183. Nobody cries louder than The Loyalty Patrol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggo (Reply #183)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 06:12 PM

266. That's true.

Say anything critical at all about Obama, and the loyalists act like you just slapped their mother in the face.
Personal insults, calling you "anti-Obama", a "hater", etc. (For the record, I will be voting for Obama.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:35 AM

189. I posted the article on Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Why didn't you?

 


And why did you not recommend the article if you're monitoring all of my posts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:39 AM

160. Oh wait....

You missed that "one?"



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:41 AM

53. Policing the forums for signs of Obama disloyalty,

keeping tabs on people's votes... is that what you like to do?

Frankly, it's creeping me out since there seem to be so many of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleko (Reply #53)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:23 AM

75. LOL. Yeah, "policing the forums". By checking someones PUBLIC PROFILE? Get a HUGE GRIP!

Suppressing someone's free-speech....Is that what you like to do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #75)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:42 AM

88. Shouting in all caps

is an attempt to intimidate and shut people up. So much for suppressing free speech.

Acting like a policeman ferreting out suspicious anti-Obama activity creeps me out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleko (Reply #88)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:53 AM

92. You make no sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #92)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:59 AM

95. It's ok if you don't get it.

Others will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleko (Reply #95)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:05 AM

98. No, really, no one will. Because it doesn't make sense. Here's why:

1- You claim I used ALL CAPS, uhhh, no. Look again. 2- I couldn't be doing what you accuse me of because I didn't do it (use all caps) and also because that's not even what all caps is used for. Where did you even pull that one from? Is there some internet guide about the use of all caps that I must have missed reading? 3- If I didn't use all caps, and didn't even know that YOU think that's what all caps is used for your point is moot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #98)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:44 AM

120. You wrote

"75. LOL. Yeah, "policing the forums". By checking someones PUBLIC PROFILE? Get a HUGE GRIP!"

Using all caps for several consecutive words in a combative string of sentences is widely considered shouting on the net.

Shouting down an opponent is a crude attempt to intimidate and silence others.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #98)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:37 PM

236. I get it!

I do NOT however get your username as most of the criticism is coming from the left leaning base, or the "liberal retards" as Obama's former Chief of Staff called us.

How about FarModerateFist? Just a suggestion. Seems to fit you better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleko (Reply #95)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:35 AM

142. I got it! Lol!

So, we have to worry now about what we rec! Creepy is right!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #142)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:57 AM

148. They have a little list...

(Mikado reference )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #148)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:39 PM

285. The Party Commissars of the old Soviet Union used to do the same thing!

Hmmm!



Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #148)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:16 PM

294. You beat me to the Mikado reference

(As updated by Eric "Python" Idle)

If someday it may happen that a victim must be found
I've got a little list, I've got a little list
Of society's offenders who may well be underground
And who never would be missed, they never would be missed.

There are interior designers, window dressers and that sort
And grubbers who retire in strings the minute they get caught
Or those who have their noses pierced, or men who dye their hair
Or idiots who host chat shows and disc jockeys everywhere
And customs men who fumble through your underwear, insist
They'd none of them be missed, they'll none of them be missed.

He's got them on a list, he's got them on a list
And they'd none of them be missed, they'll none of them be missed.

There are people with pretentious names like Justin, Trish and Rob
And the gynecologist, I've got him on the list
Or muggers, joggers, buggers, floggers, people who play golf
They never would be missed. They never would be missed.

Or waitresses who make you wait, accountants of all kinds
And actresses who kiss and tell and wiggle their behinds
And pouncy little singers who to entertain us try
By dressing up as women and by singing far too high
And who on close observance must be either stoned or pissed
I don't think they'd be missed, I'm sure they'd not be missed.

He's got them on a list, he's got them on a list
And they'd none of them be missed, they'll none of them be missed.

There are the beggars who write letters from the Inland Revenue
And the gossip columnist, I've got him on the list
Comedians and weightlifters and opera singers, too
They'd none of them be missed, they'd none of them be missed.

Or traffic wardens, bankers, men who sell Venetian blinds
Or people who wear silly ties, Australians of all kinds
And nasty little editors whose papers are the pits
Who fill their rags with gossip and with huge and floppy.. er.. wrists
But anyway I think by now you must have got the gist
They'd none of them be missed. They'll none of them be missed.

He's got them on a list, he's got them on a list
And they'd none of them be missed, they'll none of them be missed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #142)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:12 AM

154. I have just about stopped reccing things altogether because of that..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #142)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:59 AM

210. signs, signs everywhere, but what am i to think?

to believe my lying eyes, or dare myself to blink?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #142)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:55 PM

251. I got it too.

In fact I got it a long time ago and is why I have stayed out many threads. Not anymore. I will not be intimidated and give them power that they do not have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #142)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 06:15 PM

267. Loud and clear

& definitely creepy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleko (Reply #95)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:19 AM

195. I got it

Blatantly clear to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:41 AM

54. Are you stalking this poster here at DU?

Isn't there some better use of your time here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #54)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:21 AM

72. Huh? Checking someones PUBLIC PROFILE is "stalking"? Calm down. Really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #72)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:08 PM

254. Using what you find in their profile as a means to intimidate is very orwellian.

Checking their profile is fine, posting an accusation based on what recs they may or may not have made is like saying beware.....

“Big Brother is Watching You.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unapatriciated (Reply #254)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:16 PM

257. 'They better watch what they say, or recommend'!

Sad, isn't it that the 'left' has stooped to such tactics in order to do what?? What exactly is the purpose of these witch hunt-like tactics? Can't they defend their positions, assuming they have positions that are not in line with the Democratic Party's platform? My feeling is they cannot so they resort to the standard ploy of attacking the messenger and now to looking up their profiles to get 'dirt' on them.

Despicable, frankly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:06 AM

60. *1000000000. I noticed that long ago!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:20 AM

70. Case in point.

See my post #53.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:46 PM

33. K & R

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, 11:55 PM

36. Bingo, the Movie!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:23 AM

49. Here:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #49)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:30 AM

80. Who mentioned Ron Paul?

well, other than josh in his sig line

hmmmm....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #80)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:01 AM

174. she is fighting ron paul on this board by being the only person posting about him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SwampG8r (Reply #174)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:11 AM

176. You know

"she is fighting ron paul on this board by being the only person posting about him"

...I like calling out Ron Paul, but you're wrong. I'm not "the only person posting about him"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002154246

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002151113

Just thought you should know that you're wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #176)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:22 AM

185. i did see those when i went back out to the ....what is it a lobby?

you waste your energy on paul
he was as rejected as romney is by the gop mainstream
as to being wrong i am wrong all the time
i have learned to live with it
being right or wrong on tiny secondary points isnt all that important to me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #49)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:58 PM

225. You're

calling EFerrari a Paulbot?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #225)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 06:57 PM

273. Yes.

That's the insinuation.

According to ProSense and her most ardent followers, DU is infested with "insane", "douchebag" Obama-haters "hyping Ron Paul".
An infestation which they have to fight with every means possible, including such Rovian tactics as guilt by insinuation and attempted character assassination.

Hilarious to behold if it wasn't so sickeningly familiar from the perception management strategies used during the Bush years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #49)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:55 PM

228. That's strange

Why did you feel the need to reply to Eferrari with a post that links back to a post you created about Ron Paul?

Where did she mention Ron Paul?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:21 AM

48. So sad, so true, so funny. Thank you for posting this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:44 AM

55. ha!

 

these kinds of rationalizations for Obama are made everyday right here at DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:57 AM

57. What? No ponies? No magic wands?

No 'he's not a dictator'?!

Slackers.






KIDDING!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #57)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:02 AM

58. Free ponies for everyone!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:10 AM

65. The biggest plant from the right is alive and posting. Disgusting!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:12 AM

67. Right on! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:39 AM

86. RIGHT on! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:22 AM

107. A witch! A witch!!!

Any Puritan descendants of Salem judges here?
Any descendants of Mather? (Cotton or Increase, shan't be picky.)
...or Bernardo Gui?
How about Joey McCarthy? --Roy Cohn for a bonus!

Any would do!

Heck, even a well-thumbed copy of the Malleus Maleficarum would suffice.

And if worse comes to worse, there are still those immortal words: "Burn her anyway! Burn her anyway!!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #107)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:41 AM

116. A well-thumbed perusal

of the OP's posting history speaks for itself.

One anti-Obama/anti-Dem cut-and-paste after another. Sometimes the evidence speaks for itself. Loud and clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #116)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:20 AM

137. I am somewhat familiar with the OP's

postings. IIRC they are always cited, nor do I ever recall any "anti-Dem" postings.

If you don't like what BBI posts, seems to me the argument is not with him/her but with the person/people decisions and actions s/he is posting about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #137)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:27 AM

141. Check out the OP's journal

and tell me there aren't any anti-Dem postings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #137)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:25 PM

282. "nor do I ever recall any "anti-Dem" postings"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #116)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:42 AM

143. Maybe because you're new you are not familiar with this OP who is highly respected

around here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #143)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:48 AM

200. ROFL!!...

Highly respected? Maybe by those not familiar with the OP's full posting history, and non-Obama related opinions.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #200)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:21 PM

245. that post man....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #143)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:39 PM

221. DUZY!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #221)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:34 PM

260. Really? Correcting the smear campaign against a respected DUer

is, in your opinion, worthy of a DUZY?

I'm beginning to agree with the majority opinion that the standards are getting lower and lower, assuming this IS now the standard. Maybe you can explain how this happened so we can all engage in these tactics? I thought it was against CS, but I could be wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #143)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:53 PM

223. Highly respected? <snicker>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #223)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:39 PM

237. Yes, highly respected.

By a majority here as this thread alone demonstrates. I see a half a dozen responses from people who seem hurt, using the little 'look at me rolling on the floor laughing' thingie, but the rest get political humor, some of them even Obama supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #143)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:57 PM

224. ROFL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scurrilous (Reply #224)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:05 PM

240. You just can't make this stuff up, can you?

This thread is a shining beacon of DU Head in Sand-ness. There is soooo much fail in this thread (from the OP and his supporters) but so much win too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #240)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 06:24 PM

268. I guess we missed the investiture.

I deem thee highly respected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scurrilous (Reply #268)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 06:30 PM

270. Why, thank you! I will return the favor, Sir Scurrilous and deem thee extra SPECIAL highly respected



You just have to laugh at these folks. A "highly respected" DUer would never post such asinine tripe. And no other "highly respected" DUers would rec it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #143)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:05 PM

274. A "new" registrant

is not necessarily a "new" reader of DU.

I am quite familiar with the OP's cut-and-pastes, and have been for some time (as is the case with anyone who reads this site on a regular basis - he's kind of hard to miss).

I see that your opinion that the OP is "highly respected" here drew quite a few guffaws.

The only reason the OP garners recs is because there are those here who will 'rec' anything that is anti-Obama, anti-Dem Party - and not due to his being "highly respected".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #274)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:20 PM

280. Lol, let's see ~

'4 guffaws' from pretty predictable sources as opposed to 66 recs so far?

Surely as a longtime reader you expected those 'guffaws'. I know I did, along with maybe about two or three more. This place is nothing if not predictable to those who've been around for a while.

But 66 - 4? The math supports my statement, sorry to disappoint you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #280)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:35 PM

283. As I said

the OP gets recs from those who will 'rec' anything that is anti-Obama/anti-Dem.

And the math supports THAT statement - along with the "predictable" list of posters who consistently rec anything that puts Obama in a bad light, regardless of source.

The fact that this place is now overrun with anti-Obama posters is unfortunate on a site that calls itself "supportive" of Democrats - but that's the way things are. And THAT is my only disappointment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #283)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:30 PM

289. No, the OP got recs for 'humor'.

Political humor is a tradition and it's not our fault if a few people are unable to laugh at it when they see it.

The truth is you were wrong, singling out a few posts as proof that I was wrong, now you are moving the goal posts. My statement was that the OP is respected here, the math proved me right.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #289)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:11 PM

293. I was not restricting my remarks

Last edited Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:47 PM - Edit history (1)

to this particular OP/discussion thread, but was speaking more broadly about why this OP gets 'recs' on all of his cut-and-paste postings.

If you will go back in this thread, you will see that this discussion started with my post stating that: "A well-thumbed perusal of the OP's posting history speaks for itself."

Your statement that the "OP is respected here" seems to be based on his OPs being rec'd - this one and his innumerable other cut-and-paste jobs.

I do not equate 'recs' with 'respect' - especially when, as I have said, there are those here who will rec ANYTHING that is anti-Obama/anti-Dem - a category in which this particular OP knows no peer.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #293)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 12:27 AM

301. This is a Democratic board. Probably 99.9% of the posters here are Democrats.

You don't seem able to understand that Democrats have differences of opinion on how politicians WE work hard to elect, are handling those issues. You are wrong about this OP, the recs he gets are because he is a respected, relatively longtime poster who has earned that respect. As a new member, you are probably not in a position to read people's minds here.

Which is what your last sentence is trying to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #301)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:14 AM

302. Reading people's minds?

Hardly.

I simply pointed out that if you look at the people who consistently 'rec' BBI's anti-Obama OPs, they are the same people who consistently rec any OP that is anti-Obama.

Thanks to the new transparency of who 'recs' which OPs, no mind-reading is necessary.

You keep pointing out that I am "new" here. And as I have pointed out, time and again, being a new poster has no bearing on how long anyone has been reading this site. No doubt a site as prominent as DU has thousands of long-time readers who do not participate as registered posters.

"You don't seem able to understand that Democrats have differences of opinion ..."

Thanks for the condescending attitude, but I am well aware of that fact - as are many posters here who are supportive of this President and the Party he belongs to, who are disparaged daily for having a "difference of opinion" with those who see things differently - especially those who comb the internet for anti-Obama/anti-Dem articles to cut-and-paste without respite.

Again you seem to equate 'recs' with being respected. I don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #302)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 03:52 AM

304. Reading is not the same as interacting, getting to know people, sometimes even meeting

them. I read lots of websites I am not a registered member of and there is no way I can judge the interactions of the regular, longtime users the way I could if I had been a member for a long time.

Interesting that NOW you don't 'equate recs with being respected', considering it was YOU who brought that particular subject up.

YOU are the one who placed so much importance on how many people, (four to be exact) who disagreed with me. Seemed to mean something to you then. Did you forget why I pointed out the recs on this OP?? Because YOU seemed to think that people's agreement or disagreement was extremely important.

I did not raise that issue, but since YOU DID, I pointed out that you had overlooked the number of recs the OP had, (now up to 70).

If something is not important to you, then don't make such a big deal over it next time and then when you lose the battle you started, claim it's not important after all. People reading your comment to me, which was far from respectful, surely thought that recs WERE VERY important to you.

You jumped into this thread and were not only condescending, you were downright unpleasant to people you do not know at all, and in attack mode.

Now you are complaining, AFTER setting the tone, when people respond to your accusations and 'investigations' of longtime DUers. And then you have the nerve to call others 'condescending'? No one knows you here, yet you acted like you owned the place. Not a good way to win friends.

And we need no lectures from you on Democrats. Most people here are lifelong Democrats just FYI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #304)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 03:32 PM

314. Sorry, sabrina, but you're wrong

Go back and read our entire exchange.

At the outset, I stated: "I see that your opinion that the OP is "highly respected" here drew quite a few guffaws."

I did not place any particular importance on that; it was merely a statement of fact. I also said "a few" guffaws, which could hardly be read as "thinking that people's agreement or disagreement was extremely important."

I then stated: "The only reason the OP garners recs is because there are those here who will 'rec' anything that is anti-Obama, anti-Dem Party - and not due to his being 'highly respected'."

How you can equate that with my thinking that 'recs' are important is beyond me. I was clearly saying the opposite; that recs do not equal "respect", and are therefore NOT important when judging a poster's 'respectability' or lack thereof.

You then said: "'4 guffaws' from pretty predictable sources as opposed to 66 recs so far. But 66 - 4? The math supports my statement." Plainly it was you who brought up the 'importance' of recs as a measure to be used, not I.

I then reiterated that "the OP gets recs from those who will 'rec' anything that is anti-Obama/anti-Dem. And the math supports THAT statement - along with the "predictable" list of posters who consistently rec anything that puts Obama in a bad light, regardless of source."

Surely you would agree that the anti- and pro-Obama supporters here are well known to all. Those who will consistently rec anti-Obama posts and who will consistently rec pro-Obama posts is predictable as a result. (And if you honestly believe that using the feature that shows who rec'd a particular thread constitutes "investigation" - well, that is so outlandish a concept, I am left speechless.)

As for your statement, "Interesting that NOW you don't 'equate recs with being respected', considering it was YOU who brought that particular subject up," my opinion NOW is the same as it has been throughout our exchange. I stated several times that recs do not equal respect. It was you who kept bringing up how many recs this OP has, not me.

To state that I am "NOW" saying something different is a blatant mis-characterization, as it implies I said something at the outset and then changed my position. I have maintained the same position throughout: recs do not equal respect.

As to your statement: "People reading your comment to me, which was far from respectful, surely thought that recs WERE VERY important to you."

How could anyone reading my comments come to the conclusion that recs are VERY IMPORTANT to me? By saying that recs don't equal respect? By saying that recs on certain OPs, based on their anti- or pro-Obama content, are predictable as coming from the same people from both factions?

It seems clear I am saying the exact opposite of recs being important.

Our exchange is here for all to see - and if I said anywhere that recs are important, or that they are a measure of a poster being "highly respected", I invite you to point that out.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #314)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 04:11 PM

315. Well, since most of us rarely comment on the responses to a particular post,

when someone does, and does so to bolster their own position, it is only natural to assume that it means something to that person, otherwise what is the point of mentioning it?

"The only reason the OP garners recs is because there are those here who will 'rec' anything that is anti-Obama, anti-Dem Party


No, there are not 'those here who will 'rec' anything that is anti-Obama, anti-Dem Party'. If there are they are so few as to most likely be rightwing infiltrators who are generally dealt with pretty quickly.

Who is here, are a vast majority of people who are Democrats, most of whom worked very hard to get this president elected. To make such a blanket statement about DUers is simply wrong and removes credibility from someone who would make that statement.

What Democrats here will do, unlike Republicans who marched in lock-step and supported every wrong decision made by Bush, is to criticize any Democrat who is pushing policies that are not in line with Democratic Party Principles.

Thank you, but I spent eight years stunned by the blind support given by even semi-rational Republicans to Bush and anyone who dared to criticize him was accused of disloyalty.

That's not my Party. I am not a Republican. I don't do lockstep no matter how painful it is to have to admit that our own party falls short way more often than we care to admit.

I do not intend ever to remain silent when a Democrat, such as those who are now supporting SOMA, is doing the wrong thing for the American people. That does NOT translate to 'willing to support anything that is anti-Democrat'. And how anyone who is a Democrat could come to that conclusion is beyond me. What it means is that we care that this party remain true to its principles because if it does not, what is left? So do not assume things about people you do not know, you could not be wrong in your rush to judgement here.

Citizens are supposed to hold their Representatives accountable. So we said to Republicans many, many times and some of us meant it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #315)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 04:54 PM

316. "Well, since most of us rarely comment ...

... on the responses to a particular post ..." Surely you're joking. This entire thread is full of people commenting on each others' responses to this particular post, as is the case in most threads on this board.

I stand by my assertion that there are people who consistently rec OPs that are anti-Obama or pro-Obama. A quick look at who is rec'ing any given OP reveals that. Both 'sides' do it, because they want whichever OP they are rec'ing (because they agree with its content) to have prominence.

"I do not intend ever to remain silent when a Democrat, such as those who are now supporting SOMA, is doing the wrong thing for the American people. That does NOT translate to 'willing to support anything that is anti-Democrat'."

We were having a discussion about who recs OPs on DU, a discussion board, not about Democrats at large. I never implied that criticism of Dems equates to being willing to support anything that is anti-Democratic.

But there are those here who consistently rec any OP that puts the Party or the President in a bad light. The same names pop up over and over, like clockwork.

It will interesting to see how many of those posters leave DU, if and when the 'election mode' rules kick in. I suspect that many of them will leave if there are no more such OPs to rec. But time will tell.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #316)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 05:10 PM

317. So you are for censorship of discussion of important issues?

You are hoping that longtime DUers, who worked all of their adult lives for the Democratic Party will be forced to leave a website they have belonged to, many of them, for ten years?

As a new member, that strikes me as an extremely odd position for you to take. Were you here when those same Democrats were knocking on doors, holding meet-ups to get Democrats elected, spending money many could not really afford?

I certainly hope you are not speaking for the Admins. of DU. That this desire to see anyone who dares to raise important issues that seriously affect this country, kicked off a Democratic site is your own opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #317)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 06:29 PM

318. No, sabrina

I am not for censorship of discussion of important issues.

I am not hoping that long-time DUers will be 'forced' to leave.

Again you attribute a 'position' to me that I never expressed.

And no, I don't speak for the Admins - except in that I referred to 'election mode' rules, which are the Admin's rules, not mine. Those rules state that posts that are anti our Democratic nominee for POTUS, or other Democrats running for office, will not be allowed in the lead-up to the election.

Again, their rules - not mine. And if they deem anyone to be breaking those rules, said posters will be 'forced to leave' by virtue of their own conduct.

That this desire to see anyone who dares to raise important issues that seriously affect this country, kicked off a Democratic site ..."

Please point out where I said anything about a "desire to see anyone who dares to raise important issues" kicked off the site?

What I said was that those who are here strictly for the purpose of rec'ing negative OPs about Obama and/or the Party will probably leave if there are no such OPs to rec. I said nothing about any of them being 'forced to leave', but suggested that some of them might of their own volition once the 'election' rules are in place.

If you believe that putting an end to negative OPs about Obama or Democrats in the lead-up to November's election is equivalent to 'censoring the raising of important issues', I suggest you express that opinion to the Admins.

DU is no different than any other political discussion board. There are those here who are not Democrats, nor are they here for any well-intentioned purpose. That is just the nature of such websites, and many infiltrators are quite adept at posing as Dems (or RWers on Republican sites) in order to be accepted by other posters as being that which they are not. To believe otherwise is quite naive.

I would appreciate it if you would stop 'interpreting' my words to mean something different, and sometimes the complete opposite of what I have actually said.

To say that my comment that I suspect some posters will leave during 'election mode' rules equates to "a desire to see long-time DUers forced off the site" is really quite a stretch.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #318)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 07:05 PM

320. Why should you assume that any DUers would leave during the election season?

I am well aware of DU's rules, having been here for a considerably longer time than you have, and I consider it fairly arrogant of you to assume that those of us who have been here need instructions on the rules, frankly.

Those rules state that posts that are anti our Democratic nominee


Posts that discuss issues are not 'anti-Democratic nominee'. I see an outright attack here in this thread on a DUer who has been accused of being a Rightwing Troll, eg, when anyone who has been here for any length of time knows that to be false. This also USED to be against DU rules. Which you may or may not know.

What I said was that those who are here strictly for the purpose of rec'ing negative OPs


Yes, I know what you said. You said there are people here for no other purpose than to rec negative OPs. That was a pretty definitive statement. But you provided not one iota of proof of that assertion.

I do not generally check who is rec'ing or not rec'ing OPs. That is not my purpose in being here. I am here for discussion. If someone is an infiltrator, they can be handled them with facts. They are generally pretty obvious. But to base your judgement of DUers on what they rec or do not rec is not only a poor way of determining whatever it is you think you have determined, but quite frankly, it is a bit disturbing. Now I suppose we all have to 'watch what we rec'?

I rec posts that I believe are worthy of discussion. And most worthy to me are discussions that relate to our Civil Rights, to Torture, to War, to the Economy and to holding economic and war criminals accountable, to the poor among other things.

These and other issues of importance to me and to most DUers remain important and will remain important for as long as they are not resolved. Funny that when Bush president no one here had to explain this to anyone.

I do not agree with you that any longtime DUers are likely to feel the need to leave here during the election. Unless this board has changed so much that good Democrats might not feel welcome here anymore. And so far, I see little evidence of that, thankfully.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #320)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 08:32 PM

321. Again you take what I have said

and twist into being the exact opposite of what was stated.

I didn't say that I "assumed" DUers would leave during election season. I said that some might leave - those who are only here to rec and/or participate in OPs that put Obama/Dems in a bad light. If such OPs are no longer permitted, they will have no reason to stay.

"Posts that discuss issues are not 'anti-Democratic nominee."

Again you are equating the two - I did not. And if you think I have, you are welcome to point out where I've stated any such thing.

"You said there are people here for no other purpose than to rec negative OPs. That was a pretty definitive statement. But you provided not one iota of proof of that assertion."

Did you want me to name names? That's against the rules, as you well know.

"But to base your judgement of DUers on what they rec or do not rec is not only a poor way of determining whatever it is you think you have determined."

What I have determined - as I've pointed out several times now - is that certain posters consistently rec OPs that put Obama and Dems in a bad light, as well as certain posters who consistently rec OPs that are pro-Obama/pro-Dem.

By your own admission, you "do not generally check who is rec'ing or not rec'ing OPs". Therefore, you are not in a position to comment on that assertion.

"It is a bit disturbing. Now I suppose we all have to 'watch what we rec'?"

Why would you have to "watch what you rec"? Do you rec on the basis of who has access to that information - which includes everyone here?

Again, it was the Admins who added the feature of being able to see who recs a post. If you find that "disturbing", your concerns should be expressed to the Admins.

"I do not agree with you that any longtime DUers are likely to feel the need to leave here during the election."

Thank you for agreeing with something I never said. I doubt that many long-time DUers would leave when election rules are in place. They've been there, done that.

As for those who are here to be shit-disturbers, they are not long-time DUers by any stretch. A lot of them signed up here when the rules were changed to allow criticism of the President and Party that need not be restricted to "constructive criticism".

Some saw that as an open invitation to bash Obama and his Party on a 'democratic website' without restraint, and without breaking the 'new rules'.

"I see an outright attack here in this thread on a DUer who has been accused of being a Rightwing Troll, eg, when anyone who has been here for any length of time knows that to be false."

There are many DUers who have been here a very long time who don't "know that to be false" - and have stated so in many threads.

Sabrina, I have no doubt that you are staunch Democrat whose devotion to the party's principles is admirable.

However, you seem incapable of responding to what I say, as opposed to your 'interpretation' of what I've said - or, more to the point, your insistence that I have said things I didn't say.

You've stated that I said "recs are important", when I said just the opposite. You've stated that I have a "desire to see long-time DUers forced to leave this site" - again, I said no such thing, nor anything even close to it.

You have stated that I equate "discussion of serious issues" with anti-Obama posts, while that was your assertion, not mine.

I signed up on this site in order to discuss things with fellow Democrats - not to have to keep correcting you when you attribute statements to me that I never made, or when you choose to spin my positions into being something that is the complete opposite of what I have said in plain language.

That said, I will bow out of the conversation now. You, of course, are free to continue the discussion you have been having between yourself and the person who has said the things you insist they have said - which most obviously is not me.

All the best to you, sabrina.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #283)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 06:40 PM

319. And please note, not so long ago something this idiotic would have gotten over 200 recs

The times they are a'changing. But the OP and his fans will of course be the last ones to see that.

I'd take those 4 "guffaws" as well as the dozens of folks handing the OP his ass over the recs of the 71 special souls who rec'd this any day of the week. It's really quite obvious who has the majority here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #116)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:51 AM

170. Exactly. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #107)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:10 AM

205. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:41 AM

117. Correct

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:42 AM

161. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:37 AM

165. I have been calling out BBI for years

He is a right wing, paid troll.

How skinner allows him to still post here is beyond me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #165)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:46 AM

191. Your false charge that I'm a "right wing paid troll" is a clear violation of DU rules.

 


Do you intend to continue such low-level personal attacks and lies against progressive DU'ers you disagree with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #191)


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #208)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:32 PM

215. So you have no problem with violating DU rules. Do you have an exemption from those rules?

 


Please post the exemption from complying with DU rules that has been granted to you by an administrator.

Also post your evidence that I'm some kind of Republican "right-wing paid troll".

That is a very serious charge.

But, you claim the right to make such false charges against DU'ers you disagree with!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #191)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:39 PM

226. A jury let it stand...

so I guess the post wasn't such a "clear violation of DU rules" after all.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #226)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:25 PM

233. Um, well, Sid.

The offender actually admitted that he violated the DU rules with his post. I guess it's pretty clear after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #233)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:06 PM

241. Except it's still there...

DU doesn't have rules anymore. It has community standards, which are fluid, depending on the jury.

In this case, for whatever reason, the jury didn't think the post violated community standards.

So, there it stands.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #241)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:08 PM

242. No. It was a clear cut violatiion

Just because the jury didn't know how to vote doesn't get the offender around his own admission, and nor does it absolve you of being wrong.

So, there it finishes.

Have a wonderful day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #242)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:38 PM

261. The jury disagrees, and that's all that matters...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #261)


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #242)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:58 PM

263. Unfortunately

there is a new standard here on DU3 that allows people to go around openly accusing people of all sorts of things and calling them "dastardly" names....and it seems to be okay per jury (forhead slap). Since that is the case, here is my new motto is ...............................................................................................................................................

If you can't beat them join them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Caretha (Reply #263)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:30 PM

288. Thanks. Sid here is trying to make the argument

...that the end justifies the means. He is wrong, of course (it would be interesting to ask him about the USSC decision on Gore v Bush and see if he still thinks the end justifies the means). Even the offender admitted as much. But Sid is serially incapable of being wrong, which often results in incoherent arguments, such as the one expressed here. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #165)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:23 PM

232. Nailed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #232)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:45 PM

238. So you are also falsely charging that I'm "a right wing, paid troll'?

 


Well, are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #238)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:15 PM

277. Honestly,

Last edited Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:43 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't know if you're paid or not. If not, seems like a wasted opportunity.

Edited to add: to answer your question, yes. I absolutely agree with SD's assessment. In fact, I'd bet my next paycheck on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:47 AM

167. Absolutely...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #167)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:59 AM

203. Funny

but I've always considered you to be what you are accusing BBI of.

I used to play a game here on DU. Those I suspected of having nefarious intentions I added to my "buddy list". Weeks or months later I'd have a look-see of my list to see who was tombstoned. My stats showed I was approx. 50% right. I figured some of the ones I added to my 'buddy list" who weren't TSd were just more clever.

Now I've gotten off topic from the OP so I'm going to chime in with my thoughts on the matter.

The video is a bit "amateurish" and over the top - but I believe the point it is trying to make is a valid one. I believe the people who are so deeply offended by it are the ones who really don't want us to actually hold our elected officials feet to the fire, including Obama's. We've become a nation of followers, we want a "saviour" or a daddy figure, someone we can completely have faith in, so we don't have to do anything ourselves. Well, we see where that has gotten us - a deep big fat mess. There were "Casandras" that have been trying to tell us this for years, and now they are trying to tell us again. We can no longer afford to be complacent - we can no longer afford to be "fanbois" and approve everything and anything just because someone with a D behind their name says that's the way it should be or is going to be. We can no longer wait because we are sitting on a great big precipice and a lot more people are going to be hurt if we do.

So if you find yourself thinking that it is not very democratic party-like to object or point out what is being done or not done by the democratic party's elected officials, and that we need to burn those at the stake who do point out the defiencies of those officials, I'd like to ask you to question yourselves - have you become what you supposedly hate, a closed minded right-wing fear monger? Someone no longer able to think objectively and question what is being done by our own party? If so, you are not part of the solution, you are a part of the problem, not the other way around, and you will be as guilty of pushing us over the edge as the Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Caretha (Reply #203)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:02 AM

204. Yes. BBI certainly is clever...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #204)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:26 AM

207. Your one liners Sid

speak volumes about you.

Once again I noticed you don't address the body of the post. So typical....just so so darn typical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Caretha (Reply #207)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:00 PM

211. Does this mean we're not buddies anymore?...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #211)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:23 PM

214. Awww Sid

Do we really have to break up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #204)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:36 PM

235. But you didn't answer the questions.

BBI always answers questions. Interesting to note in discussions like these who engages in avoidance and who is willing to respond honestly. And who thinks no one notices these things by trying to be, what they think is clever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Caretha (Reply #203)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:09 PM

230. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:51 AM

171. Agreed. Well said. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:38 PM

284. Got some proof of that?

I thought accusing someone here of being a 'plant for the right' was against CS unless of course, you can prove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:36 AM

113. ...








Such bullshit. Though the ways to bash Obama supporters are getting more creative by increasingly desperate Obama haters who didn't see their dream candidate fall out of the sky and save the day. WHY didn't that happen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:43 AM

119. This train is never late.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cliffordu (Reply #119)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:05 AM

130. And if you miss this train

there will be another one along in a minute. At least the usual cut-and-pastes are being replaced with videos - a new twist on an old - very, very old - theme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:01 AM

152. Okay, One more Time:

 

The pursuit of Perfection gets you Fucked. Always.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Reply #152)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:15 AM

155. Going to the Olympics is "getting fucked"?

Because that's what Olympic contenders do, they pursue perfection knowing that they will not attain it.

But that doesn't stop them from pursuing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #155)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:31 AM

163. actually

when you pursue it against the laws of nature and physics, you end up dying. There is nothing glamourous about seeing an athlete that has ensured they will hobble with a can or in a wheelchair just so that some armchair quartebacks get to rah rah rah. Florida has a ton of them, from Oksana Baiul to ex NFL, all of them hobbling about with pate for liver, and for WHAT? For nothing that really changes anything.

and while I do respect Better Belive it's idealism, simply letting people spew hate and dashing all Obama supporters is borderline wacko; I expected better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #163)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:24 AM

196. Not all Olympic sports destroy the player..

And if you think quoting people is "spewing hate" we will just have to disagree, everything on that video I've seen said in all seriousness right here on DU.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Reply #152)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 12:26 PM

308. Do the words "in order to form a more perfect union" mean anything to you?

They mean something to me.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


"Perfection" is always the standard against which "Progress" is measured.
This IS the foundation for the Moral Compass.
When "good enough" or "fix it later" becomes The Standard,
things like Mandatory Insurance without a Public Option,
or reform that doesn't really reform anything become heralded as "progress" and added to lists of "achievements".



Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:33 AM

164. Keep trying...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #164)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:27 PM

234. there is no try. there is only accomplish, as evidenced by your post coming in at #164

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:18 AM

181. People are going berserk about this because it cuts too close to the bone

It is like trying to explain to a Yankees fan that the Mets are better. People do not like to see their side brought down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #181)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:48 AM

199. When satire strikes a personal chord, it is wise not to show that fact....

For that is the punchline sought in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:19 AM

182. Stuff That (Increasingly Desperately Disillusioned) Obama Haters Post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #182)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:43 AM

198. +1...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #198)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:34 PM

217. Lighten up Francis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #182)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:14 PM

213. You are the best! Good luck with bringing peace to some of these haters. Obama is still my choice

and all the hate won't change that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:27 AM

187. typical BBI posting--to the trash can with it!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:56 AM

192. BBI - I saw this over at CD a couple days ago. I figured if I'd post it here

there'd be a sh*t storm, just as you see.

I don't know about you , but I've heard (read) just about all those statements about Obama.

It is what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:53 AM

209. *snort* amusing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:34 PM

216. Rec for the kittehs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:49 PM

222. you win. your daily anti-dem campaigning has finally convinved me not to vote for obama...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #222)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:05 PM

229. Resort to falsehoods must mean you have no answer.

BBI is not engaging in an "anti-dem" campaign. BBI is not trying to convince anyone not to vote for Obama. These are falsehoods and transparently unrelated to the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #229)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:23 PM

231. Yes, they are falsehoods. But a majority of DUers know this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #229)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:20 PM

244. falsehoods? please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #244)


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #247)


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #229)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:36 PM

248. *SNORT*

Right. He just has nothing better to do with his time, every single minute of every single blessed day, day in day out, than to dig up and post every rumor out there from "somebody" who "knows" "something".

Damn iPhone spelling edited

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #248)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:04 PM

252. apparently some people are "increasingly desperate" to face another 4 years of him in office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #252)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:07 PM

253. Is "Nader" running?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #248)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 06:49 PM

271. Yeah, falsehoods and now a big load of hyperbole too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:09 PM

256. Yeah, that video sounds almost as convincing

as the folks here who KNEW, KNEW FOR A FACT that that BASTARD Obama was gonna cave on the Keystone XL pipeline.

How'd that work out for ya?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Reply #256)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:22 PM

258. I think they're hanging out with the people who KNEW Obama wasn't going to try to end DADT. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #258)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 06:08 PM

265. And they were hanging out with the folks that KNEW the president was going to kill Social Security

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #265)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 06:28 PM

269. Cat Food anyone?

Now w/ more crow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 06:53 PM

272. Your posts are always very professional, shame you don't profit from them.

Regards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:18 PM

278. Funny, I didn't see "Increasingly Desperately Dissillusioned" anywhere in that vid

Are you paid by the word when you post a topic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capn Sunshine (Reply #278)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 02:33 AM

303. "Are you paid by the word when you post a topic?"

Good lord, I hope not - being as so many of his words are utterly worthless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #303)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 09:46 AM

307. Are you assigned the task of posting on DU as a staffer for a Democratic Party campaign committee?

 


Nothing wrong with that if you are but transparency is something most DU'ers appreciate.

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #307)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:12 PM

310. *Snicker*

Yeah, we'd love that transparency, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #307)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:41 PM

311. Nope.

I'm not paid to post here or anywhere, nor am I affiliated with any Democratic organization - other than being a registered Democrat/voter.

You're very welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #311)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 09:11 PM

323. Thanks for the response. And I also am not paid by anyone to post on DU.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:19 PM

279. They really do, just go look at the old GD:P.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:05 PM

286. WOW. So MANY DUers with their Panties in a Twist....

..was my first impression after reading this thread.
When I reviewed the thread before adding my post,
it was apparent that only about 1/2 dozen DUers were outraged and hysterical,
but they posted their outrage so many times that the number appeared much larger.

I have better thing to do with my time.

Anyway, K&R.
I laughed, and also thought that the creators of this video were DUers.

To Those Party Purity Commissars keeping track of people who recommend threads like this:
Please add my name to your list.
I would much rather belong to this group than those who spend their time keeping Disloyalty Purity Lists .
Historically, those Loyalty List Keepers have not been good people.
Good luck with your endeavors.
You become what you spend your time doing.
.
.
.
.
.
Psst.
Late at night, do YOU ever worry that YOUR name might be on another "purity list" somewhere?
If you don't, you should.
Especially if you see nothing wrong with Obama signing NDAA.




Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #286)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:03 PM

291. I came to the same conclusion, a few people posting over and over again,

with some searching the profiles of those who rec'd the post and then using their 'history' of recs in an attempt to smear them. Pretty bad when a humorous post drives people to such lengths and doesn't make Obama look good at all, which makes you wonder what the purpose is.

I rec'd it also. I suppose that will be a black mark against me too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:41 PM

290. The comments at CD are even more eye-opening than the

back-and-forth going on here...

And as for the snipers: The clock is ticking on you to recruit Hillary or Nader or whichever person you think is going to single-handedly usher in a new leftist utopia...I suggest you all start making some calls instead of burning time mocking the rest of us...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 12:27 AM

300. I watched and laughed. K&R (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 12:44 PM

309. These two are obviously "professional leftists" and dirty hippies. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #309)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 10:09 AM

324. And they must be thrown under the bus!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Reply #324)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 12:16 PM

325. Better still...

Throw the stupid phase "under the bus," under the bus, and put an end to this marathon tour of FAIL.

You're cruising on fumes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #325)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 01:26 PM

332. This is a great discussion thread . . .

For me to poop on!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 12:33 PM

327. So If this thread is about how stupid Obama supporters can be...

why is it being poted here mocking Obama supporters? Why insult the very people that are trying to ensure that Mittens or Newtie don't make it into the Whitehouse? Why isn't the OP posting videos of the batshit insane that are still thinking Mittens, Newtie or even Santorum are the best hope for Americans future?

ETA....I just realized who the OP is....Never mind, that pretty much explains it all. Just more of the same shit. Gawd....and so many posts too. One would have hoped to see something along another vein at some point. The pattern is well established.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 01:10 PM

331. I was wanting the cats to say something.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread