Please help me understand

[Boomerang Diddle]

I don't understand why it seems so many people keep complaining about Obama's stand on issues like health care, gay marriage, Afghanistan, etc..

Didn't anyone pay attention to him during the election? It's not like he's flip-flopping or anything. He made his positions clear way back then.

So what's the point of protesting his stands on the issues now? I don't get it.

Thanks. :)

[Uzybone]

For most of them, it's to get attention.

Some really are against those things and are venting and speaking their minds. Nothing wrong with that at all and it should be encouraged. e.g on Gay Marriage I really want Obama to come around to the majority view on this board.


Anyone who says Obama is changing or kowtowing is an idiot who hasn't been paying attention.

[TheWraith]

39. And some people choose to have a fit because they don't know how to be happy that we won.

They're perpetually incapable of being satisfied with anything. Even if they got the "pony" they were looking for, they'd complain that they didn't get the pony sooner, or that it wasn't a better pony.

[Occam Bandage]

1. By this logic, we shouldn't have complained about Bush because he did what he said he would.

:shrug:

I think most of the complaining about Obama is bullshit recreational outrage, but this is a really bad defense.

[Boomerang Diddle]

5. But did anyone here vote for Bush?

I'm assuming most people here voted for Obama and knew what they were voting for.

[Occam Bandage]

9. People vote strategically.

Most people here are far closer to Nader on the issues than Obama, but they voted Obama because he was better than McCain. That doesn't mean they shouldn't criticize Obama on the issues. I agree that the "OMG I DIDN'T EXPECT THIS" is misplaced, but "I don't like his position on health care reform" is not.

I just wish they'd stick to the issues. I'm tired of the "Obama's choice for position X has a bad position on issue Y that is totally unrelated to position X, blahblahblah not change I can believe in."

[NYCGirl]

15. No, he claimed to be against nation building and was a "compassionate

conservative". Even Al Gore never envisioned Bush would be as bad as he was.

[Occam Bandage]

28. I meant past '04. nt

[11 Bravo]

17. So you're saying that Bush was a uniter, eschewed nation building,

pursued a humble foreign policy, and restored honor and dignity to the Oval Office? Because he said he would do all that shit.

[Occam Bandage]

I meant past '04. nt

[11 Bravo]

79. After accusing someone else of employing a "really bad defense" ...

claiming that you failed to clearly state what you intended seems excruciatingly lame.

[Marrah_G]

2. The point is to speak out about what is important to you

How else would you encourage someone to change their view?

being elected does not free one of criticism....That is the sort of thinking that the Bush Administration had.

Also, just because we voted for him does not mean we agree with or to all of his policies/theories/ideas/viewpoints. It only means we thought he was the best of the two choices.

[polichick]

3. What exactly do you think a message board is for?!

[Boomerang Diddle]

10. The point is

didn't you know where Obama stood on the issues when, or if, you voted for him? If so, and you didn't like his stand on the issues then, why did you vote or support him assuming you did vote or support him?

[polichick]

14. That's just silly. As things unfold, Obama shifts - as we've seen with...

...offshore drilling, etc.

Additionally, there were no hints that he'd install a hawk as SoS, and I could go on and on.

With every choice he makes, Obama shows cards that he hadn't shown before.

Why does it bother you that people want to discuss this stuff?

[Boomerang Diddle]

19. I'm not talking about discussing this stuff

It's the constant whining I don't get. After all, it's impossible for him to please everyone on every issue and every pick 100% of the time.

[polichick]

22. One person's "whining" is another person's discussion...

Why not post where it interests you and skip what doesn't ~ why "whine" about the discussions?

[donco6]

27. I smell something funny.

Like stale pepperoni.

What about you? This thread just seems too staged.

[polichick]

30. Yeah - there's been a bunch of these "I don't understand" threads lately.

[Boomerang Diddle]

29. You're slamming me for asking a question

after stating "What exactly do you think a message board is for?!"

[polichick]

34. I'm calling your thread a WHINE FEST.

[Boomerang Diddle]

37. And I should care why?

[polichick]

41. I don't care if you care - but you should at least think about the fact that...

...the people you're complaining about are discussing issues ~ while you're just whining about posters. Get it?

[Boomerang Diddle]

45. We seem to come from different planets

hence the communication breakdown. I'm from Earth, how 'bout you?

[polichick]

48. I'll simplify it for you:

Better to discuss thorny issues than whine about what other people are posting.

[Zodiak]

Whining does not occur on message boards

We do not have inflection in our prose, and there are no facial expressions. Whining is in reference to how someone complains tonally, which is impossible to determine on a message board.

What people who use "whining" as cut-down to their opponents do not realize is that the use of the term says far more about the speaker than it does to the object of that speech. The need to infantilize...the need to denigrate...the need to bully. Maybe they read prose with a whining tone in their heads and project it on the author...but then again, that still speaks of the reader, not the original author.

I really wish we could cut that word out of the lexicon here, but then someone is always willing to step up to the plate and use it again....despite the fact that whether a person is whining or not is impossible to determine.

A more honest term would be "complaining".....but that doesn't sound pithy and mean enough, does it?

[donco6]

56. Hmm. She sounds pretty whiny to me, too.

And infantile. So if the shoe fits. . .

[Zodiak]

63. *sigh*

You clearly did not see the point of my post.

Continue hurling turds at each other...the rest of us will just read around it.

[Boomerang Diddle]

58. That's why I used the word "complaining" in my OP

And asked "what's the point of protesting his stands on the issues now?" I was hoping for a civil discussion only to be personally insulted instead. Oh well, I shan't make that mistake again!

[donco6]

60. ~crossing fingers~ n/t

[phleshdef]

4. I seriously think DUers don't know how to handle a post Republican ruled America.

We have been so use to complaining that now there is some void inside of us that needs to be filled with outrage towards the government. I can't think of any other explanation really.

[Boomerang Diddle]

13. I think you're on to something there!

n/t

[Fleshdancer]

6. debate is healthy

and if we stopped debating the issues, this place would be pretty boring.

[Boomerang Diddle]

12. Yes, I agree, but I haven't seen much debate

just, for lack of a better word, a lot of whining.

[Fleshdancer]

49. I see far more personal insults than whining which is a shame

I don't have a problem with a poster disagreeing with something Obama said or did because no one ever agrees with a politician 100%, but too often a good debate quickly turns childish with name calling. I can't stand that. I also get annoyed when people respond to a thread because they disagree with the OP but their only response is "no" or "that's a stupid idea" and doesn't elaborate.

[Boomerang Diddle]

55. Yeah, I'm really feeling that now

I didn't expect my question to illicit such a barrage of insults. I think I'm learning a good lesson though.

[Fleshdancer]

65. a lot of it has to do with your post count

DU can be pretty harsh on all posters with less than 1,000 posts under their belt. It's not fair, but DU attracts right wingers who love to sign on and cause trouble so all young posters are suspect. I remember one of my first posts made fun of Fox News and the sheer amount of bitchy responses I received asking "why the hell are you watching faux news??!" or "that's what you get for watching it in the first place" just floored me. It's funny now, but not so much at the time.

If the insults get too intense, just click the alert button.

Oh, and welcome to DU! :hi:

[Boomerang Diddle]

68. Thank you very much!

Your kind words (and advice) are appreciated!

[DevonRex]

73. Use the ignore option for those who attack you. And debate with

the ones with whom you disagree but who don't attack you. Sometimes you'll feel like you are missing out on something, but most of the time you'll have plenty of good debate.

I had a long ignore list during the primaries but cleared it out once the primaries were over. I've started a new list very recently and today has been much better because of it.

[Jennicut]

7. I understand criticism, I don't get fake shock

Criticism is healthy, saying Obama's presidency will suck before it started is going overboard. But what are we going to do? It IS DU.

[Boomerang Diddle]

16. Me neither

It's easy to find fault but maybe we should give a little time before deciding he's a complete failure!

[Jennicut]

20. Yup. Like let him be sworn in or something like that. LOL

[Boomerang Diddle]

25. Yeah, that would be nice! ;)

[Skittles]

8. some of us may not be surprised by we can still be outraged

understand?

[Occam Bandage]

11. Outrage is such an overused term. nt

[Boomerang Diddle]

21. Were you outraged when you voted for him

assuming you did vote for him?

[Skittles]

26. I would have voted for a ham sandwich if they had run it against McCain

so that reall doesn't mean much, does it?

[donco6]

18. Well, I don't remember him saying that . . .

. . . he supported RW Christian preachers who facilitated jailing gays and lesbians in Africa?

Did I miss that speech?

<scratching head> I really thought I caught all of them . . .

[Boomerang Diddle]

23. As far as I know

he has not appointed one single person to a position of power that believes in "jailing gays and lesbians in Africa."

[donco6]

24. He endorsed Rick Warren.

That's pretty bad.

Really bad, in fact.

[Boomerang Diddle]

31. He also "endorsed" Rev Lowery, Nancy Sutley, Bradley J. Kiley...

But you wouldn't know that from looking here.

[donco6]

33. Doesn't matter.

You think the two cancel each other out?

That's stupid.

And why are you stirring this pot again anyway?

[Boomerang Diddle]

35. I'm not the one who brought up Warren, now am I?

In fact, the first one to mention Rick Warren was YOU, not me....and then you really have the nerve to accuse me of "stirring up the pot again?"

[donco6]

38. Yeah I got the nerve.

You stirred the pot with this idiotic OP. I mentioned Warren because you required it.

I suspect you really get off on bringing more division to DU.

[Boomerang Diddle]

40. I didn't require anything.

How did I require you to bring up Warren? Did I threaten you? Did I hijack your computer? Did I hold your family hostage?

Seriously, I'm really interested to know how I required you to do anything?

[donco6]

46. Here you go:

You wrote:

Please help me understand

I don't understand why it seems so many people keep complaining about Obama's stand on issues like health care, gay marriage, Afghanistan, etc..

Didn't anyone pay attention to him during the election? It's not like he's flip-flopping or anything. He made his positions clear way back then.

So what's the point of protesting his stands on the issues now? I don't get it.

Thanks.

I wrote:

Well, I don't remember him saying that . . .
. . . he supported RW Christian preachers who facilitated jailing gays and lesbians in Africa?

Did I miss that speech?

<scratching head> I really thought I caught all of them . . .

You wrote:

As far as I know
he has not appointed one single person to a position of power that believes in "jailing gays and lesbians in Africa."

I wrote:

He endorsed Rick Warren.
That's pretty bad.

Really bad, in fact.


See, when you ask a question about why something is happening, then get all pissed off when people tell you why it's happening, that's what we call "disengenuous."

Look it up.

[Boomerang Diddle]

50. You don't really understand that only proves I am right?

I'm talking about the issues, not about preachers.

[donco6]

53. ~snort~

Yeah, right.

You just keep believing that.

Have a nice day.

[Critters2]

52. Nancy Sutley's "endorsement" is purely symbolic. Most people won't even know about it.

But the fundies will see their boy up there in public at the inauguration.

[gblady]

32. seems to me....

either folks did not pay attention...or

Barack was right when he said he was
like a blank slate upon which folks
projected their hopes and wishes...

it is impossible for the man
to be all things to all people.

[Boomerang Diddle]

36. Sounds right!

And if I remember right he never said he'd be perfect!

[uponit7771]

42. Complainers don't like reading.

[Boomerang Diddle]

43. Or listening

[Critters2]

61. You mean when he said he's a "ferocious advocate for gay rights"?

I was listening. The talk doesn't match the walk.

[Boomerang Diddle]

66. Funny how this thread has turned into a gay rights thread

which was never the intention of my OP. Go back and read my OP. I was talking about Obama's stands on the issues, including (but not necessarily limited to) health care, gay marriage, Afghanistan, etc..

As for his stand on gay rights, I see nothing to indicate he has changed his mind.

[Critters2]

69. No. He's never been progressive on gay rights.

In spite of his claim to be a "ferocious advocate".

Either he's an advocate or he isn't.


He isn't.

[Boomerang Diddle]

72. I disagree.

And so does the The Human Rights Campaign who endorsed him:

PRESS RELEASE -- Human Rights Campaign Endorses Sen. Barack Obama for President of the United States

6/6/2008

WASHINGTON–The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights group, today announced that the organization will endorse Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president of the United States. The decision was made by the HRC Board of Directors based on Senator Obama’s support for GLBT equality, his demonstrated leadership, and his unwavering commitment to civil rights.

"HRC is proud to throw our full support behind Senator Obama’s presidential campaign," said HRC President Joe Solmonese. "Senator Obama has consistently shown that he understands, as we do, that, GLBT rights are civil rights, and human rights. Senator Obama has said that embracing ‘our gay brothers and sisters’ is true to Martin Luther King’s vision; I know that Senator Obama’s vision is one of equality, fairness, and justice for all of us," he said. "We have just witnessed a historic primary contest in which two champions of our community demonstrated that they hear our voices and share our dreams. For millions across this country, their candidacies—as the first woman and the first African American to be top contenders for the nomination of a major party—have already been life-changing, inspiring, and groundbreaking. Senators Obama and Clinton both remained our allies whether they were campaigning in New Mexico or Nebraska; in California or Kansas. They are, quite simply, heroes to anyone fighting for equality,"

Senator Obama supports federal benefits and protections for same-sex couples, a fully-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act and hate crimes legislation, comprehensive sex education, the repeal of the military’s "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy, and increased funding for HIV/AIDS. He opposes the federal marriage amendment and bans on adoption by GLBT people. Senator Obama participated in HRC’s and Logo’s historic presidential forum in 2007, and submitted HRC’s presidential questionnaire.

"The Human Rights Campaign has been at the forefront of the fight for GLBT equality and opportunity, and I am proud to have its endorsement," said Senator Obama. "Too often, the issue of GLBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. I look forward to working with HRC to end discrimination against GLBT Americans and to ensure that all of our citizens are treated with dignity and respect."

Solmonese concluded, "I’ve been consistently impressed by Senator Obama’s willingness to speak about GLBT issues in front of diverse audiences. Matters of life and livelihood for GLBT Americans are on the line in this election and after eight years of an anti-gay stranglehold on the presidency, Sen. Obama’s message of fairness and acceptance is a breath of fresh air."

http://www.hrc.org/10571.htm

[Critters2]

75. They're kind of re-thinking all that enthusiasm now.

Or so it appears from Joe Solomnese's ed in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/18/AR2008121802788.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

This portion seems particularly relevant:

President-elect Obama must now, as my mother used to say, put some meat on the bone. We've seen appointment after appointment of talented Americans who come from constituencies that are part of this country and that helped gain his election. Well, we're one of those constituencies who actually worked and voted for Obama, unlike Warren and probably most of his 21,000 parishioners. Yet, we're the ones left waiting for some real evidence of inclusion.

So, are we angry about Rick Warren? You bet we are. And including a gay marching band in the inaugural festivities doesn't heal this wound. It only serves to make us question the promises that Barack Obama made in his historic quest to be president. We pray we weren't misled.

[donco6]

76. What? No comeback?

When confronted with facts, the conversation suddenly dies. Wonder why that is?

[Critters2]

78. Crickets. Surprising at this time of year, no? nt

[Political Tiger]

44. As you might be noticing

it's always the same people who start the trouble. For whatever reason, they absolutely hate Obama and are going to find a reason to complain about him no matter what he does.

It would be interesting to find out why they hate Obama so much, but I doubt if they'll ever be honest enough with us or especially themselves to find out why.

[Boomerang Diddle]

47. I am starting to see a trend.

[donco6]

51. Yeah, we all hate Obama.

That's why I gave him more than $2,000 for his campaign. I had his signs in my yard long before anyone on my block. Stickers on my car. Called for his campaign at the HQ in Five Points.

It has nothing to do with hate.

[Critters2]

54. Exactly. I always do phone banking for people I hate.

I'm funny that way.

[donco6]

57. I wondered why they were staring at my McCain/Palin shirt.

Oh well, I figured they were just jealous.

[Zodiak]

59. Yup...and make cute little sig lines...it's the hate, you know

And the volunteering....I just had to get on more and more hate.....hate is my frigging ambrosia...I eat and drink it. I hate Obama, so that is why I worked so hard for him! Yay...thanks for the psychoanalysis.

:sarcasm:



How about this...ASK people why they are complaining instead of coming up with all sorts of outlandish reasons that have no basis in reality and assume WAY too much about what is going on in people's heads. When you accuse someone of blind hate, you shut down discussion...and you are effectively accusing them of being less than human because they cannot think.

Most criticisms I have seen have been based on facts, past performance, past positions, past rhetoric, etc. Hate doesn't have to have a reason and often twists itself up coming up with one.

Why accuse Obama's critics of "hate"? Is it so you can automatically dismiss concerns as that of a raving lunatic? That might keep you in a bubble, but it will not quell the criticism you find so unappealing.

And for those that think it is all about the endless outrage...do you honestly think that people like being pissed off? Has this country suddenly been fixed and so now there is nothing to worry about? When you launch this "outrage addict" argument, you are just as guilty of calling someone a hater because you assume way too much about someone else's psyche. I would love to forget politics, but as long as I see this country moving in the wrong direction, I will say something. I have this horrible condition....I care. Caring means speaking out when the people you love do wrong.

Has anyone accused Obama's critics of "caring too much"? No...that would make them seem too human and too much like everyone else. Paint them a knee-jerk "whiners", "haters", and "poutragers"...that is so much more fun! But it doesn't advance the discussion one bit....just more chaff that DUers have to read past.

The way a lot of you act is exactly why I lasted about 2 weeks as a moderator. It is disconcerting to see "progressives" treat each other like shit each and every day....bullying, tattle-telling, petty crap. It is all beneath us.

[Political Tiger]

64. I think it goes beyond the word "hate."

As a gay man who supports Obama and doesn't feel letting Rick Warren give the invocation at his inauguration is a signal to the gay community that Obama "hates" (and yes, plenty of people have said that) the gay community, I have been on the recieving end of what I consider hate.

For voicing my support of Obama I have been called homophobic (!), stupid, cultist, a groupie, a "fan-boy," a "house gay" and my favorite, a "house Liza." And those are the nicer names I've been called!

So it works many ways.

But when I see people saying "Obama hates gay people" and "Obama is homophobic" the only rational explanation I can come up for someone saying such a thing is, let's say....an extreme dislike for Obama.

[Zodiak]

67. If you have been on the receiving end of it

and it makes you feel so bad......why do you do it to others?

Why feed into the cycle of talking past each other? Nothing gets solved that way.

[Political Tiger]

70. I usually don't

As maybe you didn't notice, I directed my words at no individual but instead spoke in general terms.

It was a general observation.

I'm not saying I have never got caught up in one of these tit for tat exchanges with another person, but I do try to avoid them, and one way I have done that is to put what I consider the worst offenders on ignore so I am not even tempted to respond to them. I've been utilizing the hide thread option a lot more too, because let's face it, it's easy to get caught up in the cycle. I'm not perfect but I'm trying!

[Zodiak]

74. Sometimes general terms are worse

Because people may think you are talking about them when indeed you are not.

I have been critical of a good deal of Obama's moves since his election, and I must admit that when I read you talking about the same people complaining over and over, I saw myself in that (I only say something when I have something to say, and yes, often that is a complaint). But I am definitely not a hater.

I really wish I had no reason to complain...I really do. But I can also see how someone would think me a habitual complainer.....and you called those habitual complainers "haters".....and then we are off to the races on the cycle of talking past one another.

Thank you for this response...and you are doing just fine if you are being mindful of the negative effects of dealing with certain people that rub you the wrong way (whether intentionally or not). That will go a long way to preserving your sanity around here.

[harun]

62. The pot-bangers around here bang pots, it's what they do

[Boomerang Diddle]

71. The squeaky wheel gets the grease

as they say!

[ddeclue]

77. I would disagree that he made his positions clear..and/or he does seem to

have changed quite a few of them.