General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould we add a Dem-bashing clarification to the GD SoP?
Currently, the General Discussion Statement of Purpose reads:
I propose that we ask DU admins to add the phrase "No FOX-style Dem bashing." By "FOX-style" I mean gratuitous, insulting, over-the-top, topically irrelevant dog-whistling of the type seen on FOX News and other RW outlets. Benghazi's, you might say. Your thoughts?
33 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited | |
Great idea! Let's do it. | |
6 (18%) |
|
Let's at least consider adding "No FOX-style Dem bashing" to the GD Statement of Purpose. | |
1 (3%) |
|
Let's discuss this thoroughly before doing anything rash. | |
0 (0%) |
|
Not keen on the idea but wouldn't object to it. | |
0 (0%) |
|
Terrible idea. Epic fail. | |
26 (79%) |
|
Other. | |
0 (0%) |
|
1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
undeterred
(34,658 posts)You have to contribute more to the party to get in.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)GD: Bash (premium membership required)
undeterred
(34,658 posts)msongs
(67,436 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)sheshe2
(83,860 posts)Sadly some weep and moan that some people support this President.
And before you go on and say we mindlessly support Obama, let me say that you know nothing about us and you never will. Your glass will always be half empty. That's a sad way to go through life. My glass will remain half full.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)One is healthy. One is zealotry.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)So I say zealotry, bring it on! Spread the word, register Dem! Vote Dem! Otherwise hello president Palin.
p.s. have you ever tried to register voters?
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Don't even pretend for a second that it could happen.
Second, if there's a viable liberal third party candidate that is more liberal than the Democrat running, you can bet your ass that I'll vote for that third party candidate.
Spazito
(50,444 posts)all too many, myself included, thought he was a joke, that he would never become President and yet he did.
sheshe2
(83,860 posts)with the adoration of Snowed-in, GG and now Will Pitt!
Deal with that fact Vashta!
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Maybe you don't remember any of the liberal causes he wrote about since 2000.
He dared criticize Obama about Iraq and a crappy part of the ACA, and certain group members through a shit fit.
SMDH. SMDH, indeed.
sheshe2
(83,860 posts)Bog'ers are able to read and actually understand the facts!
Oh wow Pitt dared, he dared to criticize Obama and a part of ACA that had nothing to do with this President, Do go on Vashta!
No, Obamacare Wont Cover Every Drug Just Like Every Other Insurance Policy
BY IGOR VOLSKY ON DECEMBER 10, 2013 AT 12:40 PM
Under the law, insurers must offer drug benefits as part of 10 essential health care benefits, meaning that millions of uninsured Americans will now have drug coverage for the very first time. But the coverage wont be limitless. Insurers will continue to rely on drug formularies as they currently do in the private market and Medicare Part D to decide which prescriptions are covered and which are not.
snip
States not the federal government select the benchmark and insurers then offer coverage for the drugs listed in those formularies. What the vast majority of states have chosen is a common small business plan, so you know its saying what will be available in the exchanges and in the individual market generally is whats popular among small businesses now and that seems like a reasonable place to start, the Kaiser Family Foundations Larry Levitt explained.
But yes, there are certain limits: a formulary, for instance, may cover three drugs for treating a certain condition but not two others. Obamacare like all insurers currently operating in the market has a fix for that. ACA regulations demand that a health plan must have an exceptions process in place that allows patients to request and gain access to clinically appropriate drugs that arent covered by the health plan (in addition to internal and external appeal processes). So, if a health plan does not cover a particular drug that a patient absolutely needs, their doctor can certify medical necessity to extend coverage. Insurers have relied on drug formularies before the law went into effect and already have exceptions processes in place, meaning that most will not have to implement significant changes.
Snip
And therein lies the irony of the attack: Republicans have traditionally seen high deductibles and limited coverage as a way to control individual health care spending. Now that Obamacare gives patients that choice, theyre suddenly complaining that the insurance is not generous enough.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/12/10/3042741/drugs-obamacare-coverage/
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Andy823
(11,495 posts)Their is "criticizing" and their is plain hateful bashing, like when you call the president a POS, and tell him to F off!
One is acceptable and one is just plane stupidity. You can be the judge of which is which!
I have no problem when someone complains about things the president does, but when someone goes over the line into rightwing crazy talk, it should not be acceptable.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)sheshe2
(83,860 posts)In case you misunderstood...
BOG
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)It is the only group, forum, whatever from which I have been removed. I was absolutely hurt and offended that my thoughts which were only meant to spur academic-like discussion would be taken so out of the realm of my intention and I was angry that they could/so flippantly disregard my points, points that I thought all decent people in good conscience would be willing to take up for the benefit of the party and in the interest of thoughtful discussion. When I was summarily banned by a 100,000 plus post poster who is lord of the group... Well, it brought to light for me the fanatical devotion of the BOG people and it made me realize that there were people here who weren't interested in discussion, only in expressions professing reverential adoration of a man who I thought was cool, but like all men, flawed. They sought to obscure those flaws from their group's eyes. It was weird and it was cult-like. I have since had trouble with the BOG people. I just cannot relate and in the end I guess I'm glad I'm not part of their odd little spin-doctorish group.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)One poster out of 200,000 decided to ban you?
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)the BOG shaped and reinforced my expectations of them.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)"Where seldom is heard a discouraging world and the skies are not cloudy all day"
In the real world of course things happen.
And I go by Teddy's words
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
sheshe2
(83,860 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 29, 2014, 02:51 AM - Edit history (1)
Yes there are rules. You abide by their mission statements. All the groups have them. Sorry, but that is how they work. Just like AA, HOF and LGBT.
There are plenty of places to disagree. That is what GD is for. It's not like we don't post there too. We do, a lot. Ah, that is where the lively conversation comes in.
Yet is there not one safe place in your house that you find comfort in after a long day? One where you can kick back and relax. Maybe to laugh sometimes to cry? To commiserate with a friend? To have a conversation without interruption? Well that is what the groups are, that is why they were set up. It is our comfort zone.
I hope that you can understand that. I am sorry you were hurt. If you wish to talk about that sincerely, let me know. I have not been a host for long yet I am willing to lend an ear. I would reinstate you if you wish, yet if you post you go by the rules. I didn't make them, yet they are the groups rules.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)I guess it was a lack of understanding of how DU worked. If The thread was in latest threads and I felt like replying, I did. All I knew was I posted to a latest thread, received what I thought was some strange pushback, responded to that and next thing you know, I could no longer engage. All I knew was that I just got a message stating that I was summarily banned and could not for the life of me understand why. I thought for a moment that I was banned from DU. It was incredibly frustrating. I appreciate the offer to reinstate, but I'm afraid I'm more up for a lively from multiple viewpoints type of discussion than what is offered in a group like the BOG.
sheshe2
(83,860 posts)I have no problem with a lively debate either!
I just feel the need to kick off my shoes once in awhile. Especially after a long day at work.
Peace~
MADem
(135,425 posts)The only thing to do is apologize/delete. I try to remember to check the group I'm in before I open my mouth. As I said, I've erred, especially when going to a thread from the front page.
It's not that you can't make the points you want to make, you just can't make them THERE. Some of those groups are looking for supportive conversation, not bashing/trashing/drama.
We've got self-help groups, the interfaith group, the assorted politicians' groups, LGBT, gender groups, quite a number of safe-havens. Let people have their little areas--it's not hurting anyone. People who need to make a point can start a thread--there's no quota or limit on thread starting.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)sheshe2
(83,860 posts)We need a Snowed-In and GG adoration Group! Oh, another, someone suggested the other day that Will Pitt should have one too!
Yes!
They are adored here, wow some might call them, the followers, "bots"!
That would keep things organized wouldn't it?!
sheshe2
(83,860 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)p.s. it was 10-9 for a minute there so there's hope!
sheshe2
(83,860 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its just about page clicks for them.....they think they have bought DU!
So yes I think you may be onto a new name for such phenomenon.
sheshe2
(83,860 posts)Money Lyrics
[EMCEE]
Money makes the world go around
The world go around
The world go around
Money makes the world go around
It makes the world go 'round.
A mark, a yen, a buck, or a pound
A buck or a pound
A buck or a pound
Is all that makes the world go around,
That clinking clanking sound
Can make the world go 'round.
[GIRLS]
Money money money money money money
Money money money money money money
Money money money money money money
Money money
[EMCEE]
If you happen
To be rich,
[GIRLS]
.......Ooooh
[EMCEE]
And you feel like a
Night's enetertainment,
[GIRLS]
...Money
[EMCEE]
You can pay for a
Gay escapade.
[GIRLS]
Money money
Money money
Money money
Money money
[EMCEE]
If you happen to
To be rich,
[GIRLS]
.......Ooooh
[EMCEE]
And alone, and you
Need a companion
[GIRLS]
...Money
[EMCEE]
You can ring-ting-
A-ling for the maid.
[EMCEE]
If you happen
To be rich
[GIRLS]
.....Ooooh
[EMCEE]
And you find you are
Left by your lover,
[GIRLS]
...Money
[EMCEE]
Though you moan
And you groan
Quite a lot,
[GIRLS]
Money money
Money money
Money money
Money money
[EMCEE]
You can take it
On the chin,
[GIRLS]
.....Ooooh
[EMCEE]
Call a cab,
And begin
[GIRLS]
...Money
[EMCEE]
To recover
On your fourteen-
Carat yacht.
[EMCEE]
Money makes the world go around,
The world go around,
The world go around,
Money makes the world go around,
Of that we can be sure.
(....) on being poor.
[ALL]
Money money money-
money money money
Money money money-
money money money
Money money money money money money
Money money money money money money
Money money money money money money
[DANCE BREAK]
[EMCEE AND GIRLS (In Canon)]
If you haven't any coal in the stove
And you freeze in the winter
And you curse on the wind
At your fate
When you haven't any shoes
On your feet
And your coat's thin as paper
And you look thirty pounds
Underweight.
When you go to get a word of advice
From the fat little pastor
He will tell you to love evermore.
But when hunger comes a rap,
Rat-a-tat, rat-a-tat at the window...
[GIRLS]
At the window...
[EMCEE (spoken)]
Who's there?
[GIRLS (spoken)]
Hunger!
[EMCEE (Spoken)]
Ooh, hunger!
See how love flies out the door...
For
[EMCEE]
Money makes
The world...
[GIRLS]
...Go around
[EMCEE]
The world...
[GIRLS]
...Go around
[EMCEE]
The world...
[GIRLS]
...Go around
[EMCEE]
Money makes the
.... Go around
[GIRLS]
...Go around
That clinking
Clanking sound of
Money money money money money money
Money money money money money money
[EMCEE]
Get a little,
[GIRLS]
Money money
[EMCEE]
Get a little,
[GIRLS]
Money money
[EMCEE]
Money money
[GIRLS]
Money money
[EMCEE]
Money money
[GIRLS]
Money money
[EMCEE]
Mark, a yen, a buck
[GIRLS]
Get a little
[EMCEE]
Or a pound
[GIRLS]
Get a little
[EMCEE]
That clinking clanking
[GIRLS]
Get a little
Get a little
[EMCEE]
Clinking sound
[GIRLS]
Money money
Money money...
[EMCEE]
Is all that makes
The world go 'round
[GIRLS]
Money money
Money money
It makes the world go round
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/cabaret/money.htm
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)According to your rules we bash them.....or say nothing at all...
I might remind you...THIS is Democratic Underground....for the purpose of supporting and helping to elect Democrats....that includes PRAISING them. Understand?
sheshe2
(83,860 posts)Never will.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)That is how insidious it is...
sheshe2
(83,860 posts)to hold his feet to the fire.
Gawd dammit they voted for him twice! They even canvassed for him, worked their collective asses off for him. They helped put him in office, they did their work!!!! Then they left him on his own. No support. None.
Now it is a complete misunderstanding of the facts. The GOP is the one that betrayed this country. Yet they just moan and a wail. He betrayed me! He betrayed me!
Rend clothes and tear out hair here, he betrayed their trust.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)We weren't expecting "the One" "the Savior" (what ever the latest fad phrase they are using is) THEY were expecting "the One" "the Savior".....when THEY (not us) didn't get a Savior or The One....they were the ones lamenting their "bad choice at the polling booths"......meanwhile the rest of us who have had our expectations met or exceeded are constantly accused of it! Ironic isn't it? YET they want to make US feel bad about who WE voted for....even though as we see....they CERTAINLY suck at choosing leaders....why should we EVER listen to them?
Andy823
(11,495 posts)And yet some of them were into "bashing" him in just a few months after they voted for him.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)to support and help elect more Democrats"....you mean that kind of "worship"? Using your analogy and looking at the mission statement....I guess that makes Democratic Underground a church. That means you are here to attend the "service".
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Fox-style...yeah you would think.
sheshe2
(83,860 posts)scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)I would like to see an end of threads that are started for the sole purpose of labeling and dividing DUers.
No good ever comes from those threads.
Yes, individual DUers disagree with each other on any number of things. However, the insistence of dividing DUers into camps and then broad-brushing their viewpoints is destructive and makes DU suck.
I want to see an end of DUers accusing each other of not posting their individual opinions in good faith.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)As I understand it, hosts decide on Statement of Purpose violations (lock/leave), juries decide on Community Standards, including DUer bashing ("This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate" , and admins decide on Terms of Service (everything else, including supporting Democrats). So I suppose what I'm suggesting is giving GD hosts a reason to lock offensive posts that don't call out a DUer or whine about DU.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)I'd like to see the SOP of GD expanded to include a statement that it is not permitted to start threads for the sole purpose of "bashing" fellow DUers.
Well I wouldn't object but at least there's a protocol for addressing DU-er bashing violations, and juries are expected to consider it. Right now Dem-bashing sort of falls between stools and neither hosts nor juries have explicit instructions to consider it.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Politicians aren't affected by what's posted on DU, but DUers are certainly affected by what politicians DO.
I see no reason to protect politicians from being criticized, I'm only interested in protecting DUers from being attacked by other DUers for criticizing politicians.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)They're different in that "criticism" implies a basic level of respect, regardless of how strongly a poster might feel about a particular policy, proposal or statement.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Who decides what sorts of criticism is "FOX-style"? I don't even know that means.
You say that it has to do with "a basic level of respect" - but why should "respect" be enforced? Are politicians our betters that we must tug our forelocks and hold our tongues?
I've always been taught that respect must be earned. If a DUer feels that a politician has not earned that DUer's respect, why should they not be free to express it? It does nothing to take away the freedom of those who disagree to express their disagreement.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)That's what politics comes down to doesn't it? If you don't win you're at the mercy of your rivals and these days that's a very dangerous place to be.
So, while I absolutely understand the desire to talk trash about pols you despise on a discussion board, the fact is that DU has a certain bellwether quality and come election time that trash-talk is gonna bite us in the butt. There are other reasons but that's the basic one.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Exercising power responsibly is the end of politics. You can win all the elections you want, not listening to the needs of the people who put you there is not exercising power responsibly.
You should go visit a few city council hearings. Because you have no clue what government is about.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)about some politician in DC is irrelevant to everyone except the person who actually lives in that politician's district.
In any case, we haven't even reached Primary season yet. Let's freely hash out what we want, and who we think sucks and why.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)wow...just wow...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)reprisal at all...
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)A "No Bashing DUers" rule would cover everyone - no matter which viewpoints you hold.
It would mean that the SOP would not allow someone to bash YOU for expressing YOUR viewpoint.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Community Standards are nebulous at best, and entirely dependent on the whim of random juries.
On the other hand, if the SOP clearly stated that GD is not to be used for starting threads bashing other DUers it would hopefully serve to significantly cut down on OPs which serve no purpose other than division and stoking flame wars.
I think that would be a good thing.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)which states "support and help elect Democrats" what part of "Bashing each other" accomplishes that?
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)That's my whole point. I'd like to see an end to DUers "bashing each other".
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)It wastes alot of time....
By your thinking....why don't we just let Republicans come...we could just 'make counter-arguments" right?
Because that is OH SO productive to have to constantly do that right? Same thing is happening but from wolves in sheeps clothing...they are here to "Punch Democrats" it is THEIR mission....not to make congent arguments in good faith. They are not honest brokers...
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Stop accusing your fellow DUers of ill intent just because they don't see things the same way you do.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)why should we allow anyone else to do it? Would you expect to have to spend your time "counter-arguing with them" (the Republicans) as if bashing Democrats should HAVE to be defended endlessly on Democratic Underground. Why should we allow Libertarians to come to Democratic Underground to "bash Democrats"....they are here to "suppress the vote" not to elect more Democrats.....
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Are you going to vote for Dems running for state offices? Are you going to vote for a Dem running for the Congressional seat in your district? Are you going to vote for a Dem Senator if one of your state's Senate seats is up for election?
If your answer is yes to all, then you are no different from pretty much everyone else on DU. No votes are being "suppressed" by DUers expressing their opinions.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That's interesting. Then there are a couple I can think of who you would vote to ban.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)this is NOT "Punch a Democrat Underground!
quinnox
(20,600 posts)It would be worth it, just to see how long the list was, and what was said in it as to what constitutes "bashing". I'm guessing it would be a pretty long list.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Leave it at that.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)It is too open to interpretation and they might want it to be a lot more specific.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Ever...then they ARE NOT here "to support and help elect more Democrats" and are CURRENTLY in violation of that...
quinnox
(20,600 posts)the new rules of showing proper respect to our Democratic leaders...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you do here....then you are not "supporting or helping to get more Democrats elected" which is the express mission of this site.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I'm looking over their new rules and regulations manual, the uniforms are tight.
Are you only here to only bash democrats and never say anything positive about them, because I think that's what VR was saying? You said "put us all in line" so I am a little confused.
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)See John Edward, Joe Lieberman, Rod Blagojevich... Having a D behind your name should not make you free from criticism.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)You can appreciate Edwards' virtues as a candidate, or lack thereof, or discuss his moral failings without dragging his haircuts or his big-ass ranch into every sentence.
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)The things I would have to say about that awful excuse for a human being now would make make Hannity say "ease up." No, some people are terrible human beings and deserve what they get, despite if there is a D behind their name. If something like that would get me banned, then so be it. I'm sure if I voted Edwards, I would feel the same about him now, but I dont really think about him.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I don't live in Chicago so I never got up-close and personal but it always seemed to me that his offenses were of the rather ordinary kind. But to hear the media you'd think he'd committed some heinous unspeakable crime. I mean seriously, what pol doesn't consider quid-pro-quo when making appointments, financial or otherwise? That's what politics is all about.
questionseverything
(9,657 posts)night before he arrested he was on the steps of a shuttered factory, standing with the laborers that bank of America was screwing out of pay...telling the bank if you do not pay what you owe the state of Illinois will not longer do business with you
we went to bed cheering
next morning fbi arrested him
took them 2 trys to convict him
he asked dems to do fund raisers for him...is all I ever knew he was convicted on (why wouldn't a dem gov want a dem senator that could raise funds)?...now if he was gonna "sell" the seat to a repub,i would of been pissed but that was not the case
Christy has done hundred times worse and he is still walking free
seigleman got nothing and he rots in prison
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Though I know a lot of Illinois folks despised him, so there was probably some truth to the accusations, but how much of that was thanks to the media blitz? They did much the same thing to Kucinich when he was mayor of Cleveland or at least that's how I understand it.
questionseverything
(9,657 posts)he was all about protecting the 99%
Illinois has huge money problems, blago would not raise income taxes, he wanted to make companies that did business in Illinois but paid no income tax pay a simple 1/4 of 1 % tax on their gross....big business hated that
I still think it is a great idea
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)Sorry, but even if a politician agrees with me on the issues, if he or she is of contemptible character, then I have no use for him or her. Rod Blagojevich is where he belongs. And I voted for him for governor. Worst vote ever. Its this vote why I cannot support this "anti dem bashing" rule.
questionseverything
(9,657 posts)Children's Memorial Hospital CEO: Blagojevich ask was "inappropriate," "illegal."
By Natasha Korecki on May 16, 2011 2:23 PM | 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
Reporting with Lark Turner
A different witness is up, but government prosecutors are staying on the same theme: Children's Memorial Hospital.
The hospital's CEO, Patrick Magoon, is now testifying about a pediatric rate increase he sought in the fall of 2008. Prosecutors contend Magoon was shaken down for a campaign contribution after he asked for state help at his institution.
In testimony, Magoon said he reached out to then-Gov. Blagojevich via letter seeking the rate increase and heard nothing back. Blagojevich was in control of the rate increase, which went to doctors who treated Medicaid patients at Children's.
He then asked former Cubs manager Dusty Baker to talk to Blagojevich, a Cubs fan.
That got a response and eventually, Magoon got a call from Blagojevich himself in October of 2008.
Blagojevich told him he'd get the rate increase but he asked him not to make the decision public until after Jan. 1 of the following year.
"Only five days had lapsed," according to Magoon, and he got a second call.
This time it was from Blagojevich's brother, Rob, who also happened to be the head of the Friends of Blagojevich campaign fund.
He asked Magoon to kick in $25,000 to his brother's campaign fund. And he asked that it be done before ... Jan. 1st.
"From my perspective, the two were linked and one, in my point of view, was in exchange for another," Magoon told Assistant U.S. Attorney
///////////////////////////////////////
children's hospital conjures up visions of poverty but the ceo testifying made over 1.8 million?
RANK NAME STATE HOSPITAL REVENUE HIGHEST-PAID EXECUTIVE TOTAL COMPENSATION ADJUSTED COMPENSATION
1 CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER OH $1,461,074,989 James M. Anderson - President & CEO $1,747,573 $1,577,367
2 CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA PA $1,439,522,728 Steven M. Altschuler- President & CEO $2,070,775 $2,070,775
3 CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOSTON MA $1,348,731,678 James Mandell - CEO $1,962,538 $663,132
4 TEXAS CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, HOUSTON TX $1,001,158,792 Mark A. Wallace - President $1,430,013 $1,430,013
5 NATIONWIDE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, COLUMBUS OH $918,711,467 Steven Allen - CEO $1,111,264 $1,111,264
6 CHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER DALLAS TX $912,034,106 Christopher J. Durovich - President & CEO $2,845,980 $2,128,120
7 CHILDREN'S HEALTHCARE OF ATLANTA, INC. 1 GA $872,173,403 James Tally-CEO 2 $3,474,172 NA
8 PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD CA $772,101,422 Christopher Dawes-President & CEO $1,102,983 $641,714
9 CHILDREN'S NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER DC $730,275,611 Edwin K. Zechman Jr.-President & CEO $1,987,629 $1,987,629
10 SEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL WA $707,928,519 Thomas Hansen - CEO $1,209,562 $1,209,562
11 CHILDREN'S MERCY HOSPITAL, KANSAS CITY MO $684,116,645 Randall L. O'Donnell - President & CEO $5,987,194 3 $1,902,203
12 CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF WISCONSIN, MILWAUKEE WI $588,727,332 Jon E. Vice - President $5,465,948 4 $5,465,948
13 CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL DENVER CO $588,534,289 James Shmerling-President & CEO $1,088,845 $1,088,845
14 CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS & CLINICS, MINNEAPOLIS MN $565,417,744 Alan L. Goldbloom -President & CEO $1,324,535 $1,262,436
15 COOK CHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER, FORT WORTH TX $563,749,365 Rick W. Merrill-President & CEO $1,006,707 $1,006,707
16 CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF LOS ANGELES CA $546,993,497 Richard Cordova-President & CEO $1,159,984 $1,026,269
17 CHILDREN'S MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, CHICAGO IL $533,957,494 Patrick Magoon - President & CEO $1,802,955 $1,802,955
////////////////////////////////////
dem spend MOST their time begging for money and some go to jail for "doing it wrong"
but Christie appointee Sampson has made millions off his law firms connections and so far nothing from feds
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)he has been bashed into prison...you won't find anyone on DU that will support him at all..
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Exactly. It's happened in my own little town. Happened to a city council member I voted for mayor on the very afternoon I cast my mail-in ballot. Resigned that day. Weird huh.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)for my small brain. I have no idea what the mentioned list means in logical or specific terms. Someone would have to judge what that means and then there will be another storm of infighting.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its is pretty simple...and part of the mission of this site...to "support and help elect" them...
defacto7
(13,485 posts)what I don't understand is the wording that would easily determine who fits into which category in a way that a rule can be followed that is consistent to everyone who reads the SOP. The wording used in the poll question is not any better at determining what the change would accomplish.
"No FOX-style Dem bashing" What is that? I don't watch Fox anything.
Then the explanation, "gratuitous, insulting, over-the-top" That's already implied or written into the TOS..
"topically irrelevant dog-whistling of the type seen on FOX News and other RW outlets" I have no idea what that is and everyone who is familiar with those terms would give a different degree of value to those terms.
What I am saying is that the wording would need to be comprehended with little ambiguity. In the end, it would come down to a judgment that is already made by the jury.
Honestly, I don't know what wording would accomplish the goal determining who is one or the other emphatically. Then there's the issue of reality among humans..... not a good idea.
Maybe I'm taking this too seriously...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)gIf you have come to DU SIMPLY to complain and criticize and NOTHING else...then how can that be considered to be in support OF Democrats....its one thing to be a Democrat with a criticism or two....but to have NOTHING but criticism...then how is that in anyway constructive? In fact...that is not "constructive" at all...that is destructive. It is being JUST as recalcitrant as the Teabagging Republican and FOX News viewers...
1000words
(7,051 posts)tkmorris
(11,138 posts)It can't work. You know what "No FOX-style Dem bashing" means TO YOU, but I can guarantee you that 100 random DUers will have 100 different opinions about what that means to them. Rules must be tediously specific, or they are ripe for abuse.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)then you are neither supporting them or helping them get elected. If you NEVER post anything positive about them...then like a Fox News viewer....you are not here to support or elect them...
sheshe2
(83,860 posts)With never a post that praises any action this President takes is bad for Democrats. Why the new outrage now? Are people being told that it is hopeless, that we should just stay at home in 2014 and not vote?
We already have that abuse of the rules here, tkmorris, sad but true.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)What I am saying is that to change that in a positive way means being VERY specific. "Fox style bashing" doesn't say anything.
sheshe2
(83,860 posts)Thanks tkmorris.
pscot
(21,024 posts)We could put it in the darkest corner of the lounge, back behind the stuffed penguin.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)They were both Democrats.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And DU didn't exist when Lieberman was on the national ticket.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)DU was around for Miller, and Lieberman was discussed ad nauseum after DU was formed, so you really didn't answer the question.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Miller left the Senate in 2005 (wonder why) and Lieberman left the party after losing his primary in 2006.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Oh...
Member since: 2003 before July 6th
I joined in late 2001 to be exact. So answer what Willy asked. What do you do about Lieberman and Miller?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)You're welcome.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Actually we had better standards.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)You see now?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)What you want is the ability to shut up people you do not agree with. Nice try buster. You are quite transparent.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)So however things were arranged prior to 2011 doesn't really have any bearing on the current SoP.
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)get your OP locked/hidden or whatever.
And you are whining about DU.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)So what's yours?
MADem
(135,425 posts)That's the only post the hosts can vote on. It's not "whining about DU." If I were still a forum host (and I did it for quite a bit when we first fired up here), I'd vote to leave it.
Anything below that post is a job for a jury. Juries generally don't lock for SOP. They often don't lock for TOS violations!
think
(11,641 posts)How Max Baucus, the Next Ambassador to China, Killed Progressive Health Care Reform
Sen. Max Baucus' opposition to regulating the health and insurance industry made it impossible for the Democrats to take full advantage of their 60 vote majority in the Senate. He not only lead the handful of centrist Senate Democrats against Obama's plan, but also empowered Republicans and right-wingers, including Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck, to exploit the Democratic divisions.
Let's concede that President Barack Obama's decision to appoint Senator Max Baucus as his ambassador to China is a clever political ploy. Baucus had already announced he wasn't going to seek re-election next year, but if he leaves the Senate now, Montana's Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock can appoint a replacement who can run next year as the incumbent, increasing the odds that the Democrats will hold onto that seat.
It's just unfortunate that Obama couldn't send Baucus to a democratic country so he could see first-hand what a decent universal health care system looks like. Almost any democracy country would do, since all of them -- including Canada, Germany, France, New Zealand, Sweden, England, or Japan -- cover more people at a much lower cost than the United States.....
Read more:
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/12/20-4
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You know....how far back you want to go?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Any changes would be useless when the current SoP is not enforced.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)if you come here to "punch Democrats" you are in violation of the mission...
eridani
(51,907 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Er. Did happen. Don't do drugs kids.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)"to support and elect more Democrats" by forcing them endure to endless Democrat Punches from those that "claim" to be fellow Democrats. However....I fail to see how allowing that to happen "supports and helps get more Democrats elected"
freshwest
(53,661 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)It's getting really fucking old.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)City Lights
(25,171 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)It goes to show why so many people are banned in the BOG. Thankfully they will never get their wish, this is a liberal website and they just cannot stand it!
one_voice
(20,043 posts)to not be considered a new person? When can they look forward to not being dismissed as if they're less because they're new?
neverforget
(9,436 posts)I've used trash thread function more in the last few weeks than I have ever before.
Out of sight, Out of mind.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Seriously, who has time?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)sheshe2
(83,860 posts)Oh wait I have one!
From my heart and soul, fuck you."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024685964
Logical
(22,457 posts)sheshe2
(83,860 posts)You support that statement from Will Pitt! You take pride in it as Pitt does. Has he apologized? No and he never will. He owns that and so do you!
Logical
(22,457 posts)Act like the GOP who worshiped Bush!
Will can defend himself! But he has a right to complain.
sheshe2
(83,860 posts)And Will needs his rec's from his supporters to make his sad point. Talk about worship.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Someone you need to kick??
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)sheshe2
(83,860 posts)Are you saying that a supporter of this President and the foundations of the Democratic Party that upholds equal rights for every citizen is in the minority. I am in the minority here!? On DU!!!!! Why because I am a woman and chose to speak out, WTF!
As for your cute comment about kicking threads, which ones do you refer to. I am sure I know, yet I wish to hear you say it.
You are walking a tight line here, Logical.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 29, 2014, 04:23 AM - Edit history (1)
Mainly because they don't need such facts, only fury.These Do-Nothings profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and discourage all effective action for change. They are known by their brand, 'I agree with your ends but not your means'.
~ Saul Alinsky
sheshe2
(83,860 posts)And a great quote from Saul Alinsky!
Thank you~
pkdu
(3,977 posts)Andy823
(11,495 posts)Are you saying that the "majority" of people here on DU are all for the "fox news style" of bashing democrats? That calling the president a POS and saying F you Obama is what the majority of the people on this board would approve of?
I really find that hard to believe.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I imagine some will disagree however.
p.s. thanks sheshe!
sheshe2
(83,860 posts)And thank you.
That last post, I am in a minority here? Gotta say that pisses me the hell off! You probably already read my response.
I/We are not a minority.
LOL I love your avatar!
flamingdem
(39,319 posts)we gotta little Fox running around this Den!
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)carried out by a Republican administration."
kath
(10,565 posts)Skittles
(153,182 posts)yes indeed
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Cha
(297,532 posts)could happen or not, eh ucr!
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)but ya gotta start somewhere right?
Back atcha Cha!
Cha
(297,532 posts)ucr
Logical
(22,457 posts)sheshe2
(83,860 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Is not working like it should!
sheshe2
(83,860 posts)Or whining.
Your way sure as hell won't get out the vote in 2014, now will it!
Logical
(22,457 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)oh forget it.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)What a bizarre post.
Forming a dodgeball team after school?
sheshe2
(83,860 posts)Bah Bah Bah....keep following Pitt.
Where he leads you will follow~
mvd
(65,180 posts)I'd like to see reasoned criticism over FOX-style bashing. Obvious conservative troll insults should always be dealt with. But I am afraid too many posts will be alerted as "FOX-style" and people will be afraid to post their opinions. So I say hold off on this idea.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Not me, because I happen to favor free trade. But that does not necessarily mean that I think the people who oppose free trade should be banned from expressing this opinion in GD.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Congratulations.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)This town needs an enema.
Sid
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)flamingdem
(39,319 posts)TIME OUT!
cui bono
(19,926 posts)against other DUers? I'm all for that!
gollygee
(22,336 posts)There is fair criticism, and people should be able to criticize any politician, including the POTUS.
OTOH people have moved from reasonable criticism to unreasonable bashing and name calling. I think it's gone too far.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Right now, looks like all being a Democrat means, for some, is that there is a "D" after the name. That's it. That's all.
I now have the impression that there is no Republican so low, so base, who couldn't have his sweatshirt embroidered with a "D" on the back, and instantly have the mindless support of some.
Eventually, at this rate, what we will have is a government full of various shades of GOP.
And, to make it even better, the Third Way DNC doesn't really support progressives.
The ultimate goal of the Third Way is not to gain control and magically become liberal or progressive. it is to govern as GOP would have. Austerity'n'all. IMO, etc.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Politicians, of any party, sometimes deserve to be bashed.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)This thread and the dozens like it are some of those good reasons.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)If the Meta was a bad a idea getting rid of it seems worse because the meta folks just keep on rocking and it has infected the overall host.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)from the day you showed up.
KG
(28,752 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)clg311
(119 posts)Skittles
(153,182 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... roaming the streets distracting from our GOTV efforts.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And if I can clear up one other point: the added phrase is soley to give hosts guidance in deciding whether or not to lock disruptive threads. Juries already have complete discretion in deciding whether or not to hide, so this would not affect jury decisions.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 30, 2014, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)
There's a place on DU for almost every subject under the sun. Generally when the hosts lock an OP it's because it should have been posted elsewhere. Hence the questions about kitteh threads and the like. The "no whining" clause concerns itself primarily with complaints about the treatment of DUers by other DUers via the jury system. Since we police ourselves, watching the watchers is a subject of considerable interest. The problem is that since the demise of Meta, GD gets the bulk of that traffic. Meta was eliminated because of the intramural conflict associated with distributed authority.
It seems to me that DU is designed to modulate the degree of partisan special interest among its members. Protected groups are for the most hard core partisans devoted to certain subjects while the forums are a place for the general population to meet. Hence the ability of group hosts to block certain members.
It's not hard to find accusations of "right wing talking points" being flung about. Those are the result of partisans in various interest groups reacting to a perceived failure of partisan fervor in others. It is a subjective evaluation, and "FOX style bashing" would simply be included in the repertoire of those accusations.
In the end the hosts would find themselves evaluating the fervor of people's political leanings rather than doing the job for which the position of hosts was created: proper OP placement. Evaluation of content is the purview of juries.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)From the "Forum Hosts FAQ" visible to all:
A. Forum Hosts have one very simple job: they lock threads which violate the Statement of Purpose in the forum they are hosting.
Q. How do Hosts decide what to lock?
A. Every forum has a Statement of Purpose which is used to determine what kind of threads are permitted. For example, the Statement of Purpose for this forum (General Discussion) is:
Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.
Hosts must use their own best judgment to decide whether or not any given thread in their forum is in line with the Statement of Purpose.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=hosts&volunteer=1002
That's why I'm focusing on the GD SOP, because locking and leaving is a host function. Hiding is done by juries but I'm only talking about locking.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Both are stopping the conversation. It's already difficult enough to host without adding more content to the mix. We already have extended conversations about what constitutes "whining" without adding other content considerations. One thing is certain, the hosts forum isn't an appeal court when a jury declines to hide a post.
Can you define "FOX style" bashing in such a way as to distinguish it from any other type of "bashing"?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)"FOX-style Dem bashing" is a metonymy for dog whistles and other gratuitous insults. It's defined at more length in the OP but I think it's clear enough. In any case, hosts are instructed to use their best judgment when deciding how to respond to SoP alerts:
rrneck
(17,671 posts)It's not clear enough. And the reason it's not clear enough is because each of us defines "over the top" differently. We make that assessment based on subjective criteria including partisan enthusiasm, perceived partisan enthusiasm, personal likes and dislikes, popularity or it's lack, and no doubt a host of other factors that the hosts cannot control or evaluate.
I'll ask you again. Can you provide a definition for "Fox style" bashing? Understand, a definition requires some sort of objective standard. Can you provide that?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)I am currently a GD host, and if you want me to lock OP's with "dog whistles", "incorrect style", and "over the top" content you need to exibit something other than the behavior that makes those determinations impossible.
You think you know what a "dog whistle" is, but your definition will not be the same as anybody elses. How the hell are the hosts supposed to regulate inferences?
You're not asking the hosts to be fair, you're asking the hosts to defend your personal understanding of partisan loyalty. Unfortunately you don't even have an objective standard for your own feelings, much less anything that would suffice for others.
I'll ask you again. Do you have an objective standard for proper expression of opinion sufficient to distinguish it from the expressions of our political opponents?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)in deciding whether to lock threads, PERIOD. Juries: no change. TOS: untouched. Hosts: still plenty of discretion to lock or leave at liberty, but in close shaves, an incentive to lock outlandish threads and head off shit-storms.
Also: a lock is not a hide. If hosts lock a thread, it has no effect on a member's transparency. It can also be undone relatively easily, whereas a hide is forever. But this would not affect hides.
Skittles
(153,182 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)No member is going to be any worse off for having a GD thread locked, but it would create a more serene and less divisive DU experience for everyone.
Skittles
(153,182 posts)get over yourself already - if you can't take the heat, stay in the BOG
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Epic fail.
Skittles
(153,182 posts)their panties are being wadded tighter and tighter
Rex
(65,616 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Some posts I've seen here sound like they were written by LefTEAS, not lefties. I think that kind of bitter, vitriolic commentary is just unnecessary. It also gives way too much "joy" to the wingnuts and Paulbots who read this place and pick over the comments like the losers they are, having no lives.
It's actually possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
We should at least try.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)to make it clear we're not talking about garden-variety criticism. We're talking heavy duty dog whistling.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Is the essential form of dissent
This is an adult forum, and adult language is occasionally used ... trying to stifle that language is an attempt to stifle dissent, and THAT is unacceptable ...
A huge NO FUCKING WAY for this ...
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Not to us anyway. People keep recalling that DU was founded in 2001 as a refuge from the storm. So why invite that noise in now?
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Your attempt to associate anybody who takes issue with the President with FOX is obnoxious and absurd ...
It is naked character assassination, pure and simple, ... a smear tactic that is itself the REAL problem, yet it is YOU using it here in DU ...
THAT is the true abomination, not the honestly felt dissents that you are attempting to stifle ...
Rex
(65,616 posts)But you have to expect them to try and stifle discussion, it is what they do in the BOG all day long...well did, now they only talk to themselves. THAT is what they want for GD. Just say no to echo chambers!
MADem
(135,425 posts)And it's not dissent.
It's called "Making an immature ass of yourself."
It demonstrates an inability to express oneself effectively. Not a good look for anyone claiming to be a wordsmith.
If this is an ADULT forum, it would behoove people to behave like ADULTS--and not charter members of the Terrible Twos Tantrum Team--if they want to be taken seriously.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Perhaps you focus more on the messenger than the message ...
You obviously have a different perspective as to what is more important: the messenger or the message ...
I heard what Will said, and I had no objection to his language usage ... none whatsoever ... I heard the message, loud and clear ....
Fussing about HOW he said what he said seems to me to obfuscate what his message was, and I believe THAT was the intent of the anti-free speech wing of the Democratic party ... out in force here in DU ...
Tis a pity ....
MADem
(135,425 posts)People who write like that don't last long as reporters. You don't open up your Boston Globe or even your edgy Mother Jones and see a surfeit of that kind of language. Yet, that author can't seem to get away from it. Seems like a downward circling cycle, to me.
It wouldn't matter if the reincarnation of Mary, Queen of Scots wrote that. It was a lousy thing to say, and it didn't advance any argument. It did focus attention on the writer--so if you're accusing me of paying untoward attention to the messenger, you might want to have a look at the thread that lit that stupidity off--ALL the attention went to the messenger... and maybe THAT was the goal?
If a writer can't write so that his message is "obfuscated," (to note your point) then maybe that writer ought to grab a clue--particularly when he expects to make a living at the keyboard. Tis a pity, indeed, especially when that's yer paycheck....
This has absolutely nothing to do with "free speech." One can make a clear and persuasive point without being, dare I say, a "piece of shit" about it. And if one chooses to be a "piece of shit" and express oneself in an "assholish" fashion, then one should be prepared for some free speech pushback from people who are sick to death of childish histrionics.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)YOU might want to post in an echo chamber, but I don't. And for those of you who do, there's this place called the Barack Obama Group.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Should we storm DUs gates with pitchforks in defense of those who turn to jelly when a particular politician isn't properly revered?
You go first. We're right behind ya.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I didn't post a list.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I have to run to Lowes and grab one more sheet of glass tile for my inlay in the bathroom...
Always happens, just a little bit short
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Good luck with the tile.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)skills, don't bow before authority, and don't engage in idol worship, it does not mean they are socialists.
Although some are.
I imagine the majority of RW corporatist conservatives think of all forms of socialism as a great evil; in fact I'm sure of it
"Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it." --Ronald Reagan
"President Obama is taking the country down a dark path -- but there's still time to save ourselves.
"If you look at FDR, LBJ, and Barack Obama, this is really the final leap to socialism," she said. "But we all know that we could turn this around and we can turn this around fairly quickly. We're still a free country." --Michelle Bachmann
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)Only Corporations and big money donors should have that right.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)flamingdem
(39,319 posts)I swear some of them are so naive they don't even realize they sound like Fox! Ruf Ruf
Andy823
(11,495 posts)I still think some here just want the attention and they know if they bash Obama fox style, it's worth hundreds of recs.
flamingdem
(39,319 posts)I like your icon VOTE is right!
Who needs the Teaparty when we have our own local heroes ?
p.s. speaking of votes thanks . . .