Why have DU if we can't discuss policy? I will vote for President Obama in 2012

[1776Forever]

but I can't just sit back and not discuss policy like the Cat Food Commission because I will be voting for him. I think we need to be open to all views because that is what democracy is all about. I don't agree with hate filled comments though, there is a limit to how it should be approached. But I don't think DU would be worth the time if we couldn't question some issues. President Obama said he likes to have people question him if it is done in a "bridgeable" manner:

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release May 01, 2010 Remarks by the President at University of Michigan Spring Commencement
Big House, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
11:40 A.M. EDT

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-university-michigan-spring-commencement

....So what do we do? As I found out after a year in the White House, changing this type of politics is not easy. And part of what civility requires is that we recall the simple lesson most of us learned from our parents: Treat others as you would like to be treated, with courtesy and respect. (Applause.) But civility in this age also requires something more than just asking if we can’t just all get along.

Today’s 24/7 echo-chamber amplifies the most inflammatory sound bites louder and faster than ever before. And it’s also, however, given us unprecedented choice. Whereas most Americans used to get their news from the same three networks over dinner, or a few influential papers on Sunday morning, we now have the option to get our information from any number of blogs or websites or cable news shows. And this can have both a good and bad development for democracy. For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we become more polarized, more set in our ways. That will only reinforce and even deepen the political divides in this country.

But if we choose to actively seek out information that challenges our assumptions and our beliefs, perhaps we can begin to understand where the people who disagree with us are coming from.

(More at link)

....................

I agree with President Obama there is a correct way to discuss issues and a wrong way. Hopefully most on DU will find the correct one more often.

[Time for change]

1. Who said we can't discuss policy here?

My understanding is that we can discuss any policy we like here, and we can criticize any policy, but we just have to do it in a civil manner. Am I wrong about that?

[1776Forever]

2. Read this post and the comments below it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=373944&mesg_id=373944

[Time for change]

11. I think that "support Democrats for public office" means that you can't campaign against them

on this site (Nobody knows whether or not we actually "support" candidates). It doesn't mean that we can't use civil criticism of any candidate.

I have discussed and criticized Obama's policies many times, in OPs as well as in responses to other posters, and I have not had those posts deleted or locked, as long as it doesn't get too inflammatory (Occasionally I have had posts loscked which were especially inflammatory (in the opinion of a moderator), especially the title. But the good majority of criticisms have been allowed.

[JTFrog]

18. Read post #47 in that thread and you'll see how ridiculous your OP is. n/t

[1776Forever]

24. I am amazed that you can call this OP ridiculous. I am quoting President Obama. n/t

[JTFrog]

26. "Why have DU if we can't discuss policy?"

Your premise is ridiculous.

[1776Forever]

27. Not really - I don't see your point. I was replying to people like the post I referenced. n/t

[derby378]

3. What does he mean by "bridgeable?"

Using the Gulf crisis as an example, I don't think playing patty-cake with those responsible is going to remove one single drop of oil from our wetlands.

[1776Forever]

12. Here is the full quote on that phrase by President Obama - I think it speaks for itself:

"It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences to sit down at the same table and hash things out. It robs us of a rational and serious debate, the one we need to have about the very real and very big challenges facing this nation. It coarsens our culture, and at its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response."

[frazzled]

4. The operative term is "discuss"

When you begin a discussion of policy with the term "Cat Food Commission," you immediately make those of us who actually are interested in policy discussion close the thread and walk away. That's not discussion, it's childish sloganeering. There are many places on the Internet to read serious discussion, pro and con, of policy. Why would anyone want to read a bunch of one-sentence cat-calling posts? It's not discussion.

[closeupready]

6. +1.

Sometimes seems like there are a lot of 18 and 19 year old children here who do not know what that word means.

[BlueIdaho]

9. Well said.

Discussion - fine, but the disrespect and downright hatred members exhibit towards elected Democrats and each other is disheartening. How can you really champion human rights in the abstract if you treat people like shit in the specific?

[1776Forever]

13. This "sloganeering" is not my making - it is being used in many articles and comments such as:

June 18, 2010
Deficit Commission Co-Chair: Social Security T-Bills Have "Been Used"
-- by Dave Johnson

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2010/06/deficit_commiss.htm

......The Commission: Now there is the Deficit Commission looking into how to raise money to cover what the government handed out as tax cuts to the rich. Rather than get the money from where the money went, the plutocrats are instead trying to convince people that it would make more sense to just cut Social Security instead, so they don't have to pay it back. The commission is meeting in secret, preparing to recommend cutting Social Security benefits. Hence the nickname for the Commission: "Catfood Commission," because cutting Social Security would force as many as 1.5 million old people into poverty and eating cat food for dinner because it costs less.

(more at link)
.....................

It is what it is - I don't have a problem with that.

[BlueIdaho]

17. Yeah, like death panels - right?

Life is about choices I guess.

[1776Forever]

21. Are you serious? This is about elderly not having enough to eat! You are rediculous!

[BlueIdaho]

28. No, this is about the words you choose.

"Catfood Commission" is no better and no worse than "Death Panel" - which if you believe the people thar coined that phrase was not about straving grandma, it was about killing grandma. Your assertion is that since someone else has used the term on the Internet or in the MSM then you don't have a problem with it. Words matter, they can have a chilling effect on discourse. They can cloud our thinking and lead us to disastrous decisions.

Since this commission has made no recommendations, you are fighting a straw man, not me.

BTW, I'll put my donations to the food bank and work with the elderly up against yours any day, cuz you see sadly, many elderly are suffering right now.

Have a terrific day.

[Kaylee]

25. Agreed. nt

[closeupready]

5. You do NOT need to support him for re-election. That's Skinner's rule.

Further, even if he wins the primary for re-election, you still do not have to support him, but what IS true is that you can NOT agitate here for the election of his opponents, of any party. Also, you must be generally supportive of Democratic Party ideals and goals. If on balance it appears you do NOT support them, then you are likely to be tombstoned, but that does NOT equal being unconditionally supportive of the current president.

[msongs]

7. so if somebody better comes along you will not vote for him/her based on today? hmm nt

[Raine1967]

8. maybe not calling it the "Cat Food Commission" might help?

That kinda stifles any debate one might want to have. To me that is a debate killer.

but that is just me. and maybe -- possibly -- a few others.

[derby378]

14. Maybe I haven't been that active on DU lately...

...but I have no idea what the "Cat Food Commission" is.

[1776Forever]

16. Read my comment at post link below - It will explain it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=374040&mesg_id=374109

[derby378]

31. Thanks! (n/t)

[1776Forever]

15. See my comment on that above - I didn't come up with that & it is widely used. n/t

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=374040&mesg_id=374109

[Skink]

10. i'd vote for anybody that would end the wars.

[jody]

19. My experience and observation is DU owners are extraordinarily tolerant iff one sticks to an issue

while avoiding politicians' names when possible and not using ad hominem.

[JTFrog]

20. +1

[Moochy]

22. LOL as long as you dont' make your point effectively you can stay

just kidding, mostly. :evilgrin:

[1776Forever]

23. I'm beginning to think that is too true! Mostly! n/t

[jody]

30. Once two people have exchanged assertions and have no facts to support them, then I see no reason to

keep tossing the same unsupported assertions back and forth adding acrimony each time to further solidify untenable opinions.

[dionysus]

29. no one said you can't discuss policy. there's discussing policy, and then there's "zomg he's bush 3"