A thought about context and the constructiveness of criticism.

[Skinner]

Since the FISA and faith-based stories have been in the news, there has been a lot of discussion about whether (and how) members should be permitted to criticize Barack Obama, our presumptive presidential nominee. I'm not going to get into the gritty details of enforcement, or what is-or-isn't permitted, because that is not the purpose of this post. The purpose of this post is merely to make an observation about criticism, and the context in which it is offered.

If someone offers criticism of Barack Obama, I find that the criticism is easier to accept if the speaker has already sufficiently demonstrated their support for Senator Obama's candidacy.

Put another way: If you want to be taken seriously, it helps to prove your bona-fides.

To be clear: I'm not speaking as a DU Administrator here. My purpose is merely to offer some helpful insight to those of you who don't seem to understand why you are not showered with rose petals when you offer your special brand of constructive criticism here on DU. Allow me to explain.

If you have spent the last six-to-twelve months trashing Senator Obama here on DU, and since the primaries ended you have not given any credible indication that you are now a supporter of his campaign, then if you post a thread about how you are incredibly disappointed in him because {insert reason here}, people are likely to wonder about your motivations and conclude that you are still trying to derail his campaign.

I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying it's fair. What I am saying is that it is virtually inevitable.

So, if you want to be taken seriously -- if you want your constructive criticism to be accepted as constructive -- I humbly suggest that you put some effort into demonstrating that you actually want our guy to win this thing.

[endarkenment]

1. Rec for stating the obvious. and thanks too.

[blogslut]

2. thank you

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[JTFrog]

3. K&R

[NYC_SKP]

4. Ahhh, I love the smell of Reason in the morning. K&R nt

[KittyWampus]

5. personally, it has me confused.

[NYC_SKP]

17. OK, here's an example:

Not to speak for Skinner, but I think I'm on the right track here.

From just minutes ago, a post title without a message or explanation, just a criticism, a name-calling actually:

The chameleon approach, all things to all people

Helpful, indicative of support for the candidate?

I think not.

It indicates both disdain and shallow, reactive thinking, if indeed it even rises to the level of "thinking".

[KittyWampus]

20. Kudos! I think the best word to describe what is found on DU all too often is "reactionary".

Have a great 4th of July! :)

[NYC_SKP]

25. You. too. Happy 4th of July!

:bounce: :hi: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :applause:

[Saturday]

6. It doesn't matter if we say we now support Obama....

they tell us they don't believe us because we once supported Hillary.

[Jakes Progress]

46. That does seem to tell us

that if we didn't support Obama all the way through the primary, we need to leave.

I don't doubt that many here do want that, but I'm going to go with the interpretation that your criticism should be constructive. But you are right that most here won't believe you when you say that you are supporting the candidate. Accepting our support seems to make their support less "special". I wonder if this applies to those who supported anyone but Clinton in the past or if it is just her.

Problem is that I have witnessed one of the biggest piling ons happen to one of the journal writers who was the most vocal and rabid of Obama supporters against Hillary. She burned her to a crisp in many posts. Then she said she had a question about FISA and he has been shunned, flamed, cursed, and told to shut up or go away. So bona fide efforts from just three weeks ago don't seem to help.

[aquart]

363. The ones who will leave won't be us.

It will be the idolaters. Those of us who are Democrats, who know what it is to support human beings with flaws and stands we despise, we'll still be here.

Those who sold themselves a ridiculous salvation theology based on revivalist speechifying will leave, bitter and disillusioned and yelling "a pox on both your houses!"

We picked a candidate. We had every opportunity to express our choice and this is what we got. Our very survival depends on him. First, on his being elected. Second, on his being able to meet our needs in what looks to be like savagely desperate times. The burden we will be placing on this man will age him terribly. It may shorten his life. He will have too much power, too little money, and too much that needs to be done. Utopia isn't happpening with this election. But maybe, maybe, fewer of us will die because of it.

Those of us who knew he wasn't perfect will weather this particular storm just fine. The ones who convinced themselves that all they had to do to fix this nation was to believe and chant and write checks...welcome to reality. Did you have a nice trip?

[Skinner]

54. I don't think that is the case for the vast majority of DUers.

Yes, there are some jerks who refuse to get beyond the primary. But they are a small minority.

[unapatriciated]

154. i disagree

I voted for Edwards but now support Obama, but that doesn't mean I agree with all of his policies. I have been questioned since day one regarding being a loyal dem, anytime I post a different opinion. Both Clinton and Obama camps were guilty of this during the primary and quite a few Obama supporters are continuing to do so.. The first thing they point out is your length of time on DU. Hell, I was actively involved before some on DU were even born. Some of us have lived a very full life and have been very involved without belonging to DU. I just want to know how many times do I have to take the loyalty oath? Should I put it in my sig line?

[The Doctor.]

141. Well, when someone spends most of their posts criticizing him, then yeah...

it kind of makes it look like one doesn't support him.

It's really simple; Don't just say "I support Obama", actually stand up for him and defend him against the attacks. That will go a long way towards proving you really want him to become President.

It's just hard to believe someone who says they 'support' him while they spend their time doing little more than criticizing him.

That's all.

[AZBlue]

287. I think most of us (Obama supporters in the primaries) feel "innocent until proven guilty"

I know I for one - and from what I've seen, many other DU'ers too - feel that once Obama became the presumptive nominee, the slate was wiped clean and we all started on the same foot. Only if since that point someone has given me reason to see them in a different light have I changed my mind, and then only on an individual basis.

[defendandprotect]

294. ....it's called the "you are what we say you are" exercise in authoritarianism . ..

[jillan]

302. Amen!

The proof is in this thread.

[Trajan]

358. 'They' is vague ....

I supported BOTH candidates through out this ordeal .... I would gladly support EITHER candidate ....

Supporting Obama is supporting Obama, no matter who you might have supported in the past ... There is no mistaking support versus disdain .... It is clear to all who see it ...

Skinner speaks of EXACTLY what many of us talked of in the run up: DUers who spent over a year railing against one candidate in favor of another would be hard pressed to change tact and defend and support whom that have derided over and over again ... Some have carried that primary disdain over into the general, and cannot shake the distrust and hatreds ... well: DU supports the Democratic candidate .. That is why DU exists ...

[Window]

7. That's it in a nutshell.

:kick:

[terrya]

8. So, criticism of issues is allowed?

I still have a deep mistrust of the faith based initiative issue. I'm sorry, I do. But I got the impression I was to just shut up about my concerns and support our nominee 100%, no matter what.

[endarkenment]

29. See GDP

About half of the posts are critical of Obama over FISA and FAITH. Hardly any are locked.

[JVS]

37. Sure criticism is allowed, but when it's very easy for a DUer to bump into threads like this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=334&topic_id=1458&mesg_id=1458

There is naturally going to be suspicion of the motives of people who have participated in that kind of behavior or similar.

[terrya]

42. I understand that.

And I understand Obama moving to the center. I want him to win. A multitude of reasons, not discounting a possible Supreme Court vacancy in the next few years.

I hope, though, that I can express my concerns and criticisms freely.

[The Magistrate]

61. Actually, Sir, It Is Not That Easy

One would have to go into a Group, chartered to support a candidate during the primary, and then scroll down however far it took to find an item posted shortly after last Valentine's Day. This is not something one stumbles upon, but rather something one hunts up....

[JVS]

64. not if one likes reading threads by number of replies

it's one of the top ones there.

[The Magistrate]

78. Viewed By Time-Stamp, Sir, As Most Do, It Is On Page Eighteen Of That Group

To present it as something current, something right up in everyone's face at present, seems a bit off, somehow.

[JVS]

81. It is still an active thread albeit in a slow moving forum. Like I said, number of replies is a...

way of reading. Especially if one wants to know what the big themes of a forum are. Is it current? It's not new, but on the other hand it's not archived and does have some pretty bold statement about people's future plans.

[The Magistrate]

86. Nothing With a Last Post In February, Sir, Is Properly Considered Current In July

Nor can things said almost half a year ago in the heat of battle be properly taken as indicating anyone's present state of mind.

[JVS]

92. That is correct. Things said currently indicate people's present states of mind.

But it is the nature of skepticism to view what people say now in light of what was said in the past. People who have said such extreme things as were said in that thread have had plenty of time to say things to the contrary. In fact since the thread is still open, they could even go and add replies that their attitude has changed. I think Skinner's OP is really good in that it points out that people have to live with the consequences of their past actions in the forum, and that if someone has been harsh earlier, that people will be wary of them now.

On edit: also on the whole "heat of battle". I think that is a large part of the problem actually. That people have thought of the primary as a battle or war.

[QC]

94. "people have thought of the primary as a battle or war"

Sorry, but for you to complain about that is like Dean Martin calling someone a drunk. You were one of the most relentlessly nasty of the primary warriors and you are still in that mode. This is not a subject on which you have any room to speak.

[The Magistrate]

96. Some Members On All Sides Thought Of It As Battle, Sir

And the continuation of that attitude can be found among some members on all sides to this day. It is something everyone should drop, both as it relates to our Presidential nominee, and fellow members of this forum.

In my view one of the chief reasons for the heat was that there was so little by way of substantial difference between the leading candidates. Small differences must be exaggerated in debate to give them weight sufficient to support fervor, and one of the hazards of employing hyperbole is that people sometimes forget they are using a rhetorical device, and come to feel they stating plain fact when they are engaging in it....

[JVS]

98. Interesting theory about the heat, but I'm not sure I can believe it.

"In my view one of the chief reasons for the heat was that there was so little by way of substantial difference between the leading candidates."

Am I to take it that candidates with radically different positions would have a civil and calm election?

[The Magistrate]

120. The Heat Would Have Had A Different Quality, Sir

And yes, there would, among friends as we all really are here, been more room for reasonable discussion of differences. Not everyone would have taken advantage of it, but it would certainly have been there. Where differences are real and substantial, there is no need for smear and ad hominen: where they are not, these things are necessary if one is determined to prevent the discussion arriving at a 'kumbaya moment', where both sides agree they really pretty much are on the same page. Often here that is true, but saying so is not much fun, and does not satisfy the combative spirit many are endowed with.

[JVS]

124. There was smear and ad hominem when debating different medical plans.

The way that I could see similarity of candidates heating up the process most is by forcing the focus of discussion over the campaign to be about two things: Identity Politics, and Campaign Tactics. In tactics especially I think many people were deeply offended by their opponent's campaign.

[The Magistrate]

132. Some People Will Always Do That, Sir: They Know No Other Way, And Often Enjoy It

But some situations entice to it, and draw into such behavior people who might otherwise not engage in it.

And as you say, partisans on both sides found much that distressed them about the other side's tactics, even as their own campaign was engaged in similar behaviors. That sort of tunnel vision will always be a feature of committed partisanship.

If you have not read Mr. Orwell's essay on Nationalism, please accept my recommendation to do so: he has a lot to say about that last habit....

http://www.george-orwell.org/Notes_on_Nationalism/0.html

[MichiganVote]

288. God Mag, you are awesome. Well done sequence of responses.

[musicblind]

317. Seriously Magistrate. You are possibly my favorite poster here.

I wish that you would respond in my thread on religion. I felt that people were very unfair to me in some of their comments. Yet you are always fair, and say things so much better than I could. I always love everything I read by you. In fact, I have a word document of striking quotes that I find online and then collect together. Several of them were peeled from your various posts. :)

[cornermouse]

161. In other words,

fights between family members are almost always nastier, meaner, and more vindictive than fights against strangers or other family outsiders; perhaps because we expect them to be our clones instead of themselves. Right?

[Runcible Spoon]

72. HUGS to you, Sir. A Very Astute Observation.

:hug:

[redqueen]

93. Actually that kind of stuff

is posted dozens of times a day here. Not in OPs usually... but in responses.

Easier to get away with I suppose.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

108. PUMAs get away with everything

They are spun from precious glass, apparently.

[Clintonista2]

291. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

[apocalypsehow]

295. Here, go have a good cry over this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6448689

[Cha]

169. I feel like I have

to be a PUMA detector around here.

Edit~add "to" & "a"

[redqueen]

185. What's the point though?

It's apparently all fine and dandy, the disrupting.

[Cha]

189. I know..I may be swimming

in a sea of sharks..

[rodeodance]

102. Its hardly fair to call out a DU member for something said in Feb. that post should

be edited out of the link. she is not even here to defend herself

[mrreowwr_kittty]

111. Boo hoo. What about stuff you're saying now on another forum?

A virulently anti-Obama one with a John McCain ad on the front page?

Go ahead, alert on this. The mods will delete it so your tender widdle eyes won't have to see it.

PUMAs are pweshus! :eyes:

[BlackVelvet04]

164. We don't get to decide which ads are placed on the board....

but somehow I think you know that.

[bunnies]

168. Do you get to decide what you post BlackVelvet?

Or is that out of your control too... :shrug:

Heres a little gem, just for example:

"Bingo.....look at how many of them are lamenting Obama's FISA stand and his change of course on public campaign financing. Bless their little ignorant hearts that really thought he was DIFFERENT. They wouldn't listen to us and now they are suffering from the disillusionment and disappointment we KNEW was coming."

[JVS]

170. LOL. Funny.

[BlackVelvet04]

221. changed the subject didn't you?.....

Look, if you want to act like a little high schooler running from group to group carrying tales that's your choice...it's pretty pathetic and stalker like but your prerogative nevertheless. You made a big issue out of the McCain ad and I pointed out we don't have any control over the ads.

I know it really galls you that people actually have a forum where they can say what they like about Obama but that's just your tough luck if it bugs you. You and your fellow Obama supporters trashed Hillary Clinton pretty much with impunity here so don't be surprised that there is a backlash for that. Karma's a bitch, bunny.

As for the quote you referred to I had to go and see who posted it....I'm so glad it was me, because it's the truth. In the future if you quote me I'd appreciate attribution for my words.

Happy stalking to ya!




PS

If my presence at D.U. disturbs you maybe you should ask skinner why I still have an account here.

Subject:
My D.U. account
From:
Administrator
Date:Tue, Jun 24, 2008 1:45 pm
To:[email protected]
Dear skinner,

I know you normally do not honor requests to remove an account but I'm going to ask anyway.

I feel that the fact I have an account at D.U. while simultaneously running Capital Hill causes a lot of tension for members of both forums. Contrary to some D.U. member's belief, I have done everything in my power to prevent a board war. I no longer allow links to D.U. on our board in an effort to calm the troubled waters and have discouraged members from discussing D.U. issues at Capital Hill.

I would appreciate it if you would remove my account. I really prefer not to have to be an asshole and flame out.

Thanks for your consideration.

BlackVelvet04


Not only did he not delete my account he didn't have the courtesy to reply.

[bunnies]

228. Actually sweetie... I didnt say jack shit about the McCain ads.

And no... I dont give a shit what you say. I just cant stand two-faced back stabbers.

As far as your DU account. You COULD try being a big girl and canceling it yourself aka stop coming here.

Furthermore, I never trashed Hillary, so shove it. And good luck with "Democrats for McCain".

on edit: PS. Its Capitol. With an O.

[BlackVelvet04]

231. No, dumbass, it's CapitAl....

check your dictionary if you know how.

[JVS]

236. It's capitAl. They like stupid puns.

And that is directed at the CapitalHill community and not any posters here (even if their handles may be the same), lest anyone interpret my post as a personal attack

[tekisui]

335. Their wish to be banned has been honored.

[bunnies]

338. Good!

Best news I've heard all morning. :applause:

[TahitiNut]

311. "I really prefer not to have to be an asshole and flame out."

Too late. Many, many months too late. :shrug:

[GoldieAZ49]

263. Wow, looks like she nailed it.

astute observations should not be allowed on other websites?

First FISA now the net police!

[bunnies]

173. And do you get to decide what stays on YOUR site?

"Today, the Freepers are right to call posters at DU "DUmmies." It was not always so but then the Øbamatrons took over, most everyone else left, and the average IQ fell like a rock. No intelligence and no common sense shown there now, but lots of loyalty to the Dear Leader. THAT scares me."

Just curious.

[bunnies]

166. I'd also like to know the answer to this question.

I suppose all that matters is that they pretend to support him here. Oh yeah... and dont admit that they're actively working against him. :eyes:

[niceypoo]

209. This is exactly the crap Skinner is talking about

See tagline

[lark]

249. What's a PUMA?

Sorry, I'm not up on that particular bit of lingo.

Thanks!!

[Zhade]

250. "Petty Uninformed Mewling Assholes"

NT!

[blondeatlast]

269. Pissy Utterly Malignant Agitprop; but I like yours too. nt

[JackORoses]

225. hey there, rodeo

looks like you are the one who needs to be defending themself

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:yXSG8NYbMsUJ:capitalhillforum.com/topic/362887/1/+rodeodance+mccain+site:capitalhillforum.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us

I always knew you were a fraud.

No self-respecting Democrat spells quite so badly.

[JVS]

234. Jack. There's no need to name call. That link alone is reproach enough.

[JackORoses]

238. awww, c'mon. we've put up with this facade for so long

Hundreds of hilarious posts were deleted because Mods assumed this person was a fellow Democrat and respected their alerts.

As it turns out, this person has been playing us all for fools.

[JVS]

239. We must take the high road.

We can be civil when pointing out that we don't believe a word they say.

[JackORoses]

241. if only there were more like you, JVS

[JVS]

242. That's kind of you to say.

I have a feeling that some of our "most treasured" fellow DUers are going to add a lot of snark and shit to your comment though.

[JackORoses]

247. indubitably

;)

[Egnever]

281. Well looky there

thanks for posting that. This thread delivers! Lots of fake shit disturbers geting outed.

[TahitiNut]

313. "Project Shoe Leather""???

Maybe "Pied en Croute" would be more apt for those always putting their foot in their mouth?

[shagsak]

344. pwned!!!111

[mrreowwr_kittty]

119. Mr. Magistrate, with all due respect

I have noticed a tendency of yours to jump to the defense of the PUMA crowd. Sir, I do wish you would consider the feelings of the people here who support the Democratic nominee and who are tired of productive discussions being derailed by instigators who are now members of another site, proudly proclaiming how they won't vote for Senator Obama. Are we now to start giving Naderites and "concerned" Freepers the same kind of leeway we are giving the PUMAs?

[The Magistrate]

131. And With All Due Respect In Return, Ma'am

People sometimes find what they look for, and overlook things that might not jibe with it.

My concern is with the rules of the site. These do not allow members to accuse other members of being trolls and disruptors, and when people do that in the open forum, and it comes to our attention, we have to do something about it. We do not like having to remove posts and mark up a member's record; we do not like expelling people from the site, save in the most obvious cases of 'freeper' arrivals. The rules also allow constructive criticism, as Mr. Skinner has stated here, and that is something it is hard to cleanly define, especially since we try and be fair to all our members, and employ a sort of 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard in deciding what meets or does not meet the tests of what is or is not a constructive criticism, but rather falls under the heading of 'divisive and imflammatory'.

My personal view is that all should unite behind Sen. Obama, and that he is making moves in his campaign at present that are those of conventional electoral strategy. Persons who preferred Sen. Clinton should take their cue from the Lady herself, and support Sen. Obama unequivocally. Persons who quarrel with recent actions of Sen. Obama from a left perspective should recognize the need of the political hour in its broadest construction, and give him room to do what he thinks needs to be done to secure defeat of the enemy. All fire should be concentrated on McCain and in defense of our Presidential candidate.

[Seabiscuit]

144. Good grief.

"My personal view is that all should unite behind Sen. Obama, and that he is making moves in his campaign at present that are those of conventional electoral strategy. Persons who preferred Sen. Clinton should take their cue from the Lady herself, and support Sen. Obama unequivocally. Persons who quarrel with recent actions of Sen. Obama from a left perspective should recognize the need of the political hour in its broadest construction, and give him room to do what he thinks needs to be done to secure defeat of the enemy. All fire should be concentrated on McCain and in defense of our Presidential candidate."

IOW: Be a "good German". They supported Mein Fuhrer "unequivocally" as well.

IOW: "Obey. Resistance Is Futile."

Meanwhile free speech has taken a nose dive on DU.

[Emit]

179. Who ya gonna vote for, Seabiscuit? That's the bottom line here.

Who ya gonna vote for? Is McCain an option? Seriously?

[Seabiscuit]

191. Who ya gonna vote for, Emit? That's the bottom line here.

Who ya gonna vote for? Is McCain an option? Seriously?

I got a nice little loyalty oath here for you to sign.

[The Doctor.]

198. Do you somehow think that was a CLEVER way to avoid the question?

So you don't support Obama, we know.

[Seabiscuit]

200. I don't have to answer your questions any more than you have to answer mine.

Shall I take your nonresponse to my question the same way you take my nonresponse to yours now? OK. "So you don't support Obama, we know." There.

Get it? I don't answer to you. You don't own me any more than you own this website.

[The Doctor.]

203. I'll answer any questions you put to me. So do you have one?

[Seabiscuit]

205. OK. I'll believe it when I see it. Here's another question for you, since you wouldn't answer my

first one.

Will you kindly leave this place forever and then go fuck yourself?

[The Doctor.]

208. You never asked me the first question.

You're not very good at paying attention, are you?

I see you attempt to compensate for your lack of reason with an abundance of vulgarity, however.

[Seabiscuit]

220. .

[Emit]

211. Well, there`was nothing clever in that response at all

nada, lol

[Trajan]

359. In a way: partcipation in DU discussions is a tacit form of loyalty oath

We support Democratic candidates ....

I will sign an oath stating I will vote for the candidate of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama ....

I came to DU to join the fraternity of Democrats who are tired of republican rule, and who are nearly as tired of detractors who would distract us from that quest ....

So .... are you unwilling to agree that we are here to promote Democratic candidates, including Barack Obama ? .... That is the mission statement of DU ... My staying here is a tacit acceptance of that mission ....

This duplicity is tiring ....

[The Doctor.]

192. In case you haven't figured it out, "Free Speech" on a privately owned site doesn't exist.

That, and if you think that undermining Obama is merely "free speech", then you're "free" to leave.

The suggestion that you support the candidate isn't 'restricting' your 'free speech', it's friendly advice if you want to stick around.

You've never supported him, so you're not fooling anyone. The OP is all about you, you should read it until you understand what it actually says instead of feigning indignance over 'free speech'.

[Seabiscuit]

193. Unfree speech zone. Love it or leave it.

Got it.

And toss out your critical thinking on your way out the door.

Got it.

Obey.

You will be assimilated.

Or you will be deleted, locked, or tombstoned.

Resistance is futile.

We are Borg.

Got it.

Thank you for your concern.

[The Doctor.]

197. ...

"2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. "

Why do you have a problem with that?

Barack Obama is the Democrat running for President. If you cannot support him, then you do not belong here. It's really that simple.

[Seabiscuit]

199. WTF??? Where do you get off accusing me of not supporting our nominee???

Have most of the posters on DU gone totally insane?

I have no problem whatsoever with the rule you posted. How dare you claim that I do???

You don't have to tell me who's running for President. WTF???

"If you cannot support him, then you dod not belong here." I have repeatedly sworn to vote for Obama on DU once he became the presumptive nominee. And you have the audacity to pretend I "cannot support him"??? WTF???

I can support Obama without having to drink your Kool-Aide swill and turn my mind into mush, thank you very much.

[The Doctor.]

202. I accused you of no such thing. Read and understand BEFORE responding.

You were asked that simple question before and refused to answer.

Don't blame me for your inability to come out and voice your support, neither expect me to run down all your posts until I find the ones where you so mention it.

So why is it that you feel that voicing your support is tantamount to taking an "oath of loyalty"?

And please, before you have conniptions, re-read your responses here and you'll see my questions are fair and reasonable.

[Seabiscuit]

204. I read it carefully and responded appropriately. You're making the same false accusations with this

post.

You're a friggin' irrational nutcase and about as thoroughly dishonest as one could possibly be, even on a forum where honesty is getting hard to find.

[The Doctor.]

207. Wow, that's really sad. Have to resort to personal attacks, eh?

It says "IF you do not support him you don't belong here." NOT "You do not support him, you do not belong here."

Learn some reading comprehension before you claim anyone else is irrational.

In case the logic still escapes you; if you support Obama, then you belong here.

If that's the case, then bully for you. Meanwhile, your history is not one of supporting the candidate, which is why the OP applies to you.

Seriously, learn comprehension before you call other people 'nutcases'... and realize that once you go there, it's likely not the other poster who's the 'nutcase'.

Please grow the fuck up.

[Seabiscuit]

223. Get lost, little troll, and stop following me around insulting my intelligence.

Your questions to me were loaded with false assumptions - assumptions that I didn't support our nominee. Just as the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" contains the assumption that you beat your wife, it also constitutes an accusation that you beat your wife. If in fact you don't beat your wife, then both the assumption and accusation are false.

And then there was this: "So you don't support Obama, we know." See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6443683&mesg_id=6446360

That's the dishonest game you've been playing here with me.

So... either you're (A) one of the dumbest people on the planet or (B) a compulsive liar and hypocrite. Or (C) all three.

So here's my third question for you since you promised to answer my questions but haven't answered the first two yet:

Which is it - A, B, or C?

[The Doctor.]

235. I couldn't possibly insult your intelligence.

If we've cleared up the point of whether you support Obama or not, great. All I had to go on was your criticism. Expecting me to figure it out when you refuse to answer the simple question of whether you support him or not is really childish... or just stupid.

Resorting to personal attacks because you can't be bothered to pay attention to the posts you're responding to is very sad, and does not speak well to your rationality.

It's obvious that you don't pay much attention because you still accuse me of not answering a question you never asked me.

Then, asking the "question"; "Will you kindly leave this place forever and then go fuck yourself?" is the perfect admission that you have all the maturity and reason of a profane, belligerent 6 year-old.

And when choice "C" is "All three", you've really hammered home the impression that you really don't think things through.

That's pretty much been your history here these last few months, and your belligerence makes it quite difficult to believe that you support the candidate in earnest. I will take your word for it, however much you feel you need to couch it in profanity.

To be called a 'troll', or pretty much anything else by someone of your "caliber" is little more than laughable, but by all means keep railing at the sky.

I'll just be done with you in this thread now so as to minimize your opportunities to continue to embarrass yourself.

Have at it tiger.

[shagsak]

346. best thread argument ever

"Will you please leave this place forever and then go fuck yourself?"....lol

[Forkboy]

246. That's what you took from that?

:rofl:

[JVS]

257. I can't believe that vocally supporting the nominee has now become comparable...

to holocaust collaboration.

[Runcible Spoon]

77. I find it very amusing for you to criticize the behavior of others.

A thread like that can go in any number of ways. You could have looked at it as an opportunity to make those who are disheartened re-rally support by posting positive, encouraging sentiments.

Somehow I doubt you are very interested in winning any friends or influencing people on the fence. If you were, I would think you might back off on the overly caustic, antagonistic, and just generally nasty tones your posts convey.

[bridgit]

100. Tue Feb-19-08 06:54 PM? I notice you made no post into it. Just performing a bit of opp research?

To roll out on this very day?

[JVS]

104. For me to post on that forum would be a violation of the subforum rules.

But I like to read all the subforums. Particularly those where my handle has shown up in with a google search.

[bridgit]

106. If we are all here to enhance; there is nothing that prohibits you from being civil in any forum

[JVS]

110. Non-supporters of a candidate are strongly discouraged from posting in their Supporter Group forum

There is a locked thread from an outsider wishing a happy easter.

[rodeodance]

159. AND CALLING OUT a DU member for what was said in that forum in FEBRUARY IS RUDE AT BEST!!

pirhana HAS POSTED HER SUPPORT FOR OBAMA ON du SINCE THE PRIMARIES. GO FIND THAT ONE.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

285. When did you write this?

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:yXSG8NYbMsUJ:capitalhillforum.com/topic/362887/1/+rodeodance+mccain+site:capitalhillforum.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us

rodeodance Today, 10:00 AM Post #1
Majority Leader

Posts:
4,192
Group:
Senior Members
Member
#29
Joined:
Apr 2, 2008




I just ran across this site: :devil:
I also x-posted the link in our Link forum

Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain


http://www.hcsfjm.com/comments13.html

Here is a version of a project someone sent to me. If we do not get Hillary as the nominee, the we will get to a grassroots campaign for McCain. All of us has computer. We will get someone to design us a flyer that we can download and print copies of. Then we will take these flyer and go door to door in our city's, towns and neighborhoods handing these flyer out. When we talk to our friend and neighbors, they will listen to us. We can change enough mind to swing this election. So start saving now. Each one of us need a war chest of about $100.00 to do this along with some good shoe leather.
We will call this "Project Shoe Leather"
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top

0 users reading this topic
« Previous Topic · Action Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply
Choose a theme:

[Umbram]

337. Rodeo, is this true? You are for McCain?

I hope it's not rude for me to ask, but, I'm disappointed if it is.

Please tell me it's someone just using your handle.

On edit, never mind - I guess I won't be getting a response.

[mkultra]

351. so essentially, you support mccain by your own admission

If this is true, why are you here? Do you plan on disrupting this website?

[aquart]

364. February? Good grief.

Someone needs to stop living in the past.

[bridgit]

290. well, understood as a practical matter i suppose; but i remain less than convinced...

that it is then somehow strongly *en*couraged to reach into that same "Supporter Group forum", pull product, and drag it round the board :):(

[Bunny]

122. *plonk*

[polmaven]

146. You did notice that thread

was begun on FEBRUARY 19, right?

[yourguide]

326. However...

Showing rodeo as a member since April, would have had to have been written after that.

And the link and thread rodeo's post directs to was started on June 19 so it would have had to have been June 19 or since.

[Cha]

167. I'm ignoring that author so I guess they're

still at it from the primaries.

[JVS]

171. you might not want to read it at all.

[Carni]

196. For God's sake that's from February

I hardly think that is relevant in July.

[jillan]

284. If you can remember threads I posted months ago, you seriously need to get a life.

February? :rofl: Yeah - nothing has happened since then?


Buh-bye jvs.

[Marrah_G]

324. Hun, why bother?

Just put the little bugger on ignore. Your screen will become a happier place in seconds!

[sniffa]

350. Who are you talking to?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bugger

[katty]

194. hopefully, it is-I have concerns about FISA vote and Faithbase

issues-big concerns, he's caving in before he gets started.

[defendandprotect]

296. AND . . . I'd like to point out ... that hopefully we reached some EDUCATIONAL levels ...

in the criticism on both of these issues.

While I think we all expressed disappointment in Obama --- we all went on, as far as

I've seen, to DEBATE and discuss the reasons WHY we hold the position we do on these

very important issues.


It's been shocking to see how many here at DU readily adopt a faith-based presumption

that Obama is doing something for political/wink-wink reasons and how swell that's

going to work out --- while seemingly totally ignoring the dangers of a democratic

government spying on its citizens --


And, even faster than they'll throw over the Fourth Amendment, they'll throw over

Separation of Church and State.

[Evergreen Emerald]

9. Yikes!

You are suggesting that we "prove" our loyalty to the presumptive nominee or risk being ridiculed by those on DU who attack anyone (and alert on everyone) who does not observe blind loyalty and constant adulation.

Thanks for the advice.

[Coexist]

11. oh please.

[Evergreen Emerald]

12. Oh please your damn self

[Coexist]

14. what exactly are you suggesting?!

[The Doctor.]

292. I think someone is projecting their... ummm....

desires...

I think EE might have her mind on something other than DU.

[blondeatlast]

13. I don't need ignore to "ignore" that one.

Don't give her more reason to feel put upon; her audience is dwindling to nothing.

[Runcible Spoon]

16. I don't think posts like this help the discourse at all.

I don't know who her "audience" is supposed to be but if she says something you deem derisive, reinforcing that schism with inflammatory posts of your own just gives the impression that we can't find any common ground. That's sad.

[endarkenment]

21. See the OP - he stated it quite clearly.

It isn't about blind loyalty. If all you do is 'criticize' the Democratic candidate, many of us here will have a rather negative perception of your motivations and intentions. If you are fine with that, carry on.

[Evergreen Emerald]

278. I always consider the source n/t

[defendandprotect]

298. And are you or someone else the authority who watches ....

and determines if a "all we do is 'criticize' the Democratic candidate" . . . ???

Is this now a spying operation at DU --- ??

Are we being reported after one day . . . two days . . . three days --- ???

Do you yet have any grasp at what begins to happen when you set out to control the

the free speech of others --- ???

[endarkenment]

334. No. Get over it. How you choose to behave is how you will be perceived.

I will judge you for myself as I perceive your activities here. Others will do the same. This is like any other social situation. I have no authority outside of my own views.

Is there a spying operation on DU? Yes indeed. We are spying on your public posts on a public message board and from the content of those posts drawing conclusions about what your motivations and intentions are. How dare we! We are such bastards!

[defendandprotect]

356. ...and remember that we will also be judging your behavior and attempts to intimidate ...

and censor free speech ---

[SurfingAtWork]

22. Don't worry, no blood oaths are involved.. however expresing positive sentiments toward our nominee

Is probably a good place to start

[defendandprotect]

299. Let me suggest to you that free speech is a good place to start ---

and a good neighborhood to hang around in.

Trying to suppress it sometimes begins to sound like intimidation ---

[kid a]

24. What are you, 2 years old?

sheesh.

[TexasObserver]

43. Loyalty to the party's nominee is a condition of DU membership.

That is a well known prerequisite, plainly told to all who enter this site.

Those of us who are enthusiastic about seeing the party finally get a candidate who isn't boring and who does seem to excite the middle do not want to spend from now until the election reading the constant attacks on Obama by the same posters who have been attacking him for months.

There are a couple dozen posters who chronically attack Obama, and go out of their way even now to post threads whose titles scream FLAMEBAIT!!

FISA and FBO issues are both concerns, but Obama can't do any of those things without congress fully backing them. I don't like either of them, but I understand why Obama is picking and choosing which issues on which to distinguish himself from McCain. That's because he's smart, because he's not a fool who thinks the point of the election to prove he's Dennis Kucinich to the Democratic party's far left.

[Zhade]

252. That's not exactly accurate. What's not allowed is undermining our candidate.

People are not required to be loyal to him. If they oppose him, though, they better keep their mouths shut, or they'll meet the banhammer.

[defendandprotect]

300. Again, I think you have to deal with the fact that criticism and "attacks" are two

quite different things ---

However, what you are making quite clear is that you can't tolerate free speech --

[The Doctor.]

139. Not even close.

If you've been anti-Obama all along, and then expect people to think your criticism is genuine rather than aimed at undermining him, then your expectations are very naïve.

That does, in fact, mean you.

[Cha]

177. You're still here fighing the primaries..

No need for a fake "loyality" shit from you.

[Zhade]

251. You have to admit that those who trashed Obama while supporting a liar like clinton are suspect.

As Skinner said, it's not fair, but it's to be expected.

[Evergreen Emerald]

280. It sounds as if it is you who cannot get over the primaries.

Everything you see is through the prism of primary. And I see you are still spreading lies about Clinton...can't get past it huh?

And people suggest Clinton supporter's opinions are suspect.

[defendandprotect]

301. Just as an aside . . with all the urgent issues . . are you saying yo u keep a scorecard . . .

I certainly never supported HRC, but I'd find someone paying that much attention to
"who" said what here kind of unhealthy as a regular pasttime ---

[mtnsnake]

348. Speaking of liars, your 1 of the biggest. Your also 1 of the most suspect of trolls, so STFU

about Clinton supporters and start worrying about yourself instead, Zhade.

[mkultra]

352. yes, suprisingly, the democratic underground

requires that you not come here to bash the current democratic nominee.

seems pretty straightforward to me. If your looking for the thin line then your probably planning on walking right next to it.

[Coexist]

10. Most reasonable insight

[blondeatlast]

15. Sad that the obvious has to be stated, but I'm glad that someone did. Thanks. nt

[wndycty]

18. Exactly there are a ton of folks who could get criticize Obama and I wouldn't question their motives

And many of those folks were not necessarily Obama supporters but they have always been fair, even if they backed a different candidate in the primaries. I don't think we need to march lock step behind Obama, but the tone of the criticisms are what concern me. Criticize him all you want (even I have criticisms) but do it in a manner that makes people consider what you are saying, not in a manner that can easily be interpreted as just more candidate bashing left over from the primaries.

[JVS]

19. I TOTALLY agree.

[Hugin]

23. I find this statement highly objectionable...

As one who has almost lost their livelihood several times by speaking my mind to the Bush Regime, I thought the days of
holding my tongue were OVER!

I thought the days of having an Executive immune and cloistered from public opinion were OVER!

I thought the days of "Loyalty Oaths" and "Majority Bullying" were OVER!

So, now if I haven't proven my supplication to the presumptive nominee I don't have the RIGHT! to speak my mind?

That's beyond unconscionable to me.

Okay, I'll hold my tongue then in the interest of 'Unity'... Just like I have for the last 8 (seems like a million)
years. :eyes:

[kid a]

26. drama, dude...take your high and mighty platitudes to Penn Ave.

[Hugin]

28. Thanks for chiming in with worthless chatter...

[JVS]

27. Go ahead and speak your mind. Other people will form their opinions accordingly.

Don't tell people that they have no right to evaluate your comments.

[Hugin]

31. I'm being told I haven't earned the right to speak my mind...

And it should be abundantly clear I don't abridge anyone's right to evaluate my comments.

[JVS]

33. No, you've been told that if you have consistently been against the man who is now the nominee...

that people might doubt your commitment to getting him elected now, and they have every right to doubt it.

[NYC_SKP]

30. Please re-read the post, especially the last line. nt

[Hugin]

32. I know perfectly well what it says...

Re-read the first line of my post and tell me I DON'T WANT THIS GUY TO WIN!

[Zodiak]

35. You were not asked to hold your tongue

You were asked to not be surprised if you take criticism from members here who have not seen any support from you before.

And it is not supplication you must prove, it is a general desire to see Obama win over McCain. Those are the bare minimum requirements for even being here.

I say this as someone who has been sharply critical of the FISA capitulation amongst other recent positions our candidate/party has taken. But my criticism stems from a desire to see Obama win by holding our coalition together, not tearing it asunder to pursue a few extra votes from the "backwash".

[Hugin]

38. Okay, now that makes some sense...

"But my criticism stems from a desire to see Obama win by holding our coalition together, not tearing it asunder to pursue a few extra votes from the "backwash"." -- Well said, as does any criticism I may put forward.

[Jakes Progress]

56. Well put interpretation.

I understand that I will get flak if I suggest that our candidate needs to change course in order to win and keep his promises. There may be a few trolls and plants who go after FISA and such, but I think there are a few who tow the "loyalty oath" line because it creates so much dissent.

[TBF]

135. Sometimes it's all in the way things are stated as well... it is easy to

misinterpret words when you don't have facial gestures, etc... to back it up. For instance, Jakes Progress, I disagreed with a FISA post you had made the other day, but we had some discussion back and forth that finally became more amiable and enlightening on both sides. By the end I was not so convinced I was correct anymore. So, alot can be in how you say something, not just what you say.

[ourbluenation]

63. given that this board focuses on getting the dem nom elected, it's really not that objectionable...

if you think about it.

if one is not working towards that goal, then it might not be the board for him/her.

[Shakespeare]

123. That's not at ALL what he said, and you know it.

He said that if you've been consistently negative on Obama, stop acting all shocked and outraged when people verbally jump up and down on you when you post (yet another) critical thread or post.

You shall know a tiger by his stripes...

[AntiFascist]

165. Please, don't hold your tongue...

I've never felt an overriding need to hold my tongue when criticizing Democratic leaders. The trick is to couch your comments in a constructive manner and hold back on the anger. In other words, "the Democratic Party would be much better off if <such and such>..." Instead of calling for Nancy Pelosi's head, warn, instead, that she'd better listen to the Left if she plans any sort of future in politics.

[TexasObserver]

34. That says it very well. Demonstrating bona fides.

When someone who has been a strong Obama supporter tees off on him for FISA, that has impact. When someone who has never said a good word about Obama starts a thread on FISA, and makes the thread title something accusatory toward Obama, I react to that as just another attempt at pissing on Obama and his candidacy. The substance of the two threads may be similar, but the one with the bloody shirt title waved by the long time Obama critic is going to get my dander up.

It is entirely appropriate to say "wow, I wonder what Obama is really doing on FISA?" It's quite another to accuse him of rolling over for the telecoms and being a turncoat to our side.

[Runcible Spoon]

36. This is a huge messageboard. Some people are louder than others...

Of course some people have established reputations here, but the vast majority of posts I read and either love or blanch at are written by people whose posting history is a mystery to me.

Is this post aimed at people who are obvious, known DU personalities? I only ask because for 99% of the posting population, asking that they establish a certain reputation is downright impossible and we don't have the time to do background research on a poster's activities. Other posters do quite well in pointing out obvious hypocrisy and I think between that and our moderators, we don't need to be concerned with any loyalty litmus tests.

In short, I choose to judge a post by what it contains. I like to assume that most people don't have hidden, ulterior motives (I'm aware some do and I have my suspicions) and I'm willing to give complete strangers the benefit of the doubt. The vast majority of disruptors out themselves eventually.

[berni_mccoy]

39. I'm being attacked for defending Obama and other Dems. It's getting ridiculous.

[Phillycat]

40. I don't understand.

And believe me when I say I'm not trying to be an ass. I truly don't understand.

You say: "If someone offers criticism of Barack Obama, I find that the criticism is easier to accept if the speaker has already sufficiently demonstrated their support for Senator Obama's candidacy."

This part is what I don't understand: if the speaker has already sufficiently demonstrated their support for Senator Obama's candidacy

What does that mean? I've stated many times that I don't like or trust Senator Obama, that's he's not my chosen candidate, and he becomes less my chosen candidate every single day. I've also stated that I'm a loyal Democrat, that I've never not voted for a Democrat, that it won't be the first or last time I hold my nose and vote for a candidate because that's what it means to be a party loyalist. Obama has had my vote since the minute he became the presumptive. There's never been any question of that. But I won't volunteer for or donate to him.

So, completely sincere question. Have I sufficiently demonstrated my support? I don't know what I'm allowed to say. I am honestly trying to stay out of trouble here and follow the rules. I swear to God.

[Skinner]

48. This is the downside of being the Admin.

I'm not telling you the rules, and I'm not telling you what is or is not permitted. But being the Admin, people understandably read my posts that way.

I'm providing an observation about why some criticism may not always be well received, and providng some advice about what one might be able to do to get a better reception.

But I have no control over how others perceive you. Whether I think you have sufficiently demonstrated your support is irrelevant.

[Phillycat]

51. Ah, okay. Thanks.

I don't do a whole lot of criticism of Obama anyway, so I don't seem to get this flak of which you speak. I just wanted to make sure I didn't get kicked off DU. Heh.

[defendandprotect]

304. So there are no "inspections" here to judge how well a poster has supported Obama . . .

and no members authorized to conduct those inspections . . . ???

Whether I think you have sufficiently demonstrated your support is irrelevant.

Then I think part of our problem is that many members here do think they have the

right to suggest that some members are . . . "being watched" and judged because they

have opinions criticial of Obama's positions.

[bridgit]

60. I would seem to mean that only avid supports of Obama are able to critique him...

They with critique' all along have no right to do so, even as those critique' are seen taking shape :shrug:

But yeah, you have "sufficiently demonstrated (your) support", you're already part of the choir :)

[QC]

97. Even they are not allowed to voice a word of criticism, apparently.

Two of the harshest critics of the FISA cave in were among the most zealous (to put it politely) of the Obama Warriors until a week or so ago, but now they are being treated as pariahs because they think the Fourth Amendment is still of some importance.

We have a small but very loud pack of bullies here determined to silence anyone who disagrees with them, and they have been running herd on everyone else here since the beginning of the year.

[Phillycat]

101. I wasn't surprised when I saw madinmaryland get buried under the pile of hate.

And jpgraz, too, with the faith-based stuff. Two huge Obama supporters, eaten by their own. I admit to a little bit of shadenfreude, yes I do.

[QC]

107. Yes, one who stalked me all over the forum, cursing at me and demanding my expulsion

for weeks on end, has now been made one of The Untouchables because she dared to object to FISA.

I cannot deny feeling a little--OK, a heapin' helpin' of--schadenfreude. At the same time, I felt for her, because no candidate in the history of politics ever had a more loyal advocate, but all of that seemed to mean nothing once she objected to something.

[Marrah_G]

130. Karma is a $%^&*

[Marrah_G]

129. I think I see less of it then others

Because I have so many people who became ugly in the primaries on ignore. Including those now being treated in the same manner in which they treated others.

Of course when we complained about it, these same current victims called us whining bitches and told us to just get a thicker skin.

I have little pity for any of them. Karma is a bitch.

[bridgit]

105. agreed!

"We have a small but very loud pack of bullies here determined to silence anyone who disagrees with them, and they have been running herd on everyone else here since the beginning of the year."

[Runcible Spoon]

116. don't forget the Alert Button Humpers.

I guess they are technically a subset of the bullies...some days my heart just bleeds for the moderators. It must be so hard to see concerted efforts to bring down certain posters with certain kinds of opinions and have to moderate that kind of childishness.

[QC]

128. Well, that's a very effective strategy.

I don't blame the humpers for humping--they're being rewarded for it.

[Romulox]

41. This tends to disqualify anyone but sycophants from speaking

Many of us saw through the primary rhetoric from the beginning (e.g., when Obama surrounded himself with far-right economists during the primary.)

This self-same perception now disqualifies us from speaking? :shrug:

[JVS]

44. You know, maybe dismissing everyone who believes in the nominee as being a sycophant...

is kind of what Skinner was just talking about doing and having people wonder about your bona fides. :eyes:

[Romulox]

47. Thanks for your concern.

:rofl:

:hi:

[Runcible Spoon]

55. ...

:rofl: :yourock:

[Kolesar]

201. Sycophants? You must be proud of your use of pejoratives.

[NYC_SKP]

45. It seems clear enough to me that constructive criticism is acceptable.

An example of what is not acceptable, but is all too common here (from further up this thread):

Not to speak for Skinner, but I think I'm on the right track here.

From just minutes ago, a post title without a message or explanation, just a criticism, a name-calling actually:

The chameleon approach, all things to all people

Helpful, indicative of support for the candidate?

I think not.

It indicates both disdain and shallow, reactive thinking, if indeed it even rises to the level of "thinking".

[Romulox]

49. The mods have done a decent job of allowing constructive criticism

But there is a cadre of posters dedicated to shouting down anyone who steps out of line, alerting on every damn post, and questioning ones "bona fides" (McCarthyism, anyone?) instead of addressing the issue.

[NYC_SKP]

57. You're right--I think it works both ways.

And I've been guilty of it, sad to admit.

Both forms of behavior are reactive, and neither are productive.

Ad hominem attacks on the candidate, and similar attacks on posters who may not have phrased their comments artfully, are all too common.

Though a few of the latter may be intentional disruptors.

One thing is certain, we ALL have a lot of passion, and that is generally a very good thing!

[Runcible Spoon]

68. yes, and that is one major benefit Obama has over McSame..

is PASSION. People know who he is, and are curious to find out more. It's a double-edged sword. I truly believe that MSM is giving McCain a free ride but at the same time Obama's magnetic presence is going to bring him attention from all sides, and I think this is another reason everything he does gets dissected in MSM and in the blogosphere/boards. McSame is McSame, nothing he does is really shocking because we all expected him to churn out the same ignorant, neocon bullshit.

[chimpymustgo]

80. You said it Romulux. I feel utterly LIED to during the primaries.

I was leery of him then, and this hard right turn is scary and completely disenfranchising. And we're just supposed to shut up about it?

[defendandprotect]

306. The flag flying now is that criticism is an "attack" on the candidate . . .

That's a warning flag --- and I think after that you may be fired upon!



:)

[ShaneGR]

50. I think it's the Negative Nancy syndrome...

I personally don't mind if someone occasionally posts constructive criticism. But when every single thread they post, sometimes multiples in the same day, are negative then it just shows me they really don't care who gets elected. Most of the threads belong in the General forum anyways.

[bridgit]

52. GOBAMA!! There, that was easy...

:bounce: ---------------> (now insert :rant: here)

We both know you & I you're preaching to some other choir enabling their alert feature in advance, even as a non-admin :eyes: in that I have never, ever been "showered with rose petals" here. That is for the cool kids of DU always has been and always will be...it is what it is. Maybe switch it all around to a private site? Then all those pesky service, user, and customer issues simply melt away. Perhaps as they should. The customer is not always right I hear you saying; and agree with.

I have greater empathy for those that less able to get their heads around that.

[thewiseguy]

53. Thank you Skinner. How about zero tolerance for those who are guilty of what you said?

If they can not support the nominee after the primaries are over what is the point of having them here?

There was a poster who was actively advocating voting against Obama last night. I am sure he is still here.

[Runcible Spoon]

59. wow are you serious?

:scared:

Are you appointing yourself the Bona Fides Purity Monitor?

Way to take what Skinner said and twist it into something scary. It's posts like these that give a certain sector of supporters a really terrifying image...

Just sayin'...

[terrya]

66. I agree.

[thewiseguy]

69. Why should they be around?

I am not talking about you. I am talking about folks who were on to Obama bashing during the primaries and never changed their opinion about him after we had a nominee.

Maybe if they had not injected their opportunistic take into the valid discussions about FISA, we would not be facing this mess today.

[lark]

254. Please clarify

it sounds like you are saying that DU posters somehow caused the FISA mess? I must be mis-interpreting you because I can't imagine anyone thinking that. Obama got himself into the FISA mess by selling out our constitution to try to pick up some middle right voters. Good luck putting this right later.

[thewiseguy]

275. Clarification:

I believe that FISA is a valid issue and it must be discussed. That discussion however has been tainted by the involvement of rogue elements. That is supposedly an operation by them to divide the Obama supporters and cause infighting. They have been pretty successful at it and you can see them high fiving one another that the Obama camp is divided.

This has caused a backlash against the FISA or any other valid criticism of Obama in DU. That is why I was suggesting that threads related to FISA to be moved to the GD forum, hoping that the infighting would subside. Yet, as hyperbole as some of us are they thought that I was pushing for silence and censure on DU.


:hi:

[JVS]

276. I believe your observation is correct.

I also believe that even among well-intentioned critics, the tendency for overstating their opposition has been picked up from the usual screamers.

[Jakes Progress]

65. Purge. Purge.

Get your torches. Take to the e-streets. Purity of thought. Burn them out. Fire their homes, delete their files, burn those books.... What? Oh. sorry just caught up in the mob.

Yes. I know. More than a little drama here. But zero tolerance? Zero tolerance. That's some big tent you have there.

I'm a Democrat. I'm voting for Obama. And I'm going to talk about my candidate and what I think he should do and what I think he should do to get elected. If Democratic Underground isn't a place for Democrats to have their say, it should just become a tab on the campaign web site.

[Phillycat]

67. He's already said he's not speaking as an admin, or making rules.

He is providing insight if it's wanted, he's not saying that those "guilty" of what he describes in his OP are breaking the rules.

So, sorry, no mass purging for you.

[thewiseguy]

70. Your opinion is irrelevant to me

You have never liked or trusted Obama. So as the OP said, I am not going to bother taking you seriously.

[Phillycat]

74. I'm not giving you an opinion.

I am stating what Skinner has said on this thread, which contradicts what you're asking him to do.

[Marrah_G]

87. And you are now irrelevant

Off you go to the Land of Asshats with the other pre and post primary jerks.

[MonkeyFunk]

79. Then let's also have a zero tolerance policy

against people who won't get over the primaries by relating anything a former Clinton supporter says to Clinton herself. Or the people who attack based on one's avatar.

There's a group of people who simply will NOT get over the primaries, and try to turn everything into a primary fight. They constantly bring up old battles. How about zero tolerance for them, too?

[thewiseguy]

82. There has to be a zero tolerance policy. I have no problems with your suggestion.

[MonkeyFunk]

90. Actually, I don't believe in zero tolerance policies

for anything - they use rules to replace thought, and that's never right.

[lark]

261. Then change the name of this board to Obama

Zero tolerance would make sense then. I can't believe all the people trying to turn Democrats, arguing, passionate folks that we are into Republican robots who think anything their guy does is fine, even when it guts our constitution. Is that really what those people want to do, turn us all into centrist robots?

We need to agitate for what's right, even if it means trying to push the candidate to change course and do the right thing.

[grantcart]

83. I don't think we need a zero tolerance policy, as some criticisms are not

aimed at diminishing the candidate but discussing the issues.

The pro forma attacks on Clinton supporters that you describe are childish and should be out of bounds.

[mkultra]

353. maybe we could just start with people

who clearly are only here to vent their anger at the current democratic nominee and have no intention of voting democratic.


Such as the PUMA folks.

[blondeatlast]

112. Zero-tolerance? No thanks. You can choose not to engage them as I try to do.

Constructive criticism is an attempt to show a better way to reach the goal--lots of DUers criticize the candidate on an issue or two but have shown to have the goal in mind; I'm willing to talk with them.

The problem a lot of DUers are having is being unable to demonstrate any support of the goal AT ALL. There's very few of them, but they are loud--and I won't engage them if I can help it. You can CHOOSE to do likewise.

[defendandprotect]

307. Is there a telephone "tip" line set up yet to report these people you're accusing?

[Bluenorthwest]

58. I still need to find a disucssion site then

I never came here to campaign but to discuss. Myself, I think many of the 'most bestest' posters here use the discussion here as a substitute for any actual campaigning. The bone fides I am always wanting to ask for are those of action, activity, what have you done for O lately? Those who claim the high horse of support seem to me, most of them, to be people who do nothing but type their 'support' which is generally a castigation of others for not cheering along.
I suggest to you that those of us who actually speak to people and knock on doors and go to meetings have some damn good reasons to discuss the pros and cons- the voters we wish to bring in have questions, objections, and skill in countering those objections should be honed among Democrats. Those that sit at a keyboard and do nothing else have no idea what it is like to try to counter an objection to a candidate at all, much less how to deal with an objection that we might in fact agree with to an extent. The 'faith based' thing could be great in a perfect world, in this one, it is just an excuse for bigotry most of the time- and so no, I do not support that, and I oppose the death penalty for multiple reasons. But I still have to promote and persuade others to vote for Obama. The ways and means that others use to do such election work, that is what I want to hear. Months of proclaimations from the Master Bedroom in some state or provence do not equate to what I call support, it is usually nothing but the poster's cry for attention.
So, those who work in some form for our nominee, and for our many nominated Democrats who must make up strong majorities in Congress, these people have 'bona fides', pages of bolivating at other Democrats does not make that mark in my book.
There are many people here who post with venom, who obviously never get out and speak to a swing voter, or a Democrat who is not willing to go with the Party's choice. They type about how awful others are for thinking, for speaking, for having need of reason. They don't recognize the needs of activists, for they sit and spout at the activists, from a comfy chair near the fridge.

Talk is cheap. Political talk is the cheapest. Action wins. Work wins.

How about eveyone who wants to post opinion prove themselves with resumes of activity, not with a bunch of other posted opinion?

If we are suuposed to just sit here and pretend to agree, no offense, but this website under those rules is of no use to me as a Democrat trying like mad to get Democrats elected. The best minds here are so caught up in Jr High style in fighting that their minds are of no use to anyone. How does it help? I read postings for the objective of the poster, what they want. In most of the 'bone fide' folk, the objectives are not about electing anyone. They are about starting fights and getting praise, all done from a safe distance, behind locked doors, in a secure, undisclosed location.
Throwing a fit for attention with Obama's name in it is not support in my book. Doing work is support. The crap posts are done for the poster, and for no other reason. They are bait. At times stylish, but bait none the less, of no worth to anyone.
Some of the critical postings are far more usefull and supportive than the droppings of the self appointed proclaimers. That's my opinion. If I want a chours of cheers, I can go to Obama's site, or the office. I loved it when I thought this place was for discussion among like minds.

The kind of 'support' you guys are calling for is alien to me as a lifelong Demcract. 30 years a voting, loyally for the Democratic Party. I've been far more loyal to the Party than the Party has been to me. I have no need to prove any of that to anyone.

[Runcible Spoon]

62. Best Post in This Thread!

:pals: :applause: :yourock:

[Bluenorthwest]

75. The most

demanding of the posters here are in fact the least active Democrats. They are not out there doing the work, they are here wanting attention for themselves, and constant useless agreement. Simply not my style, I prefer the kind of style that wins, not the kind that whines.

[Jakes Progress]

71. Now there is a Democrat.

"I loved it when I thought this place was for discussion among like minds."

Me too.

[bridgit]

73. Ding! Winner Winner Chicken Dinner! "Talk is cheap. Political talk is the cheapest."

"Action wins. Work wins." :kick:

[chimpymustgo]

84. Wow. You got my vote!! Thank you for your smarts and your heart. We need so much

more of that around here.

:yourock::toast::bounce::dem:

[Marrah_G]

85. WHOA.........good post. I want to K & R it. Please consider making this an OP.

[1Hippiechick]

133. I had to read from the top down to here to find a post that made me want to stand up and APPLAUD!

:yourock: :woohoo: :yourock: :woohoo: :yourock: :woohoo: :yourock: :woohoo:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

:headbang: :hippie: :headbang: :hippie: :headbang: :hippie: :headbang: :hippie:

OMG, I couldn't have said it better myself, and have started looking for other messageboards where we can get down to some REAL discussions rather than so much of the rantings on this messageboard. I had just posted a topic this a.m., asking ppl to share what they were doing on a local level to get involved in getting out the vote, etc.

I am a "cheeleader-the-glass-is-half-full" person by nature, but this is a tough audience!

[TexasObserver]

134. Every lifelong Democrat I know is united behind one idea: winning the presidency.

If you've been in the party three decades, then no one has to tell you we need the presidency, or the Supreme Court is lost to us for decades. Getting behind a viable candidate is better than a few more months of self-flagellation by those who seem to lean toward masochism in their relationship with politics.

This is a Democratic site, and it's not a burden to ask those here to support the nominee. We can go to any message board community on the internet and hear people bitch nonstop about Obama. We don't need to hear it here, too. No one is asking you not to complain about Obama, just to limit it around here. This is one site on the internet. It would be easy to find one which welcomes those who love to trash talk Obama.

[Bluenorthwest]

150. You missed the point

What you think is the way to win, the way to support, I think is a useless excesize in wanking. No one is talking about trashing Obama, I'm talking about how to get him elected President, not how to send him love letters. They are not the same animal.

Tell us, what do you do, to win votes for our nominee, away from this board? No one is asking you to do all the work, but we are asking that you do a limited amount, or understand that to those of us who do the work, you opinions have little worth. No value. No help. So you love the guy. Is that how you promote him to independents, with your love? Or do you do it with issues and policy.
Might shock you, but the areas in which I disagree with Obama are areas in which I find ways to win voters. Yes, if I agreed with all of it, I'd be a less effective electioneer. Some folk don't agree with me, and yet they agree with Obama...this is a strating place to win that vote.

I can tell that many who wear support like a flag pin do not ever take that support to the voters we need, so that support we can do without.

So what's your schedual this week? What other Demcrats are getting the benefit of your pure and loud support? Any thing? Any candidate? Issue?

What have YOU done for O lately? I'm sure it is plenty. Any tips or hints as to how you do it might be a proactive thing to share.

[TexasObserver]

155. No, I didn't miss the point. I don't agree with you. Learn to understand the difference.

I've been working to get Democrats elected for nearly 40 years. But this is a message board, not part of the work we do for the election. I am endlessly amused by those here who do a few things for the election and think they're really doing something to commit 50 or 100 hours to the cause. It's great that you're involved, but it's not special. It's ordinary.

You're the one who said you need to find a new place to post. I agreed with you.

[1Hippiechick]

172. ???????????"It's great that you're involved, but it's not special. It's ordinary" ??????

You said:
"I am endlessly amused by those here who do a few things for the election and think they're really doing something to commit 50 or 100 hours to the cause. It's great that you're involved, but it's not special. It's ordinary."

'Not special', 'ordinary' How do those comments advance the cause?

LOOK AT THIS VERY THREAD ABOUT CRITICISM. IT IMPLODES INTO NAME-CALLING.

I applaud Skinner's "attempt" to save this messageboard's credibility, because it's going south at breakneck speed, IMO.

It's not hard to figure out: Go back to the topics and look at the number of "views" and responses. Correct me if I am wrong, but the ones getting the most views are the ones with inflammatory-sounding topics. It's as if ppl are "looking for a fight" or a place to rant.
I resorted to posting a topic this a.m. *****WHY didn't someone tell me this????**** just so I could get people to at least look at a message that I thought other DUers would be interested in - namely joining O's online campaign and THEN registering with DU's own group on O's website so that as a group we could make a statement. Had I posted "Did you know that DU is listed on O's website? Have you joined?", how many views do you think that would have gotten? And the REALLY sad thing, IMO, is that responses such as Bluenorthwest's response here get "lost" in the thread, when IMO his very post should become a topic that's kicked from here to the moon and back! It's about taking action!

I applaud Bluenorthwest's attempt to "rally" people to stop and think about what we are or are NOT doing. Ranting on a messageboard is counterproductive and doesn't advance O's or the DP's cause PLUS how is that a good use of anyone's TIME?

So, I repeat Bluenorthwest's very legitimate request and ask that you share with us what you do during the campaign, because with your 40 years experience I believe that you could give us some pointers, and that WOULD be productive, IMO. Will you do that?

[Bluenorthwest]

206. You missed the point -again. Is that your objective?

I never said it was special, I said being active is what wins, and posting a bunch of love poetry on a website is not the same as doing the work that must be done. And you say "But this is a message board, not part of the work we do for the election" which is exactly the point I was making- most of those who are focused on what others say being pure enough are those who use this site as a substitute for the work. Those that do both, more power, but some-and I did not say you- obviously don't lift a non keyborading finger. It shows. I can tell. It is spouting of hot air.

My other point, oddly, is that I don't agree with you. Perhaps we both need to learn the difference? I think a pep rally is good on occasion but it is not really a tactic or a way to share information. It should be possible to discuss without suspicion of every motive.
Let me give you a case in point, as this is not intended to be bickering but again, and exchange. I'm a Democrat and always have been. Many of my friends are Greens at least much of the time. This year many of them were on board strong for Obama early on. At this point, those same folks are heavily challenged, because they don't like some of the recent developments. It is my job to keep them in the fold, as it were. As usual, I'm the one saying, oh, vote for him anyway. Now if I try to find ways that others are approching the same people, I'm thanked for my 'concern' instead of being offered any sort of ideas or examples. It is not me not supporting Obama, it is me looking for better ways to do so, and being taken for something else, by folks who are hyper susupicios, and folks who want me to act as they act. Now if I acted like they did in my daily political life, I'd be making my on the fence Obama lefties into McKinney voters- they are not going to listen to sark or accussations of disloyaly- they are barely Democrats. They have no need to be loyal, see?
So I'd love to know how people are talking to such voters. But to ask means bringing up what they see as a problem. And to do that, there must be some modicum of trust.
So do it your way, but remember that other people have other ways, and we live in different places. Next week I cross the country to speak on my own behalf but I will also be talking about the election, to group that is likley to be holding on to Hillary a bit. I'd love to be able to ask the best way to win such voters, but I'll be winging it on my own, just as if I was not a part of a large community allegedly dedicated to electing- not praising, electing- Democrats to office.
I'm saying some do and some criticize and rarely are they the same person. I'm saying my support will never look like your support. I'm saying both ways are valid and should be fully welcomed. It takes all kinds, and far more than a village to elect a President.

[TexasObserver]

210. No, I got your point, as I've said before. You can't accept that I disagree with you.

Do you always nag like this when someone disagrees with you?

Just accept that I get your point and reject it. You're not that complicated. You have a point of view, and you can't fathom how anyone else can think differently. Maybe nagging is what works for you in real life, but it won't work with me.

[Bluenorthwest]

226. this is discussion. You speak then I do.

You distort what I say. I said: " my support will never look like your support. I'm saying both ways are valid and should be fully welcomed. It takes all kinds, and far more than a village to elect a President."

But you characterize that in this way: "You have a point of view, and you can't fathom how anyone else can think differently."

Where in that did you take the idea that I don't know you disagree? I clearly state that you have one point of view and I have another, and that both are valid and needed.


I am also not characterizing what you say, or how you say it. I have no idea about your real life, just as you don't know about mine. Putting words into the mouths of others is not part of how I work. Lie about what I said, and yes, I reply.

Oh, here's something from my real life. I knew the genltelman who is your avatar. He was a fine liberal Democrat and one hell of an open minded, freely talking person. You have good taste in avatars. There is your Olive Branch.

And frankly, if we agree to both vote for Obama, that is about all I care about. You can think anything you want of me...or say what you want. I don't care. You support your way, and I support my way. My way wins new voters for our nominee. I am sure that your methods serve the same objective and deliver the same results.

[defendandprotect]

309. And you're the judge of others here . . . ?

Is that what you're saying . . . YOU get to judge others here?
We have to "prove" ourselves to you --- ???

Let me suggest to you that you probably know very little about most of us here.
You have no idea what we might have previously done politically, but let me assure
you most of us know the system is rigged.
Let me also assure you that in my time of talking with voters, I often learned from THEM.

Free speech is a miracle which educates us all ---
and intolerance teaches us nothing.
The fourth amendment is not something to be thrown away -
Separation of Church and State is your highest privilege in a democracy . . .
it is your guarantee of freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, self-determination.
The FOUNDERS well understood that church is a threat to democracy and must be separated
from state.

[MadHound]

76. That's nice and all, and I agree with everything you said

Except for the fact that even if you have the "bona fides" of being an Obama supporter during the primaries, if you dare offer up constructive criticism now, you're still going to get jumped on with both feet by some around here. No that's not right, and frankly that's not the Democratic party I know, love and want to be a part of. When did we start doing lockstep thinking?

[The Magistrate]

89. You Make a Good Point, Sir

It is certainly true that a good proportion of the criticism presently directed at Sen. Obama's campaign does not come from persons who opposed him during the primary battle.

[redqueen]

186. A "good portion"?

That's your perspective.

[mkultra]

354. only if small minorities qualify as "good proportions"

With all due respect, i have not seen that but have, on the other hand, seen very severe criticism from those who i remember to be the most ardent Hillary supporters.

[QC]

114. Most of the jumping on that you refer to, the bullying, the loud demands

for absolute doctrinal purity--in short, the lion's share of the negativity here--is coming from a very small but loud pack of bullies. Dealing with them--and I don't necessarily mean banning--would eliminate about three-quarters of the ugliness in this forum.

[Bluenorthwest]

218. I heartily agree with that

Bullies. A few bullies. It is getting old.

[Zhade]

253. Indeed. Look at my sigline - it's been there for months.

But now, I bring up Obama's sudden rightward trend and I "want him to lose".

Utterly ridiculous.

[Straight Shooter]

88. What makes me laugh is when staunch supporters are accused of not supporting him

I was on the board a lot during the primaries and, whether someone displayed an Obama avatar or not, I became familiar with who on DU were his most avid supporters. Lately I've seen some of those very same members and their support of him being aggressively and sometimes rudely challenged, for simply voicing criticism, usually of what they believe to be signs that Obama is courting the right more than the left. The kneejerk response to their criticism is, "Are you supporting our nominee or not?" Then, no matter how many times the poster responds that he/she is supporting Obama and will vote for him, their loyalty, devotion, fealty, whatever you want to call it, is questioned.

The lashing out is even worse against those who supported Hillary and still admire her, or for those who remained neutral during the primaries. However, that isn't always the case.

If people don't criticize and instead remain silent when they have issues with Obama, it will not stir up others to call or write to his campaign and voice complaints on behalf of the progressive left. I thought this forum was for discussion and feedback, rather than a 24/7 pep rally, and I really wish some members would understand that criticism of Obama usually derives from genuine concern, not troll "concern." I'm not speaking of your comments, Skinner, but some longtime DU'ers are being excoriated for speaking out, and it's quite disconcerting.

Anyway, I don't think there's a solution to this, I just wanted to add my 2 cents on behalf of a few members that I feel have been very unfairly treated for voicing their genuine concerns, despite the fact that they and I were on opposite sides of the Democratic fence during the primaries.

[Solon]

91. As far as I can tell, bona fides have nothing to do with it, long-time Obama supporters...

during the primaries that have criticized his recent actions lately have been attacked quite viciously, other supporters even question them with bullshit like: "When have you ever supported Obama" etc. It seems to not matter whether a poster has any bona fides or not, criticism isn't tolerated by some Obama Followers.

[Marrah_G]

127. Perhaps now they understand........

It sucks being bullied in a place you once considered a friendly, comfortable online haven, by people you once respected and thought of with some affection.

Yes indeed it sucks when they turn on you like a pack of rabid dogs for daring to think for yourself and rejecting the collective consciousness.

[shagsak]

347. Before I jump on anyone for criticizing our candidate

I always check their history. If they have a history of Obama bashing then I am quick to call them out.

However if it is genuine criticism then that's different. Everyone has the right to their own opinion. And most of us here love to debate.

[JVS]

349. The new google feature has been a godsend for that!

[Douglas Carpenter]

95. thank you. A very reasonable observation!

[Scurrilous]

99. Thanks Skinner.

K & R :thumbsup:

[Bonobo]

103. It is in that nature of people in this culture to fight on a politcal BBS. Therefore...

Perhaps we need to do dissipate that energy by literally fighting the OTHER side openly in a moderated forum set up to allow a trickle of OTHERS to enter where we can discuss issues.

Listen. The way things are here now, you are more likely to see an Obama criticism than a McCain criticism. It is because it is in the nature of some people to find their enjoyment online in WRITTEN SPARRING with others. It could be over rock bands, sports teams or politics. Here it is politics.

I am saying, Skinner, that you have a beautiful website that is now being used to focus a lot of energy on in-party bickering. It is serving little useful purpose when focused in that direction. On the other hand, if we could openly engage the enemy, it would have the effect of aligning us onto one side. You know the drill. Group psychology. Like if we got attacked by an alien race, we wouldn't have a Middle East problem, you know.

Anyway, please consider. I know things here are not as you want them completely and I know what I suggest is radical and an anaethema to most. But as a long-time DU;er, I gotta say that the GD:Primaries of this year were too wounding and divisive and have altered the DU culture too much. The same "atmosphere" pervades the new GD:P, but it is worse because now the Anti-Obama'ers don't even have a candidate to post good things about, just whiny "Death of a thousand cut" crap about Obama. As my son would say, "It blows".

[JVS]

118. I think that is a really bad idea. In 2004 we had a stricter set of rules, and a less combative...

primary forum.

People aren't going to tucker themselves out by being allowed to fight. Especially not when there are so many people. Even if they could individually tire of it, they could rotate to the back and rest up for more fighting later.

[theFrankFactor]

109. For the Record-Obama at all Costs...

That said, every single Democrat is in my sights. Campaigns bring out the worst in candidates. They are vote whores. If the Republicans and our corporate dictators allow him to be elected ( and that's what it will be) and he pulls a Pelosi/Reid he is SHIT to me. "Hope"fuly lesser SHIT, but SHIT.

You see, I am faced with a serious problem. I am a Liberal. This shit that passes for Democrat doesn't cut it for a Liberal. Again, that said, Bill Clinton was, warts and all, an acceptable Democrat- not really Liberal enough for me, but an effective Democrat.

For the record ( not that anybody gives a rats's..) Obama at all costs. But fuck if I'm gonna worship the guy. He works for me.

Edited because I felt like it.

[Phillycat]

113. Wow, good post.

Welcome to DU. :toast:

[pleah]

286. Thank you theFrankFactor!

"Obama at all costs. But fuck if I'm gonna worship the guy. He works for me."

I love the way you said that. :)







A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
- Edward R. Murrow

[mrreowwr_kittty]

115. Forget it, Skinner. Self-identified PUMAs are allowed to stay here.

People who regularly post on Capital Hill Forum, which as far as I'm concerned should be in the same category as FR or Newsmax at this point, using their DU names and proudly proclaiming how they are either not voting for Obama or are voting for McCain, are posting concern trollage here and getting away with it.

Apparently, it's "calling them out" to expose their activities.

[thewiseguy]

117. Thank you. Those are the ones I was referring to when I talked about the zero tolerance policy.

I have been to that disgusting forum and I am surprised that the people who regularly post there also stir up shit here and get away with it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

121. Because they are longtime members and some mods are too kindhearted

Also, they are savvy enough to keep most of their posts just this side of the limit. It's obvious what they're doing to everyone around them but they get away with it for awhile until they finally screw up and say something clearly out-of-line. 9 times out of 10 it's racist.

[totodeinhere]

125. Isn't this a two way street?

Haven't some posters who have tried to stick up for some of Obama's more controversial stands such as on FISA also been trashed here? Surely, constructive criticism should be allowed to a point, but for God's sake, sticking up for Obama even though he may be perceived as moving to the center for the general election campaign should be taken as a sign of loyalty to our nominee. IMO, it should be praised, not criticized.

Edit- This was meant as a reply to the OP.

[TahitiNut]

137. It's entirely possible to be a "longtime member" and not be active in political discussions.

*Some people* signed up to DU years ago and have few posts to their credit. *Some people* have rolled up post counts with vacuous crap, often in the Lounge alone. Hell, I could show you DUers who signed up in 2001 or 2002 with fewer than 100 posts. Easy.

But it's really not about messenger. It SHOULD be about message. The question of continued membership at DU is something that should NEVER be the bone of contention in the open forums. THAT'S a matter that should be relegated to Alerts and the Mod Forum only. Such rampant vigilantism is itself the single most disruptive attitude on DU.

[The Magistrate]

140. Thank You, Sir! Thank You, Thank You, Thank You....

[mrreowwr_kittty]

142. And then you alert, alert, and alert on these people and nothing happens

In frustration, you turn to public exposure, so at the very least your fellow DUers won't be taken in by their fake "concern" and threadjacking. Still, nothing happens to them (unless they finally snap and say something so blatantly racist there's no choice but to tombstone them) and they run back to their favorite anti-Obama site and titter about how they messed with the DUers again.

[TahitiNut]

145. So?

"It's not my job." (This is something I use as a reminder about what I'm on earth to do.)

It's the delegated responsibility of other members of this community to make those decisions. They're called "moderators" and I was one, once upon a time. Are they perfect? God no. Neither am I. Neither are you.

I've supported "nuking" folks on many occasions over the years. Sooner or later, they've all been banned. My batting average is 1.000. There're some who are, imho, "dead men walking." I'm confident they'll soon be sporting granite cookies. It WON'T be due to anything except their own posting behavior - disruption and trolling.

I've seen a LOT of folks get tombstoned - some of whom I regard as 'friends' - and it has ALWAYS been about breaking the rules and disruption. It has NEVER (to the best of my knowledge - sometimes inside knowledge) been about popularity or some "unfair" treatment, no matter what they might say somewhere else.



(Now watch me get tombstoned and have to change my tune.) :evilgrin:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

176. I've been batting 1000 on the TS's as well.

Every TS that has happened recently I've predicted. Some of the impending ones are taking a tad too long, in my estimation. But, I've been told patience is a virtue so I guess I'll try practicing it.

[Runcible Spoon]

153. why don't you just move on?

Lord knows there are plenty of assholes I can't stand on this board. However, I don't hump the alert button and queue up all my little playground buddies and mass-alert hoping for a banning...and then start a thread rejoicing about it.

Unless it is a blatant and abusive ad hom attack, I personally like to see repugnant posts stand as is so that people can see how abhorrent someone's comments are.

I by no means support people having ulterior motives and disrupting, but I'd rather have DU freer for expression and if that means having to tolerate a few assholes I will take that.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

175. Then why don't we just open it up to Freepers and other RWers then?

I mean, we wouldn't want to stifle discussion, would we? Of course, that would require drastically revising the rules of this forum.

[Runcible Spoon]

178. show me where I said that.

if you're on some personal crusade against a poster and the mods don't agree with your stance over and over and over again, then yes I think your time and effort is better spent on other things, no? :shrug: You're the one having a problem with current rules and how the moderators enforce them, not me.

[Warren Stupidity]

274. You should visit capital hill and see what these folks really think

they are openly working there for the election of John McCain. And some of them continue to post here. That, in a nutshell is the problem. I'm fine with honest constructive discussion and criticism, but I also know that there are people posting here who are just trying to stir up disaffection and dissent as part of their plot to keep 2012 alive for HillaryIs45 or whatever delusion it is they imagine justifies their idiocy.

I'm not for banning any reasonable discussions. But I agree with the OP that if you were bashing Obama for the last six months and continue to do so (but just skirting the rules to remain kosher) and never seem to post anything positive about our candidate and never seem to be too interested in attacking McCain, people might get the wrong impression. I would add that if in addition you are openly supporting McCain on other boards, it ain't a wrong impression, it is a right impression.

[Trajan]

360. It is unlikely a large percentage of those who complain about Obama ...

are actual freepers ....

I might point out that it is against forum rules to call out freepers ....

If you keep hitting alert, and no one responds as you wish, perhaps it is because you are mistaken about what you perceive and what is actual ...


Just a thought ....

[sufrommich]

195. You're taking internet discussion forums way too seriously.

You've got yourself in a tizzy because posters you don't like are still allowed to post here,can you honestly not see how silly that is? There are a few posters here that rub me the wrong way,but if the mods and the owners don't have a problem with them,why should I?It's not life or death,nor will it have any effect on the election in the real world.Why so much need to control an anonymous message board?Nothing that is said here is pertinent to your real life.

[bunnies]

180. So they can TRASH DU'ers on that site and expect to come here

and be treated with respect?! Read this post and then explain to me how that should be so. How is THAT site different than FR. Its NOT.

"Today, the Freepers are right to call posters at DU "DUmmies." It was not always so but then the Øbamatrons took over, most everyone else left, and the average IQ fell like a rock. No intelligence and no common sense shown there now, but lots of loyalty to the Dear Leader. THAT scares me."

[TahitiNut]

222. The DU rules apply to DU and, as I read them, they're about behavior ('message') and not messenger.

Again, I don't give a rat's ass about WHO posts - like I'd even know? - just about WHAT is posted. If I see a pattern of snark, incivility, right-wing talking points, and/or disruption then I hit Alert and let the people handle it whose job it is to handle it.

:shrug:

[bunnies]

230. yeah. You would know, actually.

Most of them use the same ID's. And Im sick of them coming here and stomping their feet when someone calls them out. Come on. "Democrats for McCain" is being promoted on that site. They're freepers as far as Im concerned and deserve the same contempt.

[Trajan]

361. Freepers are participants in discussions on Free Republic ....

Hillary supporters who want to vote for McCain, no matter how enraging this might be, are NOT freepers ...

Precision in discussion is critical ....

I might point out that calling out Freepers is also against the rules ....

[theFrankFactor]

138. About Democrat McCain Voters.

First, blow me.

Second, you might be a Democrat but you sure as hell are no Liberal.

Obama at all costs. If that's something you can't understand then you need to stop sniffin' glue and sober up.

NOTE: Obama has never impressed me. I don't get the Obama fever. He's our nominee and godammit he's better than McCain. I voted Kucinich in the primary and my second choice was Biden. Go figure.

[Marrah_G]

126. I see most of the criticism coming from people who were/are avid Obama supporters during the primary

And after the primary.

I disagree with Obama on a number of issues. I disagree with just about every Politician with a few issues. But that doesn't mean I won't support them.

People need to learn the difference between attacking the candidate and leveling criticism at a particular issue you may disagree with.

People also need to understand that not everyone is passionately in love with the Nominee in the same way you might be. Many of us are voting for him because he is the Dem and he isn't McCain. I'm not going to start yelling Gobama from the rooftops. However I will be casting my vote for him and probably doing some work locally.

I supported 3 candidates before Obama. He doesn't inspire me, but I've never bashed ANY Dem on these boards (unlike many of the people currently bitching about anyone disagreeing with Obama) including him.

This post has definitely highlighted a few more who need to go on the iggy -list.

[Seabiscuit]

136. A constructive suggestion: To remove all doubt about a poster's loyalty, it might help

if the admins came up with a pre-approved boilerplate loyalty oath contained in the Smilies page that everyone could just click on to insert either at the beginning or end of each post. During these times of talking in coded phrases, of secret handshakes, of marching in lockstep, of tag-team alerting, such a loyalty oath could fit right in and make things a lot simpler for everybody, and remove any ambiguity about what it takes to be "taken seriously".

I say this simply because I don't know how else to construe these words: "If someone offers criticism of Barack Obama, I find that the criticism is easier to accept if the speaker has already sufficiently demonstrated their support for Senator Obama's candidacy. Put another way: If you want to be taken seriously, it helps to prove your bona-fides."

Such a boilerplate loyalty oath available on the Smilies page for anyone to use should remove all doubt about proving "bona-fides", and remove all doubt about what it takes to do so.

[JimGinPA]

143. No Need To Worry About Your "bona-fides"...

:rofl:

[TahitiNut]

151. You want bona fides? Read the DUer's Journal.

I suggest that you (or anyone) do the same.

I've used my DU Journal to distill the posts which best and most accurately portray my own opinions and perspectives - and expect that anyone, before engaging in some ad hominem bullshit, just read that.

When I see folks with disabled profiles and empty Journals whining about being "misunderstood" ... I find it difficult to muster up much compassion. Tough shit.

[Seabiscuit]

190. Does your DU'er Journal contain a loyalty oath that those without Journals could use?

[TahitiNut]

229. (Ignoring the snark) I made an Agreement when I signed up on DU to respect the rules.

I don't see anything being asked that's inconsistent with that. I'm NOT a 'Democrat' - I'm an independent liberal and I don't as yet (in over 6 years) see any problem complying with the rules and maintaining my personal integrity.

Quite frankly, I find it (sardonically) laughable as Hell that (so-called) "Democrats" seem to be having such a problem supporting THEIR party nominee. It seems to me that's EXACTLY what it means to anoint one's self with the partisan label of "Democrat" - agreeing to unanimously support the winner of the party's nomination process (which is 99% primaries and caucuses). I see one helluva lot of hypocrisy in the whining and gnashing of teeth that's going on. Spoiled children and "high maintenance" people. For over 6 years, I've read posts by self-anointed "Democrats" (measuring the length of their partisan credential) with some bemusement - only to see many of the same folks violating their own oft-proclaimed partisan loyalties. If I, as an independent liberal, can abide by the letter AND spirit of the DU rules, I have absolutely no sympathy for the (so-called) "Democrats" doing all the whining and throwing tantrums.

Fuck 'em.

:shrug:

[JVS]

233. When someone talks about being a democrat on this site it's often just a preface to try...

to excuse the avalanche of shit they're about to unleash on the party.

[Trajan]

362. Fuck yeah ....

Your posts have been excellent Tahiti .... and right on target ....

This nonsense about 'Loyalty Oaths' is a red herring intended as a fig leaf for those who seem to misunderstand the basic premise of party identification ....

Kudos, Ya Nut ....

[HughMoran]

255. Horribly unfunny

:eyes:

[MichiganVote]

289. Seems to me that a 'loyalty oath' was something we all scoffed at when the Bush campaigns used it

[defendandprotect]

310. And let's also have a new McCarthy Era ....

[mkultra]

147. the sound of inevitability

sounds like an Obama train. the whistle goes woooOOOOooooOOOOOoooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[sniffa]

148. Then there are threads like this one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=334x12240

Which remove any doubt.

[JVS]

152. Oh my! It's not old either!

It's not the criticism, it's the consistency.

[sniffa]

217. Well, it's several hours old

It's almost last month's news.

[Clintonista2]

156. Or...

[HCE SuiGeneris]

174. Or this lovely peach calling Obama a turd

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=334&topic_id=1458&mesg_id=1459

The whole OP and replies state they won't be voting for Obama, and are blatant in their disparagement of him.

[Nye Bevan]

182. Hmmm

"Judas" is somewhat apropos in this context.

[sniffa]

187. You are ignoring the author of this thread

God bless my list

[Emit]

181. There's still a Hillary Clinton Supporters Group here on DU?

Shows you how much I keep up :hide:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

184. It's more of a "I won't vote for Obama" group. Take a look...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=334&topic_id=1458&mesg_id=1458

[sniffa]

188. You are ignoring the author of this thread

See, DU's not that bad at all. :D

[Phillycat]

325. That thread is from February. When Hillary was still a candidate.

[geek tragedy]

322. That poster is a McCain supporter now. n/t

[sniffa]

342. Probably, yes

Topic Started: Yesterday, 4:11 PM
In what ways is Obama similar to Bush?

I'll start. Bush was really amazing at one thing -- using surrogates/supporters to smear opponents while staying above the fray. Of course politicians have used this tactic forever, but Bush was a pro at it. Throughout the primary, I've realized that BO may actually be the new champion when it comes to using this tactic. It's always amazed me how BO can use his surrogates without having it traced back to him -- Jesse Jackson JR (Hillary Clinton is a racist), Ted Kennedy (Hillary needs to drop out), one of the many low level volunteers BO has thrown under the bus to save his own skin (the "Hillary Clinton is worse than Big Brother" youtube video), etc.

Another way BO reminds me of Bush, is that both are experts at using meaningless buzzwords to frame the debate. Some examples below-

Bush:

-"We need to fight them over there instead of fighting them over here" (As if there's some giant magnet in the middle east that holds the terrorists in place, but only as long as US troops are there)
- "He's a flip flopper, a weak leader" (As much as I've come to dislike Kerry during this primary, Bush probably can't even count as high as the number of purple hearts Kerry earned)
-"Compassionate Conservative" (this one speaks for itself)

BO:

-"Change we can believe in" (Then why did you vote with the party 95% of the time? 5% is not enough change to believe in)
-"Hope" (What the hell does this even mean? His supporters eat this one up. Am I supposed to "hope" that you won't scew the country up?)
-"Kill Whitey!" (Ok, maybe not an "official" buzzword, but his supporters seem to hear this one every time he opens his mouth)

[grace0418]

149. "you actually want our guy to win this thing"... Funny thing about that. I have someone

who keeps referring to Obama as "your" candidate while insulting me and my opinion. And when I ask if he isn't, in fact, "our" candidate I never get a straight answer. That's a big red flag right there. And I guess the non-answer is really my answer.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

157. Clear and constructive...

one of your best efforts in helping to restore a less adversarial environment. Thanks.

[Bluenorthwest]

158. Just a word on what I hear daily

Here in Oregon, we are getting commercials in support of Gordon Smith, the Republican incumbent Senator, that feature two elected or formerly elected Democratic office holders. They sit there and say 'we are Democrats and we are voting for Gordon Smith'. In those words. In a very arch manner that implies they do not trust the Democratic candidate, Jeff Merkely.
Also each day, we are treated to another commercial in which Smith uses Obama's name, image and logos to imply an endorsement of Smith. He also quotes our Democrtaic govenor in those commercials. I am waiting for what I assume will be one hell of a strong ad from Obama standing with Merkely, but we have yet to see that.
So I guess when I am looking at Democrats openly backing a Republican I dispise, and seeing our nominee unfairly used in Republican commercials, without a fast response, I find most of what I see here to be just talk and venting. Those 'Democrats' voting for Smith are the ones I'd like to see ousted from the Party. And I'd like to see a pro-Merkely ad featuring Obama, and the sooner the better.
Next to these ads, this place is tame and very much in favor of Obama and other Democrats. I guess I'm less prone to split hairs looking for shred of disloyalty, as I am daily looking at clear, open disloyalty from elected Democrats. I don't see that here. I see it on my TV daily. And it pisses me off royally.
That context probably has my skin rather thick, you know?

[Cha]

160. Wow! Thanks, Skinner..

Because I feel like we're still fighting the primaries here.

[merh]

162. This is by far one of your best OPs ever.

thank you for posting it

:thumbsup:

[cboy4]

163. What do you mean by being taken seriously? Are you

talking about being taken seriously **by the moderators** (as in we're going to tombstone you unless you say nothing but nice things about Obama) or **by other DUers** (as in you risk not being voted DUer of the year or something?)

I couldn't care less if some of the usual Obama suspects take what I say seriously or not.

I support the Democratic nominee and Democrats running for office.

That's too bad if some people can't handle a little tough love.

I do my part.

[Umbram]

333. Wow, you managed to apply the most strained reading possible to the OP

"Are you talking about being taken seriously **by the moderators** (as in we're going to tombstone you unless you say nothing but nice things about Obama) or . . . .

I don't really think he could have made that more obvious. He said that he was NOT speaking as a moderator, and if that wasn't enough, you'd have to give the LEAST reasonable reading to the entire post to end up with that interpretation even being remotely valid.

But, if you are just in it for the drama, interpret away.

[H2O Man]

183. "When passions drive,

let reason hold the reins." -- Benjamin Franklin

[argeec]

212. Quoting Martin Luther King,Jr:

".....a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

And to apply that here: a website where they will not be judged by their past associations but by the merits of their argument.

[bjobotts]

213. I support the principles of the constitution which Obama claims to support

[bjobotts]

214. I support him when he remains true to those principles and criticize him when he doesn't

[bjobotts]

215. All the while saying he is 100Xs better than McCain unless he starts turning into McCain

[bjobotts]

216. Then it is Obama who has changed and not the me who supported him when

[Neshanic]

219. Saying you will vote for him no matter what is proof? I hope it is.

[AmyCamus]

224. I don't think web posts should count as "bona-fides" of anything

If they did, every guy on the web is really bona-fide as a beach-bod millionaire astronaut.

[Forkboy]

227. Which leaves me where I always seem to be. In some sort of DU limbo.

I never really praised the guy, and I never really trashed the guy. And that's where I still am. x(

DUing is hard.

:)

[Clintonista2]

237. Yet you were one of the more vocal DUers during the primary

It's gotta be tough, not having Clinton to trash anymore.

[Forkboy]

240. Awwww...you still love me.

:hug:

[golddigger]

268. du bist Nicht dicht....Arschgesicht?

[Forkboy]

271. LOL

Being lectured by Lirwin on trashing a candidate is like being lectured about peace by Dick Cheney.

And your insult is pretty weak no matter which language you try it in.

How's that PUMA shit working for you? :rofl:

[golddigger]

331. Leck mich am Arsch!

[Zhade]

258. Telling the truth about her lies STILL isn't trashing, so sorry you can't grasp that fact.

NT!

[Clintonista2]

279. I know how much value you put on the "truth"

Divide by 0.

[Cha]

315. It's gotta be tough for you..still

whining about the primaries. Buck up.

[Bjornsdotter]

232. Ich Schwore

Ich schwore: Ich werde democratic nominee des Americana Reiches and Volkes Barack Obama treu gehorsam sein, die Gesetze beachten, und meine Amtspflichten gewissehaft erfullen, so wahr mir Gott helfe.

:eyes:

[southern_belle]

243. Thank you, Skinner

for talking about this. It has been very disturbing to see all the criticism towards Senator Obama here. I was beginning to think the McCain campaign had infiltrated our group!

By the way, I originally started here as an Edwards supporter (and even voted for him in the primary although he had already suspended his campaign). I may not agree with everything Senator Obama says, but then I look at the other choice and think about how the Supreme Court in the next 4/8 years is going to effect a generation. That's a no-brainer to me and I can't see how criticizing our nominee will help out anyone except the Republicans.

:patriot:

[jazzjunkysue]

244. Edwards, Kucinich, both no-shows. Barack isn't dumb. He knows what he's doing.

They always tack center, and that what the winner does. Period. That's what the criticism should be of.

You have no idea how Barack would want these policies to become law, were he to have his own way, as you doubters all think you will. He's doing what he has to in this particular political arena. Don't like it? Run for congress.


How can anyone criticize a man who's going to save us from the GOP?

He will get shot down by a far left agenda. Period. Deal with it. That's reality. Barack didn't make it this way: It just is.

[styersc]

245. Wholly supporting Obama in the past gives credibility to those

who are now willing to dissent?

Do Iraq War dissenters who earlier supported the war have more credibility then those who always opposed it? In that case was Hillary a more credible anti-war candidate then Obama?

Just asking?

[JVS]

256. The nominee is a better thing than an illegal war. It's a shame that you can't seem to see that.

On edit: JESUS CHIRST HELP ME I USED ONE WRONG LETTER! :eyes:

[styersc]

262. Your statement makes absoultely no sense.

More gramar, less bong.

[JVS]

264. Fixed, and BTW PLONK

[styersc]

266. Yet the illogic of the assertion remains.

[JVS]

267. ^^^^^ Hey you, I said plonk. Go away.

[golddigger]

270. Blodes Arschoch!

[JVS]

272. Your German is poor. What's an Arschoch, a high ass?

[TahitiNut]

282. "Arschloch" would be German for 'asshole'

I suspect it's a self-reference. :evilgrin:

[golddigger]

330. Arschgesicht!

[Forkboy]

277. One gets the idea you're a coward afraid to post your insults in English.

I think you should share them in a language the mods understand.

Of course, you might want to double check them first because you seem to be struggling with the language.

I'm just here to help. :hi:

[Cha]

314. You spelled "grammar" Wrong..more spelling and

less bong for you.

[LVjinx]

312. No, if anything it calls their judgement into question

The primaries just ended a couple weeks ago. For some people, to have become disillusioned so quickly, suggests they didn't actually know anything about Obama all along. To fight so ferverently for a candidate they know nothing about, then to be shocked to find out they knew nothing about the candidate, seems strange to me.

[ihavenobias]

248. Happy to be the 75th Rec

I'd like to think I'm among the people that can fairly criticize Obama in the context of having (loudly) supported him for quite a while.

I continue to support him, but I also like to call him out when he does something that I believe to be wrong, either policy wise or politically.

[Susanelle]

259. I feel the same way!

OK, I haven't posted for "ages", have been around here for years but due to tons of family & work obligations I simply don't get into discussing as I would like too. Have to say something here though. I really have been an Obama supporter since the beginning! I heard his speech in 2004 and thought he was destined for greatness, destined to change the world. I have donated several times to his campaign, attended a rally in which Michelle spoke, convinced several young people at work to register for the first time & support Obama. My son has driven people to the polls, made phone calls, canvased & stood outside for hours on primary day waving Obama signs. I'm debating whether or not to suggest my other son who has his home here in NC with us & goes to college in Florida register there & vote in November or vote absentee here. Now that I have hopefully established that I am a long time supporter.......I have to say that I am really disappointed in Obama's stance on faith based initiatives. I FIRMLY believe in separation of church & state. I do see him moving to the center and many defend that saying this is how he gets elected. Fair enough, BUT...isn't he promising to be the candidate of CHANGE? The one that's supposed to be not business as usual??? He has been doing so well in the polls, why move to the center now? Of course I will still support him, but I have to say, I am concerned about this. Shouldn't we be? Isn't this open for discussion?

[HughMoran]

260. I've been thinkin along the same lines lately

It's often difficult to determine if a posters criticism is constructive or destructive when you have no idea if they even support the candidate - now or ever.

[Bjorn Against]

265. In a sane world you would be correct, but it doesn't always work out that way.

Many of us who are criticizing Obama on the FISA bill have shown many times that we are backing the nominee, a quick look at what I have written over the past several months will show that I have spent many hours standing up for Obama and attacking McCain. I know of several other DUers who are criticizing Obama on the FISA issue who have also been big Obama backers in the past. And yet there are a handful of very vocal DUers who are attacking us for voicing any sort of criticism whatsoever. If it were just me being attacked it wouldn't bother me so much, I can stand up for myself. I know of at least one very prominent and well respected DUer who was hurt by some of the people who were attacking her however, and it was all because she dared to speak on issues that were important to her.

I know the mods have been very good about allowing constructive criticism, but there are a handful of people who are not moderators that don't want to hear any dissent at all.

Thank you Skinner, you are handling things very fairly.

[Peacetrain]

273. There are only 125 days left till the election

Time is starting to get short..and honest criticism is always a necessary thing to keep all of us honest.. if you find yourself pushing the republican canidate, at another site.... then it is not honest criticism ..it is looking for a scab to pull just to watch the canidate bleed.

Just saying:shrug:

[mirrera]

283. Good point... n/t

[defendandprotect]

293. I don't think anyone missed the fact that there is a "put up or shut up" attitude here . . .

and I don't think that should be encouraged. It's an effort to intimidate those offering
criticism that someone else doesn't like.

I think the criticism has to be judged for what it is.

"Let me see your papers," is a childish response.

I'm here because I'm trying to support the Democratic Party. But I want the Democratic
Party to support the ideals of democracy.

Here we are just before the convention and I haven't seen any discussion here of Platform
issues. When do we get to that.

Really from the highest perspective this isn't about "our guy" --
this is about our nation and small "d" democracy.
It's about fascism -- corporate control of government -- religious intrusions upon
government -- corrupt government -- and what we're all trying to do to get the info
out about that --- and what we're trying to do to stop it.

Yes ... I'll be happy to vote for Obama . . . even if things worsen and I have to hold
my nose to do it. But if it comes to that, I won't be lying about it.


Frank and open discussion --- without fear --- without taboos -- is also what draws
people in. We have 83 million eligible voters who aren't voting because they are so
turned off. We have a barely commented upon THREAT by the Chamber of Commerce against
Edwards/Kucinich because of their populist messages.

I think we have enough authoritarianism rising in our government and in efforts to
control citizens and free speech without extending it to this website.

[last1standing]

297. Shouldn't this be locked for starting a flamefest?

:evilgrin:

Seriously, though, I hate to say it, Skinner, but there's not much hope that the PUMAs are going to become anything more than childish disruptors at DU. The sad thing is these so-called "feminists" are throwing a tantrum because they didn't get their way and that will actually hurt the real feminist movement because it will be too easy to group the real feminists in with these angry, bitter, pathetic children.

I supported Edwards in the primaries as I felt he was the only major contender speaking to the issues that would really turn this country around. I thought that Obama was too untested and that Hillary was both too unpopular and too greedy for power, however, I accepted from the beginning that whomever won the nomination I would vote for them because the alternative is more of the policies that have brought America and her people to their knees. That's what adults do, they compromise and accept that not everything will go their way.

It's a shame that so many DUers turned out to be so selfish at heart, but they did. The only way to deal with them is to remove them as they've proved over and over that they have no desire to elect a Democrat unless it's their Democrat. I don't say that lightly because I will honestly miss some of the Hillary "supporters" who have already been banned, but until this cancer is removed there will always be another flamefest and another long night for the mods who work extremely hard to make this board what it is.

And of course I'm not saying that everyone who supported Hillary in the primaries should be banned, as I know some will want to claim. Almost every Hillary supporter has shown that they can put the future of our country above petty bickering - ruggerson and cbayer come to mind. I'm speaking only of the very few, but extremely vocal, posters who are hellbent on demoralizing anyone who would vote for Obama.

[jtt]

305. Its not so simple.

I was an early Obama supporter and called a "troll" here for criticizing him on expanding the constitutionally obcene "faith Based" programs

[last1standing]

332. I'm not really sure how your post reflects on mine.

Did you alert that poster so that the mods could clean it up? That's the only thing I can think of to do if someone calls you a troll. Skinner can't stop you from being called names, he can only deal with the matter afterwards.

My point is that there are still a few posters here who are actively trying to hurt the Democratic nominee and demoralize his supporters. It's pretty easy for the mods and admins to see who they are and ban them. This doesn't include banning anyone who has ever critiqued Obama or creating a witchhunt to go after past Clinton supporters. This is just about taking out a few disruptors (like rodeodance who was finally removed last night) so that the rest of us can discuss the issues without their drama.

[jtt]

303. Of course,

Obviously, considering the alternative, he needs to win. No one questions that. But we need the criticism too.

Obama will NEVER win trying to look like a Republican. People who want that will vote for the real thing, and people that want “change” will just walk away.

Obama is making some big mistakes by approaching the issues within the exact context that the Republicans are allowed to dictate; as a "cautious" reactionary. Thats a recipe for disaster.

[curious one]

308. Thank you Skinner.

[snowbear]

316. I was #99 in recommending this thread.. one more for 100 !!

C'mon.. someone jump in and be 100 ~~~~


~ ~ ~

[JDPriestly]

318. I do not give up my brain or my sense of right and wrong

when I log on to DU. Obama is our candidate, but I am still responsible for voicing my opinion on issues. I am still responsible for doing my small part to let Obama know that I am not a rubber stamp.

It would be far more helpful to Obama if Democrats call him to task when he errs. No candidate is right about everything. I am very concerned about the FISA bill. The first reports about Obama's stance on government funding for faith-based social projects made me very angry. The reports turned out to be wrong. I learned something from it.

Rather than demand that people to march in goosestep behind our leader, Obama, treat people who criticize your candidate with respect. Look for and respond to the issues they are raising. You will win Obama voters that way. If you shut out those who do not worship Obama, you will shut out the opportunity to win their vote for Obama.

One of the problems I have with supporting Obama (and I do although he was not my first choice by any means) is the authoritarian streak -- the very strong, very frightening authoritarian streak in some of his most vehement apologists on DU. Obama is not God's gift to politics. He is not perfection incarnate. He is a man who makes mistakes like everyone else. If you are an Obama supporter, your job is not to demand that DUers support Obama. It is to state the grounds upon which you base your conviction that Obama will make a better president than McCain.

[jtt]

319. yea...

"the authoritarian streak"

I donno I supported him very early, and saw his potential, like back a few years ago and something is really bothering me. Yea yea yea, McCain is a disaster and not worthy of consideration, but Obama, honestly, I would just like him to be a blazing star on civil liberties, like we need now, in a American patriotic way, and then,... he just doesn't do it.



And look at the posters praising this post so strongly and then read:


"If someone offers criticism of Barack Obama, I find that the criticism is easier to accept if the speaker has already sufficiently demonstrated their support for Senator Obama's candidacy." - skinner, admin


How much sense does that make? Honestly. Read it again. Is that really all that smart? Think about it.

Its more reactionary than anything, and a tad odd if not fanatically curious. (skinner, whoever you are, no offense and ive read your other stuff and think the world of you, but do you think you are getting a little lazy and/or tired, within postmodern concepts of information and truth?)


I am getting nervous with all of this. Its not where we should be going. We need to be more innovative.

[mdmc]

320. I've decided that it is not worth criticizing Obama or the dems here

I now just post "Go Democrats! :woohoo: whenever I disagree with something.

I admit that I am a leftie (actually, I feel that I am a liberal with strong progressive leanings), but I love DU way to much to risk getting banned over some snark.

For the record - I have no doubt that Obama is better then McCain.

[Cary]

321. Glad to hear that you think Obama is better than McCain, but . . .

is there any question of that?

Is there any question that we have to win this election? After the election, will there not be plenty of time to debate policy?

Why play to the Republicans' talking points now? Why give them talking points now?

[seaglass]

327. Someone is playing to the Republican talking points now and it's

not DUers. It's our candidate who doesn't believe that standing up as a Democrat will win him an election, doesn't say much for us Democrats, does it?

Disclaimer: I'm voting for Obama because I HAVE NO CHOICE. I neither like nor trust him but I do not want him to lose. I also do not care what any rabid Obama supporter thinks about what I have to say - in fact, I hope it pisses off a few.

[JDPriestly]

340. Sorry. I lived in Germany and Austria a long time.

I have visited prison camps and met people who followed Hitler and who still believe that they were right to follow him because -- he lowered the unemployment and brought (as they perceive it) relative prosperity.

I have seen how people foolishly worship leaders who have charisma. Such leaders are dangerous if never confronted with questions from their own supporters. I like Obama, but if he is wrong on an issue, if his stance on an issue is inconsistent with what he claims to stand for, then I cannot support him on that issue. If the issue is important enough, I will cease to work or speak out for him.

Professionally, I consider my integrity to be my capital. I earn my living based upon trying to be sincere and honest in my life and in my work.

I believe very deeply that Obama's willingness to vote for the FISA amendment is wrong. It is inconsistent with his past promises to uphold the Constitution and not to eavesdrop on innocent Americans.

If the FISA Amendment is not passed, FISA will remain the law of the land. To vote for an Amendment that contains a telecom immunity bill is a betrayal of the American people. It is also an indication of a lack of integrity. I have no problem with someone changing his mind on an issue if he has good grounds for doing so. But here, Obama admits that he does not want telecom immunity yet he says he will go along with it just to get a bill passed. That, to me, is very strange reasoning. It seems downright opportunistic. Obama should simply not vote on the bill and explain why -- or he should get the telecom immunity provision out of it. It is an intrusion on the separate power of the judiciary for the Congress to take a matter out of the jurisdiction of the courts once it is in the courts' jurisdiction in my opinion.

Obama should have the courage to stand up for what he believes is right. He has the power here. He is our presumptive nominee. He is the person that Rockefeller, Feinstein, Pelosi, and all the others who voted and are threatening to vote for this bill are supposed to follow. How dare you demand that I bow down to Obama's erroneous stance on this issue? It is up to him to take the stand that he knows he should take and push others in the party to stand with him. How can he be president of our country if he can't get people like Rockefeller and Pelosi to stand with him against the crimes of this sitting president, one of the most if not the most unpopular president since popularity has been tracked?

If I have to surrender my integrity when I log on to DU, so be it. I will leave DU. During my life, I have lost far more than DU in order to retain my integrity. I don't plan to change my ways now. This works for me. And the cost of not standing up for what I believe is right is just to great.

I reserve the right to change my mind on an issue, even FISA, if I am presented with an argument that persuades me I have been wrong. I am willing to listen and learn from those with whom I disagree about issues, but I have not heard one single argument that justifies this FISA Amendment. It is a bad bill.

[bridgit]

357. That seems about right. Many here should talk for a time with folks that have survived Russian...

notions of just what 'personal entitlements' are all about. Way too many here at DU seem too keyed upon the entitlement of being able to choose between grande, and vinte...it is very different elsewhere in this very same world.

To surrender the distinction is to approach the visitor center of the gulag itself...'papers' in hand; however nuanced however lawyerly your papers are in your hand. Beyond which (the steel & concrete pop-up stops painted with fluorescent orange stripes) lies the gulag itself. Many will argue; that with access to clean, freshly patched Levi's, a livelihood in Toronto, a blow dryer for your flowing locks, and high-speed broadband that there are other concerns but believe it!!

The kinder gentler gulag approaches :(

[mdmc]

355. No question at all

I've donated to Obama, and I'll try to GOTV in either Florida or Ohio (swing states where I know people).
Thats all I can do. I'm on my local dem committee and I try to be as liberal and progressive as the circumstances allowed. I try to work hard for the right stuff.
Before I used to come home and bitch on DU.
Now I don't.

however - imho, debating policy is the way to win. There are lots of dems and pukes out there, but there are a lot of people out there that could give a fuck either way. I think that debating policy, having people like Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Ralph Nader out there is a good thing. It shakes shit up and gets uninterested citizens interested.
Just think - Imagine if Al Gore ran as a passionate environmentalist - it might have made a difference.

[mtnester]

323. Completely disturbing thread

in so many ways from so many sides, admin incuded.

[yourguide]

328. Thank you Skinner.

I continue to come back to this board and scan the first couple of pages of GD: Presidential. When I come here and see more complaints and criticism of Obama than I do of McCain on the first 2 pages of this very dem board my heart just sinks.

McCain is who we should all be fighting against yet I continue so see so many on this board continue to trash our nominee. A day or two ago I even went through 3 pages of recent posts trying to kick those threads that were positive about Obama and managed to find a whopping 7 and gave up.

And you are correct, it is not fair that we are human and have our perceptions of people based on prior experiences. However, that is also basic human nature. When I see the same people who were viciously trashing the nominee during the primaries continuing to trash the nominee whether in original posts or responding to other posts it's more frustrating than I can even convey.

Even more frustrating is that the same posters are allowed to continue to post such trash. I am all for fair and open discussion but in many cases again, it's some of the same Clinton supporters that will not let go. I have had my own criticisms about Obama but I have made it very clear that I support him 100%. I am also weary of posters who when I challenge them on their negativity who respond "I have been here longer than you". So what, it doesnt make them any better or their comments any more or less valid than someone who joined 2 days ago.

Some of these same posters have flat out attacked me when I have challenged them. Things well beyond the DU rules and they have not been suspended, not been given a time out, only the sub-threads have been deleted and the same poster is given the sense that she/he is allowed to continue that behavior because there are no real repercussions.

Sorry to vent my frustrations in this manner but as a long time dem, and hardcore Obama supporter it's saddening, frustrating, and honestly makes me angry to see the fight against Obama still continue by a handful of long time posters who feel they are above the rules.

Thank you again for the post.

[kmac3]

329. Criticism runs hand in hand with following the race . . .

And I think constructive criticism can be useful. By reading said comments it often brings to light an area on the subject matter you had not thought about. However, it should be done tastefully.

[Mass]

336. The problem is that constructive criticism is not allowed anymore.

Between those who think nobody should criticize Obama on any topic, not even the color of his tie, and try to find solace in any tortuous rational when they disagree with something and those who say they will not support Obama if he does not agree with every single thing they agree with, it is impossible to have a rational dialog. We have become like the GOP who think the pin is a sign of patriotism. Agreeing to the extreme with Obama is a sign of solidarity and refusing to support him because we disagree with him a sign of liberalism.

[Ian David]

339. There's a big difference between holding someone's feet to the fire & throwing them under the bus.nt

[Lars39]

341. Guy on a thread last night was demanding a poster produce a link

to his "bona fides". Nasty thing to witness. Not sure if you intended that consequence either.

[mtnester]

343. As soon as I read this OP, I saw that coming

papers, please

In all actuality, I believe this thread ought to be locked....by the OP.

[JimGinPA]

345. Link?

:rofl: