I won't be happy until my grumbling assessment of Obama's presidency makes it to the front page
I plan to include some kind of tooth-gnashing lamentation about the general state of the electoral process and a statement of despair about a real candidate from the Left. I may also mention the rending of my garments in despair over his failure to achieve everything on my policy wish-list. For good measure, I might hint that he's completely owned by the corporate machine and out of touch with the plight of the middle class.
Did I miss anything?
See you on the front page!
And it perfectly indicative of how incredibly lame the arguments of the Obama apologists are. They can't really defend his actions, so they just insult everyone who points out their disgust with him, usually in a juvenile manner.
And since I'm one of those very disgruntled lefties and I'm able to smile and take the gentle ribbing, I think you can too.
Other than that, spot on.
It is undemocratic to squelch speech.
It is also undemocratic for some to demand that others march in lock-step on the grounds that a particular person has or had a (D) after their name.
Ronald Reagan was a Democrat (D) until he decided that it was more profitable and that he could go further by being a Republican.
of racial minorities, as advocated by swelling ranks within the Democratic Party.
Reagan once remarked: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, they left me"
The joke adds: yeah, they left you at the whites only fountain.
Monetarily they're the same. Our legislators use insider information to trade just like theirs do.
Lesser of two evils
keeping previous prssidential powers is unforgivable
Add those in and you're getting closer
Donnie McClurkin? On the 700 Club he called for war on gay people and accused us of trying to kill children. And you object to the criticism of such hate speech? On what grounds?
I don't see his fleeting appearance at one event where he did not engage in any hateful speech as a significant reason to criticize a president who has acted vey much against the wishes of Mr. McClurkin.
The man called for war on gay people prior to his employment as Obama surrogate and host. The candidate defended that man.
When you criticize those who oppose hate speech in our Party., you are defending hate speech in our Party. McClurkin: 'this is war, they are trying to kill our children'. Do you really think there is too much criticism of such language as that? There was no apology. Trying to kill children.
If he had said those things about your family, you would still be furious. If he said that about another minority group, same thing.
Would it be quickly forgotten if I went on the tube and called you a child killer? Called for war on your entire community? Yes or no? Some hack calls your kids names and you would just let that slide? Really?
I see nothing from other communities that indicates they forget such things. Nothing at all. Sorry it gets your ulcers roiling to be reminded of the facts.
After McClurkin, there was Warren. He did his Inaugural prayer two weeks after he equated gay relationships to incest and pedophilia. Again, no apology, just lots of honoring the hate monger.
The President and McClurkin oppose marriage equality. How is that 'against his wishes'?
should not count at all. If he'd said that about Jewish people would that also be of little meaning? If he'd said 'Mexicans are trying to kill our children' would you also say 'why keep mentioning that'? Is it now ok that McCain appeared with Hagee, as it was some time ago?
The DNC just hired another religious hater. OFA has not promised that they will not do more of these anti-gay preacher rallies. Until they do, this is a wildly important issue. And you will continue to hear about it. We want no repeats of that shit. They still say they might hold such things again. Take it up with them, they are, and were in the wrong.
Faiklure to list specifics is reeaso not bto ber tlenb series too
...He's a socialist!
He's a Muslim...
That caters to right wing Christians!
He's weak on terra...
While he takes away our rights to fight terra!
He's a black man...
that acts too white!
He's a sellout to the right...
Who's too left wing!
He hates the GLBT community...
And he is pushing a radical homosexual agenda!
Barack the Magic Negro...
He must be magic!
Or an "attempt" at biting, witty commentary? Because if that's the case, you missed it by just a little bit.
Just asking. I don't get it.
He doesn't like some of the stuff that makes it to the front page, so he's whining about it.
Actually, it's more like a statement of gratitude.
I enjoy tuning in to read the current list of reasons not to vote for the Democratic candidate. I don't get enough of that in every other media outlet and most of the internet, so I appreciate those front-page threads more and more every day.
Just confirms what I knew all along.
Isn't that kind of divisive?
Every few years, we do a self mocking thread. Unfortunately, many aren't getting it this time. We usually have a ton of fun with these but this time people are mistaking it for real. Too bad, because these can be a laugh riot and goodness knows, we could use some laughs, ya know?
That's to laugh.
They are 'the base' of no one; they are purists who will be perpetually dissastisfied in their search for political perfection, never finding it.
against the tide of the status quo?
Yeah, we might be assholes, but I think we serve a purpose.
you can be honest about most of what is actually happening in the real world AND struggle for improvement at the same time
...at the minority? (And I agree that it's a wee minority doing any knife sticking.)
without the backing of the vast communal "reach-around rec brigade" that automatically hits the rec button when one of their own deigns to post a musing.
Good luck to you though.
harassing those that support it.
It must be killing you that there isn't an unrec feature, huh? FYI, this is a post that was meant to help us laugh at ourselves. Every few years, we have a meta thread. They can be hilarious. This one failed, but not for lack of the OP trying. There are just too many pissed off people here, unable or unwilling to laugh at themselves.
I almost forgot how good.
This place is beginning to feel like Democratic Underground again.
The pendulum has swung to the BOG being able to ridicule those with valid criticisms and concerns in GD with impunity.
I wish I had the bandwidth to write a similar post mocking them. Just to see how long it is before it is hidden or locked by a host.
I'm glad you haven't abandoned DU
when DU was embroiled in the Big Ugly war between Obama loyalists and critcs and respected posters left in droves because it was unreadable. Maybe some posters do but I don't believe most of DU wants to promote mean-spirited attempts at wit (by either side) over having a community that works. That's like fighting over a biscuit while your whole dinner gets cold.
Let's see how we do. I bet DU can do smarter than that.
I think Orrex should be allowed to criticize those of us who are dissatisfied with Obama. Such criticism is OK even if done in pointed and sarcastic fashion. It's a discussion forum. There's room for difference of opinion.
If a double standard develops, and similar posts mocking the Obama enthusiasts are hidden, then there will be grounds for concern.
Mocking ideas, ok, I can see that. but this does not address ideas, it pointedly mocks and insults those who are critical of the president's actions and behavior.
A similar post mocking the BOG would be locked very quickly.
I mocked--and will gleefully continue to mock--a certain style of posting, but if you asked me to name even one of the posters whose anti-Obama messages made it to the front page, I wouldn't be able to do it. The author are irrelevant to me, because I'm attacking the messages and not the messengers.
I sure as hell don't care if people mock my posts. That's how the process works, and I count myself squarely in the "sauce for the goose" category.
If people--myself absolutely included--can't handle having their posts critiqued, satirized, and mocked outright, then they may need to consider some other format than the internet for getting their message our. It's a big and scary virtual world where people can respond to one's message in all kinds of ways. Yikes!
[font size=1]Edited for typo and to add more raw awesomeness.[/font]
I will admit I was wrong predicting that a post mocking the BOG would be locked quickly.
As to your aloofness about being mocked, I'll simply note the timing of your reply above is intriguing.
I have no problem with satirizing posts in specific. I do have an issue with taunting classes of posters, which is what you did when you mock their style. There is enough of that out there in the big scary world and I like to think we can rise above it here in this community. Sadly more and more I have trouble holding that thought.
But then again I guess it's worth it, you pissed off a lot of people you disagree with, and gave your pals a good guffaw. So the hell with building a community based in respect when it's more fun to run around pissing in wheaties.
Yeah, that there is some serious raw awesomeness.
It's really that simple.
As to the whole thing about building a community, well, posts that accuse Obama supporters of hero worship or the like aren't exactly great examples of outreach, either.
If you want to take issue with my lack of community spirit, then it seems that you should complain about those posts by the anti-Obama crowd just as well.
What anti-Obama crowd?
I know of no one here that wants our president to fail. Well, excepting the occasional troll.
Show them to me. Show me the anti-Obama crowd.
Criticism is not anti.
Complaining about appointments of wall street executives to oversee wall street, seems like a valid complaint to me.
Expressing frustration when the administration falls into obvious political traps, is not anti-Obama.
Many of the people labeled anti-Obama, those you are taunting in this OP, actually and sincerely want him to succeed!
Some like me thought that a constitutional scholar would fight for the restoration of constitutional rights.
Some like me thought that a community organizer working in Chicago, would remember how hard it is for the elderly to pay for medicine were astounded when the lobbyist group PHARMA was invited in to negotiate before health care reform even was written.
We thought we voted for someone who would fight for us. You know what? We still want him to succeed. We still want him to fight for us! Even when he will lose, hell especially when he will lose, but he doesn't seem to understand that if he just would fight for us we will move mountains for him.
So show me the the people worthy of your taunting. Show me the value of your rubbing your metaphorical salt into wounds.
Show me actual anti-Obama people here. Try listening. Maybe even with a little empathy. It would go a long way.
There have been plenty of those, both here and in DU's previous incarnation. Heck, there was at least one on the front page for much of the day.
If you still want Obama to succeed, that's super-duper. If you're going to vote for him in 2012, that's super. I have no beef with that.
What bugs me is when people jump up on the soap box to proclaim their refusal to vote for him in 2012, as if helping the Republican candidate win will accomplish anything other than self-destruction.
Possibly here as an artifact of the jury system some have lasted that actually do that, I don't know for sure.
Posts that were actually advocating not voting for a democrat in the 2012 election were removed in the old DU. I know this because I was a mod this term. We locked them as OPs or removed them as replies. This was routine.
Advocating a primary challenge is not even close to the same thing. That is the system we have. That is how it works.
As to who I will vote for in the general election depends on the situation in my state when we get there. There's a lot of politicing to be done between now and then.
Oh, your super-duper condescension is full of raw awesomeness. I'm really feeling the respect here.
You have simply got to be joking. Did you just join?
And I love the pleas for "empathy" for those who do nothing but malign this man and his supporters.
Show them to me. This is DU3. Skinner says DU3 is all about transparency, so show them to me. Make a list and put it in an OP. If they are actually anti-Obama it will make the admin job easier.
Thanks for demonstrating some of the things I'm talking about. I love the scarey quotes around the word empathy. It really makes your reply special.
You can click on my profile and see how long I've been here. You say that like if I haven't been here longer than you my opinion counts less? I don't think your opinion counts less if I could only be certain what it is.
From what I see, it seems to be anyone who has criticism of the president should be ridiculed. That debates are won by zingers and not ideas. That is exactly the attitude I take exception with. That is not a standard that I think is worthy of this community.
Wow. I mean, DAMN. Wow!!!!
And you really think that I'm going to post a list of names of people that are anti-Obama? Have you ever heard of a forum called General Discussion on a web site called Democratic Underground? You should visit there sometimes. It's Ground Zero for the exact type of behavior that was the subject of this OP and the reason this OP has so many Kicks and Recs.
If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were joking. I would bet significant amounts of money that you were joking. You have simply GOT to be joking.
Rather than provide actual evidence, you accuse me of being blind, in denial and not knowing where I am or the nature of this forum. Maybe some would like discussion based more in fact, than insult.
Since this is ground zero for behavior worthy of mocking, I'm sure you won't have any trouble at all producing examples.
and not see the very behavior exhibited in this OP, then what in God's name would putting it in a post do?
"Producing examples" for someone who apparently cannot see accomplishes what exactly? It would be like me drawing a picture for Helen Keller!
DU3 may be all about transparency but callouts are still not allowed. If it was someone else, I would suspect that you were trying to goad me into getting a post deleted. But since you claim not to see any anti-Obama behavior on this web site and particularly not in this forum, I'm starting to think that maybe you are just on a whole 'nother level of something else entirely.
I claim that when it appears, it is dealt with.
I also claim that this thread was about taunting those who post valid criticism by accusing them of being immature.
I claimed that those who post valid criticism are attacked in those threads not on the merits of the ideas, but because they have criticized.
You claim that this forum is rife with anti-Obama posts that are allowed to stand. I ask for evidence.
My understanding is that callouts are indeed allowed now. The reason they weren't allowed before is that people couldn't access the whole story. For example there's this exchange.
I'm left wondering what accusation about me will be next.
When I said From what I see, it seems to be anyone who has criticism of the president should be ridiculed.
I was speaking about my current understanding of your opinion.
This could have been a really fun thread if there were any DUers left with a sense of humor.
They are so much fun and they show that people really can laugh at themselves and that we recognize how over the top we can be. Being too pissed off to participate in a good meta thread is just sad, really sad.
But I think I have. I don't think I am without a sense of humor, either.
The thing is that first, no one runs a thread here. Second posting this meta thread in GD is really over the top. If it had been posted in the BOG, then I could maybe see that, but posting it here which is the only place we have to attempt a reasonable discussion of presidential criticisms is somewhat akin to posting a meta thread about transgendered in GLBT, or a meta thread about atheists in R/T, eh?
You see, this was not mocking stereotypes but rather was using stereotypes to mock. Perhaps it's a subtle difference, but it is an important one. The former, I agree is quite fun. The latter, not so much.
Obama knows best and is unimpeachable.
PEACHY, because he *calls himself* a Democrat.
I think we can all agree that there is nothing more to say. Our work here is done.
...that he didn't loudly say that he would veto a bill that was going to pass with 83 senate votes on it, making a senate override of a presidential veto an certainty, and a huge time-waster if tried.
under a President who is "elected" and thus experiences political consequences for his decisions.
Rending of garments and lamentations of despair are the petty acts of mere "centrist" milquetoasts. They may despair a bit, but they're not out there doing what needs to be done.
What is required for front-page placement is a full-force bombardment of sensational hyperbole, laced with misleading statements, factual innacuracies, and potential doomsday scenarios (alt-history, as the Newtster likes to call it).
To make sure that your efforts succeed, pepper liberally (not to be confused with being actually liberal) with a statement of support for one-term, one-percenter former Congressman Alan Grayson, and reiterate that Bernie Sanders (not a Democrat) should challenge Obama in the Democratic primary.
Even then, I think you're going to have to dig a little deeper and shoot a little farther. And don't worry about getting caught up in bourgeois notions of hypocrisy: those are for the sell-outs!
that my cynical, satiric read was misplaced (and/or misunderstood). I'm glad at least one person noticed.
I'm a woman scorned and all that and yet, I could see the humor. If you can't laugh at yourself, what's left?
Self effacing humor around here. Hint, Orrix went over your head.
Response to Orrex (Original post)
Oh sure, every once in awhile a really deserving post might get 1 or 2 unrecommendations so boo-hoo-hoo we whined until it was unloaded.
So now all the obama-haters can jump for joy since now they can hijack the DU homepage once again.
I liked the unrecommend system for a reason. Because with it, it ensured that any extreme posts were kept off the DU homepage. Ultimately this is a website that supports democratic candidates and let's face it - Obama is going to be the democrat candidate running for president next November.
I'm not saying that we should ban threads that criticize Obama, but I do think that they should not be on the DU Homepage. But having the system meant that only the best posts - ones that everyone could agree upon in general would make the DU homepage.
Please bring back the unrecommendation system PLEASE!!!
Your reference to "democrat candidates" echoes the right wing's "Democrat Party" phrase. I think Frank Luntz advised them that "democratic" had too much of a favorable connotation.
I won't ask for a jury on this, assuming it to be just a momentary carelessness, but please remember that the language police are always watching.
Aren't really going to make for particularly interesting discussions.
And, really, I seriously doubt that any post that made the "Greatest" page prior to the introduction of "unrec's" was actually going to seriously damage Obama's chances for re-election. It's not like we've got 20 million "swing voters" lurking in this site every day.
Also, you can't assume that only "Obama haters" objected to the unrec's. A lot of people who simply want open debate on the issues objected to them as well...I prefer to think that that number included at least some Obama apologists.
I've had plenty of them here at DU. Some of best threads out there are ones that have zero recommendation but dozens upon dozens of replies - why? Because both sides have an equal say in it.
Having it on the DU home page doesn't prove anything except make this a site that democrats want to avoid. The home page is the first view for new visitors, kept the infighting off the homepage.
And trust me, I saw it dozens of times before the unrec system - DUers would brag about "Lets get this on the home page". That was back during the primaries when one side wanted to get the absolutely worst of the other candidate on the home page (obama v. clinton).
Keep the infighting off the homepage. It should be saved for important highlights and news.
Clearly the anti-obama folks are loving it - they got what they wanted back because they know with the unrec system they can't do that anymore. And then they whine when they think someone unrec them.
If something is that well written that everyone people respect and can unite behind - it should be on the homepage. Leave the infighting to the chat rooms.
It's simply presumptuous to let one wing of DU have veto power over what goes on the front page. It's not as if that page belongs to you folks more than it does to the rest of us.
Really, how desperate are you folks to keep your threads on the DU homepage.
Give everyone equal voice to decide.
Why are some folks so scared about that.
DU belongs equally to all of us. No one faction is entitled to play gatekeeper as to what threads get seen on the front page.
And nobody posts here just to trash Obama-those who post threads criticizing the administration do so out of loyalty to the party's core values-there isn't any anti-Obama conspiracy here. Please stop being so paranoid-you have no justification for such feelings.
We used to be able to laugh at ourselves. We used to be able to have meta threads that www a hoot.
you might have added a claim that you were done with him, done with this site, done with politics in general, etc., but overall that about covers it.
"THEN YOU WANT THE REPUBLICANS TO WIN!"
purported by his administration, starting with "it's just a prayer" (by a sponsor of Uganda's Kill the Queers bill) via "Pony" to "DoMa needs a defense, so we'll equate gay marriage with bestiality".
Why did you leave that out?
which is on the front page now, are much preferable.
It is not a satire. It is a nightmare. Who would believe that the proud legacy of social security, medicare, Public Education. Respect
f or jobs well done, courageous whistle blowers, trust in our banking community, respect for our global neighbors would all end up like a rancid pile of crap by 6 global industries, and a President dependent on those same industries for his election fund.
Who would have believed after the totally wrecklesness of the last administration, that our Congress wouldnt have insisted on investigation, and accountability?
The only answer is to draft a person who hasn't been tainted by illicit funds, and who has consistenty called for the moral superiority of accountability, and believes that manufacturing and jobs can be brought back to this country, and that person is Senator Bernie Sanders.
With senses of humor. Few got this. I'm not sure why. It started well. I added a pony but there were too many uptight jackasses. Sorry Orrix, it coulda been great!
Front page? Post more like this and you'll find yourself on the "Dancing on Tombstoned DU'ers Page".
I see a serious lack of diversity in opinion coming. And at the moment, you're on the wrong side of the line.
you'd better hope it doesn't decide to press charges.
Whining about how mean people are to Him is what passes for debate now, it would seem.
Too bad. It's good to have a sense of humor.
How? It was funny, but dammit, I've been THINKING about my responses and get way less. This world is fucked because of all of you.
I'm guessing it's because a few of us still have a shred of a sense of humor. Oh, yeah, when I'm done posting this, I'm going to rec Orrix's OP, for old time's sake!
Anyone who got it and agreed and rec'd - we're obviously to blame for everything that's wrong in the world today. Oh, the guilt. Oh, the shame.
This thread is like a foray into the twilight zone. I am astounded that anyone who frequents this forum could possibly have missed the kind of melodramatic, attention-seeking nonsense that was parodied in the OP.
And what's really funny is that I found your OP -- from the FRONT PAGE.
People here really needed a sarcasm or smiley emoticon to get it?
THIS IS THE LAST STRAW!!!!!
Now pass me some rotten apples and sour grapes covered in bitter herbs!!!!