Why do some on this board assume, those who oppose the President

[ej510]

on issues hate the President and is a GOP plant? Most of us who are disappointed with some of the President's policies worked hard and donated money to get him elected. A disagreement with the President is not a personal attack or some machiavellian plan to take down the President, but it is a legitimate concern about certain aspects of his agenda; such as Fisa, AfPak, ignoring war crimes the previous administration committed, using drones, using blackwater, sending Naval ships to the coast of Brazil over oil, not fighting hard for a real Public Option or Medicare for all, not fighting for real regulatory reform, and etc. We want him to change his stances or fight harder for the little people. Get rid of Summers and Geithner, and find someone who will advocate for the working class rather than Wall St. Without real regulatory reform, we will see another economic implosion. Right now we are building another bubble, the recovery will be temporary unless the President stops Wall St.

[Clio the Leo]

1. Because MANY of those who say negative things about him...

.... NEVER say anything positive.

[Buzz Clik]

3. +1!!!

[MNDemNY]

51. Why on earth should one waste time...

singing the praises of Obama on this board?? to what end??? Criticism, when due, is far more relevant. Are you asserting that this is to just be a jack-off site??? I don't think so, go do your circle-jerk on "Barry's Board" or some such shit.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Born_A_Truman]

67. I suppose there are not other sites that bash Obama 24/7...

and those that don't are just a jack-off site?

:argh:

[atreides1]

7. Make a list

MANY sounds like THOSE PEOPLE, or SOME SAY!

A list would be very helpful.

[PBS Poll-435]

85. Against DU rules. Talk a brisk walk around GD and GDP and tell me that there is not

a constant stream of negativity from "some" or even "many" members.

[Captain Hilts]

10. Very true. And many of those who say positive things about him never say anything negative.

The world of politics is gray, not black and white.

You want black and white, root for a sports team.

[treestar]

29. I'm not going to say anything negative

There's enough of that out in the real world. Having yet more on DU is a little scary - and I do think the right wing benefits from it. I don't want things to get even worse.

[MNDemNY]

53. You put waaaaaayyyyy too much weight on this board!

"the right wing benefits'????That is hysterical!!!

[spoony]

17. Even if that's so, and I don't think it is

How does that make them, like the OP asked, a GOP infiltrator or someone who hates Obama. Hate is an incredibly overused term that has almost lost its proper impact in this society, and certainly has on DU. Hate is not disagreement or being critical.

[Kdillard]

20. exactly

[jgraz]

25. *sniff* You NEVER loved me, MOM!

Don't you realize how petulant and childish that sounds?

[treestar]

26. Amen

And my defense is reflexive to a point. It's DU, after all.

I agree with the POTUS on a lot, though. Too many here have their heads in the sand about the relative power of the left and of the right.

[uponit7771]

43. +1!!!

[firedupdem]

47. And they were in negative mode prior to the inauguration! n/t

[jefferson_dem]

48. Simple as that.

:thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

52. People pay more attention to things that bother them

than to things that don't bother them. That's just human nature. It's not only human nature contemplating the president.

[NYCGirl]

58. I saw a DUer this morning call him an "asslicker." Thought I might have been

at FR for a moment.

[Cha]

74. No, just another idiot

around here.

[ZombieHorde]

86. Are sure they meant "asslicker" to be an insult? Many of us enjoy having our asses licked. nt

[Moochy]

71. Is there a zero sum game we don't know about

why bother praising for the stuff he's doing well. he gets plenty of that. Is there a quota system? a scorecard somewhere?

[salguine]

73. Exactly. You don't go to a mechanic and ask what's right with your car. It's the stuff that's

wrong that you're concerned about.

[shadesofgray]

78. How ridiculous! What do you do, keep a spreadsheet?!

I'll make it easy for you.

I have never posted anything positive about Obama, and the way it's going, I doubt if I ever will.
I care about the issues, not worshipping politicians.

[bigwillq]

89. And many who say positive things

never say anything negative.
So?
Didn't know there was rule that one had to post 50-50 either way.

[KansasVoter]

92. WRONG! That is the label but not true!

[Buzz Clik]

2. LOL! Why would we assume that someone who calls him a "total failure" doesn't hate him?

[ej510]

5. Who said that? I never said it?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mkultra]

19. as is the OPs suprise imho

[jgraz]

23. Because you're a mature, intelligent adult?

Sorry, was that asking too much?

[kenfrequed]

28. So...

When someone asks reasonable questions or points out reasonable critiques the best thing you can think to do is to compare them directly with someone who seems to be unreasonable?

Well I can certainly see how a logical analogy like that will convince tons of friggin people. Mega-winz fer u!!!!

[Buzz Clik]

40. Where the hell did you come up with that? Don't complain about my logic when you post that crap.

I said nothing even close to what you claim.

Sweet jeebus, this board is packed with assholes.

[kenfrequed]

49. Uhm it was in one of your replies

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=46526&mesg_id=46602


By posting this as an example to someone with legitimate concerns it does imply a connection. Unless posting it had no point in which case it falls under the Red herring fallacy.

[Buzz Clik]

64. You're doing it again. I did not make that comparison.

The persecution complexes here are rampant. We need professional help.

[kenfrequed]

66. Projection

It's not just for movies any longer apparently.

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. METADU! METADU!

Mmmmmm. Soooooooo meta.

[Buzz Clik]

14. I'm sure that means something to someone somewhere.

[ZombieHorde]

87. "meta" usually means self referring. So, metathought is thinking about thoughts,

metadu is du posts about du posts.

[27inCali]

44. half the posts here are fucking meta

maybe if we obsessed over something besides our own digital navel, something useful might come of this.

[Forkboy]

6. Because it's simpler than actually addressing the concerns.

And to be fair, some to the Left do the exact same thing to Obama supporters. It's far easier to reduce someone and their position to one fit for mockery than it is to actually take that issue seriously, even if the issue is deserving of seriousness.

[atreides1]

8. Well Said

And yes it does happen on both sides.

[ej510]

9. I agree the name calling on both sides is childish.

[mkultra]

18. i dont

this is a democratic board. If they come here slinging insults then they deserve to get stoned. those who fight them do not.

[PVnRT]

30. Let me correct your post

"this is a democratic board. If they come here slinging insults at people I agree with then they deserve to get stoned. those who fight them do not."

There - fixed.

[mkultra]

37. in some sense yes

here, we do not have to tolerate those who do so based on right wing agendas or substance.

[LooseWilly]

84. It does make it convenient to judge *all* criticism as being "based on right wing agendas"...

... "or substance" doesn't it?

(the agenda of the right wing is to criticize, therefore any criticism conforms to the right wing's agenda... botta-boom botta-bing: All criticism is right wing and intolerable. Case closed...)

It's frankly embarrassing to realize that this train of logic is still ridden by so many on this site...
:blush:

[mkultra]

93. as convenient as sheltering MSM smears

in the harbor of so called "free thinking criticism." Much like emo's, all of the "free thinkers" have some how come to the exact same conclusions. Its like individual group think.

[Frances]

11. I disagree with Obama on some issues

BUT I think about what the country would be like under McCain/Palin. Some on DU don't think there would have been any difference. I do.

I also think too much harping on Obama's failures means that we may have a Palin/Huckabee victory three years from now. If that happens, the Constitution will mean nothing; it will be Palin/Huckabee's interpretation of the Bible that governs us.

Someone I know used to say, "Just because things are bad doesn't mean they can't get worse."

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. Because that assumption is necessary to rationalize their own views

The impossibility of principled disagreement is a standard feature of personality cults, crack-pot political movements, etc..

Anyone who disagrees must be a "wrecker", a bolshevik, a jew, a counter-revolutionary... some outside category of "inauthentic" citizen.

[Buzz Clik]

15. If that's the standard response to all who disagree with some of Obama's policies, then I agree.

However, there are some here who clearly despise Obama and all he stands for. Calling them on their hatred is a natural consequence of the expression of that hatred.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

34. Yes, there are such folks.

But even they are legitimate voices.

A certain small percentage of the Democratic Party quite dislikes Obama. And a certain percentage would crawl through glass to sniff his bottom.

The internet promotes polarization... extremes are over-represented.

So we have an over-abundance of both categories.

The difference is that only one of the two categories spends a lot of time and energy agitating that the other be banned.

[Buzz Clik]

39. "But even they are legitimate voices...." I'll keep that in mind the next time that...

I'll keep that in mind the next time that I get called a cheerleader or told I'm marching in lockstep simply because I disagree with the haters.

[mkultra]

16. because they twist facts to generate destructive smears

which is a right wing method. Constructive criticism would include discussion and would not include the general contempt and name calling they they engage in. Its pretty simple.

[OHdem10]

21. GOP plant is a step too far.

[damonm]

22. Because many (if not most)

...use inflammatory, overheated rhetoric such as the brain-dead "Obama=Bush" meme.

Now what YOU'RE saying is legitimate, policy based criticism - GINORMOUS difference.

[treestar]

24. Put a match under that straw and you'll have a great fire!

This board has tolerated all out bashing.

[spoony]

27. Which part do you think is a strawman?

Have people not been called Obama haters? Regularly? And have you really not seen people suggest they're freepers/trolls/infiltrators? Do you know what a strawman IS?

[treestar]

33. People aren't accused of being haters any more than the cheerleader comments

Sometimes this feels like it's not a site for Democrats.

The critics can't claim to the such victims here. But if you disagree that much and on so many things, what would you expect on a site that favors the side you're going against?

If you went to freeperville, you'd get treated way worse.

IMO some on the far left think they have way more power than they do and the luxury of slamming the Democrats. When they don't. It's just reality. Look at the M$M. You don't live in a left wing country.

[spoony]

36. None of that makes the OP straw.

The fact that other people are called names doesn't make the description in the OP false. You can start a thread about calling supporters names and I'll rec that too, and defend it against any strawman claim, because the entire thing has gone too far. People of conscience can disagree, surely.

[MNDemNY]

54. Bull, just bull.

[Cha]

76. Yeah, the poor little

strawman.

[nemo137]

31. For the same reason some on this board assume, those who

argue against Kucinich, or are not anti-Summers, or approve of (x) are DLC plants. They have some sort of problem with disagreement,

[freddie mertz]

32. Some of them just say it to undermine any kind of criticism.

By imparting dark motives and an unrelenting bias to the source of the critique.

It's an ad hominem tactic, informed by fear and ignorance.

[dionysus]

35. i don't presume. when people throw around cult/messiah/corporate whore/pompom/koolaid/dear leader

cheerleader/warmonger/facist they fool no one.

such a poor, poor attempt at being coy.

:rofl:

[MNDemNY]

41. is it coy when your ilk tosses out "hater" ???

You are among the worst of the worst.Wipe your chin.

[dionysus]

63. i'm not the one frothing around here calling people cultists. is that "wipe your chin" shit

supposed to be some kind of devastating insult?
:shrug:

[MNDemNY]

65. Not to me.

[Starry Messenger]

38. This forum is full of reactionary bullies.

Come to GD, we think about stuff and the cookies are better. :)

[ruggerson]

88. Best post of the entire thread

n/t

[Starry Messenger]

90. :)

It was the cookies, right? :D

[27inCali]

42. I don't think people like that hate the president

I think they are

1) really angry about how fucked up Congress is and projecting it on Obama.
2) need to accept the reality that the pres. is not quite as Left as them but can still accomplish some very good things for the country
3) are being a bit egotistical in assuming they have the perfect grasp on issues and know exactly what needs to be done and how to do it -maybe some do, but most probably don't.
4) getting a little too frothed up every time they see a piece of news that seems to reinforce their pessimism
5) a little to quick to refute anything that looks like good news.
6) forget that winning fights is mostly about choosing when to fight them - I mean when Obama picks a fight, but I also mean when someone here chooses to pick a fight on an issue.

I don't mean those points as a cheap attack, but a critical analysis.

[uponit7771]

45. Because MOST of the opposition is based off of what the US M$M prints and some "inside" sources say

...or people just make shit up (aka lie).

If a good portion of the criticism was accurate and not full of sophistry it'd be less asinine.

[27inCali]

46. ha! sophistry.

[azmouse]

50. I think many who "oppose" the President are trying to sow discord among Democrats.

It's an old trick and many are falling for it.

[MNDemNY]

55. Yes, a "trick"

dissent is a trick. all hail Obama!:D

[azmouse]

57. If you think they are all honest in dissent you're kidding only yourself.

[dave29]

56. The simple answer

is that this is an anonymous message board. People are free to assume whatever they want. Whether or not you call a waaaambulance because people are calling you out for whatever reason -- is up to you.

[Yavin4]

59. Because Most of the Criticism of Obama Is Unfair and Unjust Given the Political Realities

Obama governs only 1/3 of the entire govt. To get most things done, he needs congressional approval, and with all of the Republicans opposed to him on everything, that gives a lot of clout to very conservative Dems in the congress. To keep harping on Obama without acknowledging that reality is unfair and highly suspicious because most people understand the realities.

[MNDemNY]

60. That's quite an opinion you got there! Maybe you'd better keep it to yourself.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Greyhound]

61. Strange how your declared "reality" only applies to the Democratic half of

our "representatives". When they go along with the republiks in destroying the nation, well that's just fine because they're "keeping their powder dry" (the most asinine excuse I've heard) so one day, far in the future, maybe they might start to think about appointing a committee to look into something vaguely related to the issue.
:eyes:

Please, trying to rally the voters around the pretense of a difference is just insulting.

[vaberella]

62. Because they use GOP TP's---Messiah comes to mind. Or post Right Wing articles.

There are several.

[geek tragedy]

68. Honest critics who disagree on policy are 100% good people.

The ones who look for an excuse to trash him, no matter how flimsy or baseless:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=47578&mesg_id=47578

Well, the assumptions are correct about those people.

[Cha]

75. I'm ignoring that author but

I'm sure you're making your point.

[Teaser]

69. I don't assume anything about them.

If they come in screaming and moaning, they annoy me. It's just so infantile.

fight hard for your beliefs. But don't whine, people. It's unbecoming.

[Moochy]

70. because they are fucking trolls

[salguine]

72. Because fanatics can be found on both sides of the aisle.

[QC]

77. Because this forum contains quite a few angry bullies. n/t

[Cha]

91. Ain't that the truth.

[WeDidIt]

79. Because many of them say that shit. n/t

[KrR]

80. I think alot of the friction comes from our Pres taking criticism

that should be directed at certain Senators, or the system in general....

[FailingParachute]

81. Because it's easier to demonize than to look inward

It is also very difficult to admit that what you thought you were getting is not what you got, and if you have to actually admit that those who told you what you were getting way back when were right, well then...

Nothing out of the ordinary with regards to what is happening - folks do it all the time in real life. My son could NEVER do that, my daughter is NOT that kind of a girl, etc.

Heck, my sister just told me last week that I was right all along about my ex-BIL - 10 years after they got divorced!!

Obama will never be what many here either want him to be or thought he was - a simple glance at his "advisors" will show you that. Many, however, don't wish to look beyond the rose garden they have created for themselves, and hence any actual discussion that goes contrary to the fantasy is labeled in a myriad of ways - bashing, racist, "freeper" "troll", or countless other childlike insults.

It is a rather eye-opening window into why we are in the state we are in - two sides with blinders on, each calling the other vision-impaired.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

82. There's a huge difference between legit criticism and blind hatred.

Many posters here fall into the former category while a few vocal ones fall into the latter -- these are the ones who mindlessly shout "This isn't change!", etc., while complaining that anyone who says something remotely positive about Obama is a "cheerleader."

Even when you show them their mistake, they refuse to back down because they're so invested in their Obama hatred. For example, a recent thread about a single mother unfairly audited by the IRS brought out a slew of "This isn't change!" posts, but a simple reading of the article would reveal that the IRS incident happened in 2008, when Bush was president. Asking these people to actually read the article instead of having blind knee-jerk reactions offends them greatly, at which point they attempt to assert their pseudo-moral authority of standing up for democracy when in fact, they just lack reading comprehension.

Then there's posts like the recently TSed Postman, who brought out every racial slur he/she could think of, so that certainly doesn't help their cause.

[RoyGBiv]

83. "Bush lite" ...

Bush's third term, just like Bush, worse than Bush, made us think he was different than Bush ...

[LWolf]

94. Because some

can't deal with the fact that Obama might be wrong, that he might not be a hybrid JFK/MKL/, that their support, faith, and trust, might have been misplaced.