HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why the arguments of Obam...

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:28 AM

Why the arguments of Obama's defenders leave many cold.

First there is the inconsistent degree of agency that is attributed to the presidency, which is done by both critics and defenders. On the defender side any agreeable action is seen to be accomplished out of the president's free will, and absent his involvement is seen to be impossible. Take the ending of DADT or Lily Ledbetter as examples. This view isn't far wrong in those cases. Any disagreeable action, however, is seen as a systemic inevitability, far outside the president's ability to resist or even publicly disapprove.

Bad arguments from critics and defenders alike see the influence of the presidency at work only insofar as an action is disagreeable or agreeable, respectively.

Much that is wrong and evil has taken place over Obama's term, however, and defenders have the thankless task of proving again and again that in such cases the most powerful man in the world holds a powerless office. They must argue that the president had no choice but to place Social Security and Medicare at risk completely of his own volition, as in the Deficit Commission; that he had no choice but to offer them up for cruel contraction in the debt ceiling debate. It is likewise difficult to justify appointing Immelt, Geithner, Summers and Daley to positions of any influence, or to believe we are opening a vast market for US goods in India and South Korea given the explosion of our resulting trade deficit with China after a similar trade deal.

The flavor of the defense in those cases always centers on placing the presidency in a place of impotence, in a place of utter weakness not only in terms of action but rhetoric. This is deeply unsatisfying. It is not only that the president holds something akin in many cases to a magic wand in the veto pen that must be ignored. We must also ignore that nothing can force the advancement of people unfriendly to workers and the New Deal; nothing can force the advancement of those friendly to finance and private replacements for education and the safety net. We must ignore a free embrace of the opposition's terms of debate - compromise and outreach are trumpeted in this presidency with regard to right wing figures. Critics see this as laudable - magnanimity in disagreement - even while left wing figures are scolded, ignored and marginalized.

The bar for strong resistance is ridiculously high on the critic side even as it is ridiculously low on the side of defenders, but in this case and in these times one must admit it is easier to argue the presidency has great power and responsibility to act than to argue it is a mostly useless office and powerless to influence the political debate when times are difficult.

Defenders will never lack for obstacles to right action by the president to hold responsible for inaction. They are everywhere. But in unforced errors and unilateral actions to undermine our party's liberal legacy, the obstacles are less apparent than the president's free will to do as he does and say what he says.

At this point defenders (of party leadership as well as the president) resemble family members of an addict who are in denial. They look at an empty pantry, a clean space where the microwave used to be, and invent justifications, however implausible, for the theft and sale of necessities. Where the road to rehabilitation for the addict is clear and feasible, they make of minor obstacles tremendous and insurmountable barriers to justify a lack of action, and freely cling to the sort of lazy perfectionism that dogs any addict's plans for improvement, treatment, and health. The addict's plans are always fraught with prerequisites and strict time-based conditions - should any step fail or see its opportunity lapse, however minor the step, it is seized upon as a perfectly sane excuse to entirely abandon the attempt at kicking the habit.

The habit, as should be clear, is endemic to the leadership of both parties - it is the influence of money and the lure of the highest social class's company and esteem. The addict's excuse in the traditional sense is a socially desperate and miserable situation. There is no such excuse in our nation's highest offices.

Short version: Obama's defenders are unassailable as regards what should be done in the next election. They are morally bankrupt and contemptible regarding the direction of the country over the long term. We must vote for the better candidate in this election, but if we continue as we have the better candidate will resemble Huntsman or Romney before too many elections have gone by.

417 replies, 110220 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 417 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why the arguments of Obama's defenders leave many cold. (Original post)
jpgray Dec 2011 OP
tridim Dec 2011 #1
warrior1 Dec 2011 #2
treestar Dec 2011 #106
AlbertCat Dec 2011 #128
SammyWinstonJack Dec 2011 #160
demosincebirth Dec 2011 #308
GOTV Dec 2011 #340
flamingdem Feb 2012 #395
gateley Dec 2011 #172
akbacchus_BC Dec 2011 #323
bigtree Dec 2011 #3
ProSense Dec 2011 #12
bigtree Dec 2011 #20
Lionessa Dec 2011 #56
Ikonoklast Dec 2011 #67
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #174
tblue Dec 2011 #196
Ikonoklast Dec 2011 #204
BlueCaliDem Dec 2011 #254
peace frog Dec 2011 #353
spooked911 Dec 2011 #361
Muskypundit Dec 2011 #211
Ikonoklast Dec 2011 #225
Muskypundit Dec 2011 #229
Ikonoklast Dec 2011 #238
Ed Suspicious Dec 2011 #298
green917 Dec 2011 #360
fordangelina40 Feb 2012 #381
StarsInHerHair Dec 2011 #287
Ikonoklast Dec 2011 #306
StarsInHerHair Dec 2011 #307
Ikonoklast Dec 2011 #313
StarsInHerHair Dec 2011 #317
Ikonoklast Dec 2011 #318
StarsInHerHair Dec 2011 #319
MNBrewer Dec 2011 #190
Arkana Feb 2012 #404
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #152
Estevan Dec 2011 #170
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #187
Estevan Dec 2011 #198
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #203
Estevan Dec 2011 #207
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #265
shellgame26 Dec 2011 #269
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #284
jtown1123 Feb 2012 #387
jtown1123 Feb 2012 #386
Estevan Dec 2011 #220
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #216
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #226
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #232
Tx4obama Dec 2011 #250
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #290
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #348
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #369
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #266
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #354
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #370
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #380
AtomicKitten Feb 2012 #400
StarsInHerHair Dec 2011 #289
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #351
shellgame26 Dec 2011 #239
chervilant Dec 2011 #246
Estevan Dec 2011 #262
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #267
Estevan Dec 2011 #270
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #278
jtown1123 Feb 2012 #390
chervilant Dec 2011 #249
Estevan Dec 2011 #261
eridani Dec 2011 #288
jtown1123 Feb 2012 #391
Pab Sungenis Dec 2011 #326
JDPriestly Feb 2012 #407
Evasporque Feb 2012 #399
Muskypundit Dec 2011 #214
Kahuna Dec 2011 #255
eridani Dec 2011 #281
Logical Dec 2011 #38
treestar Dec 2011 #107
Logical Dec 2011 #113
treestar Dec 2011 #158
CakeGrrl Dec 2011 #177
AllyCat Dec 2011 #115
treestar Dec 2011 #159
AllyCat Dec 2011 #368
treestar Dec 2011 #373
AllyCat Dec 2011 #377
Tx4obama Dec 2011 #256
JDPriestly Feb 2012 #411
DevonRex Dec 2011 #16
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #22
DevonRex Dec 2011 #27
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #224
bigtree Dec 2011 #30
DevonRex Dec 2011 #31
bettyellen Dec 2011 #39
DevonRex Dec 2011 #40
JVS Dec 2011 #51
DevonRex Dec 2011 #52
bettyellen Dec 2011 #59
emulatorloo Dec 2011 #146
bettyellen Dec 2011 #240
Bluenorthwest Dec 2011 #102
one_voice Dec 2011 #103
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #233
Skittles Dec 2011 #219
StarsInHerHair Dec 2011 #291
bigtree Dec 2011 #50
bettyellen Dec 2011 #61
bigtree Dec 2011 #188
bettyellen Dec 2011 #241
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #155
bigtree Dec 2011 #189
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #205
bigtree Dec 2011 #215
Skittles Dec 2011 #227
bigtree Dec 2011 #302
Skittles Dec 2011 #320
bigtree Dec 2011 #331
Number23 Dec 2011 #295
Evasporque Feb 2012 #398
JDPriestly Feb 2012 #413
Number23 Dec 2011 #175
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #213
eridani Dec 2011 #285
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #212
JNelson6563 Dec 2011 #336
ProSense Dec 2011 #4
izquierdista Dec 2011 #9
ProSense Dec 2011 #23
AllyCat Dec 2011 #122
bettyellen Dec 2011 #13
ProSense Dec 2011 #18
bettyellen Dec 2011 #32
ProSense Dec 2011 #33
bettyellen Dec 2011 #43
ProSense Dec 2011 #48
bettyellen Dec 2011 #57
ProSense Dec 2011 #62
bettyellen Dec 2011 #70
uponit7771 Dec 2011 #379
hfojvt Dec 2011 #65
ProSense Dec 2011 #72
hfojvt Dec 2011 #98
Tx4obama Dec 2011 #257
Poll_Blind Dec 2011 #153
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #221
sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #137
tblue Dec 2011 #208
StarsInHerHair Dec 2011 #299
NashVegas Dec 2011 #356
quakerboy Dec 2011 #268
uponit7771 Dec 2011 #378
warrior1 Dec 2011 #5
tblue Dec 2011 #209
sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #222
Ron Green Dec 2011 #6
mmonk Dec 2011 #7
tridim Dec 2011 #15
Ron Green Dec 2011 #21
tridim Dec 2011 #29
Ron Green Dec 2011 #34
Vanje Dec 2011 #46
StarsInHerHair Dec 2011 #303
emulatorloo Dec 2011 #120
Ron Green Dec 2011 #228
emulatorloo Dec 2011 #230
Ron Green Dec 2011 #253
emulatorloo Dec 2011 #292
Tx4obama Dec 2011 #260
StarsInHerHair Dec 2011 #305
Tx4obama Dec 2011 #309
StarsInHerHair Dec 2011 #310
Tx4obama Dec 2011 #312
LanternWaste Dec 2011 #364
Tx4obama Dec 2011 #258
StarsInHerHair Dec 2011 #311
Ron Green Dec 2011 #365
Tx4obama Dec 2011 #366
Ron Green Dec 2011 #367
Laelth Dec 2011 #8
MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #10
liberal N proud Dec 2011 #11
Logical Dec 2011 #42
liberal N proud Dec 2011 #126
Tx4obama Dec 2011 #263
Logical Dec 2011 #300
treestar Dec 2011 #110
xchrom Dec 2011 #14
DevonRex Dec 2011 #17
xchrom Dec 2011 #19
DevonRex Dec 2011 #28
stonecutter357 Dec 2011 #197
Enrique Dec 2011 #24
JoePhilly Dec 2011 #25
Bluenorthwest Dec 2011 #108
JoePhilly Dec 2011 #279
aquart Feb 2012 #389
Scurrilous Dec 2011 #26
DevonRex Dec 2011 #35
bettyellen Dec 2011 #45
DevonRex Dec 2011 #47
Post removed Dec 2011 #60
bettyellen Dec 2011 #73
mythology Dec 2011 #81
stonecutter357 Dec 2011 #199
vaberella Dec 2011 #182
nashville_brook Dec 2011 #36
bettyellen Dec 2011 #49
nashville_brook Dec 2011 #273
DevonRex Dec 2011 #37
LoZoccolo Dec 2011 #68
Logical Dec 2011 #41
Ikonoklast Dec 2011 #231
Overseas Dec 2011 #44
bigtree Dec 2011 #53
DevonRex Dec 2011 #55
jpgray Dec 2011 #69
DevonRex Dec 2011 #71
bettyellen Dec 2011 #77
DevonRex Dec 2011 #80
bettyellen Dec 2011 #86
bettyellen Dec 2011 #125
emulatorloo Dec 2011 #114
Number23 Dec 2011 #178
vaberella Dec 2011 #186
bettyellen Dec 2011 #236
LoZoccolo Dec 2011 #74
ProSense Dec 2011 #75
bettyellen Dec 2011 #79
ProSense Dec 2011 #82
bettyellen Dec 2011 #85
ProSense Dec 2011 #93
bettyellen Dec 2011 #99
ProSense Dec 2011 #101
bettyellen Dec 2011 #109
A Simple Game Dec 2011 #242
bigtree Dec 2011 #87
SomethingFishy Dec 2011 #54
ProSense Dec 2011 #63
canoeist52 Dec 2011 #131
jtrockville Dec 2011 #252
ChiciB1 Dec 2011 #346
Octafish Feb 2012 #392
newspeak Feb 2012 #394
Edweird Dec 2011 #58
bettyellen Dec 2011 #64
ProSense Dec 2011 #66
bettyellen Dec 2011 #76
LineLineLineLineLineReply I
ProSense Dec 2011 #78
bettyellen Dec 2011 #83
ProSense Dec 2011 #90
bettyellen Dec 2011 #95
ProSense Dec 2011 #112
bettyellen Dec 2011 #118
ProSense Dec 2011 #142
bettyellen Dec 2011 #235
hootinholler Dec 2011 #94
A Simple Game Dec 2011 #243
Maven Dec 2011 #259
treestar Dec 2011 #111
Edweird Dec 2011 #116
emulatorloo Dec 2011 #136
treestar Dec 2011 #161
closeupready Dec 2011 #301
Zorra Dec 2011 #84
bettyellen Dec 2011 #88
hootinholler Dec 2011 #97
i_sometimes Dec 2011 #141
suffragette Dec 2011 #147
LiberalLovinLug Dec 2011 #148
bettyellen Dec 2011 #237
Matariki Dec 2011 #89
Robb Dec 2011 #92
Matariki Dec 2011 #100
dionysus Dec 2011 #105
MineralMan Dec 2011 #91
Bluenorthwest Dec 2011 #117
MH1 Dec 2011 #121
Bluenorthwest Dec 2011 #156
MH1 Dec 2011 #173
Pab Sungenis Dec 2011 #328
treestar Dec 2011 #372
MH1 Dec 2011 #176
Pab Sungenis Dec 2011 #329
MineralMan Dec 2011 #138
Bluenorthwest Dec 2011 #154
great white snark Dec 2011 #96
dionysus Dec 2011 #104
DevonRex Dec 2011 #119
MH1 Dec 2011 #123
DevonRex Dec 2011 #124
bettyellen Dec 2011 #127
La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2011 #132
i_sometimes Dec 2011 #144
ProSense Dec 2011 #162
DevonRex Dec 2011 #171
i_sometimes Dec 2011 #362
SidDithers Dec 2011 #223
i_sometimes Dec 2011 #363
sibelian Dec 2011 #181
DevonRex Dec 2011 #185
sibelian Dec 2011 #202
nashville_brook Dec 2011 #277
frazzled Dec 2011 #129
quinnox Dec 2011 #130
great white snark Dec 2011 #134
quinnox Dec 2011 #135
great white snark Dec 2011 #139
emulatorloo Dec 2011 #133
vaberella Dec 2011 #191
spanone Dec 2011 #140
BzaDem Dec 2011 #143
treestar Dec 2011 #157
dorksied Dec 2011 #145
ElboRuum Dec 2011 #150
angrychair Dec 2011 #169
gulliver Dec 2011 #149
jpgray Dec 2011 #163
Marnie Dec 2011 #165
BzaDem Dec 2011 #168
ProSense Dec 2011 #200
Pab Sungenis Dec 2011 #330
nashville_brook Dec 2011 #276
Number23 Dec 2011 #179
progressoid Dec 2011 #151
Marnie Dec 2011 #164
jbpdx Dec 2011 #166
Estevan Dec 2011 #167
Pab Sungenis Dec 2011 #332
vaberella Dec 2011 #180
MH1 Dec 2011 #183
vaberella Dec 2011 #192
Vanje Dec 2011 #184
vaberella Dec 2011 #193
Vanje Dec 2011 #195
quinnox Dec 2011 #194
Cameron27 Dec 2011 #201
Tx4obama Dec 2011 #272
Cameron27 Dec 2011 #283
Tx4obama Dec 2011 #286
stonecutter357 Dec 2011 #357
SidDithers Dec 2011 #206
Angry Dragon Dec 2011 #217
Vanje Dec 2011 #274
SidDithers Dec 2011 #280
Vanje Dec 2011 #282
tabatha Dec 2011 #294
TreasonousBastard Dec 2011 #210
DRoseDARs Dec 2011 #218
greenman3610 Dec 2011 #234
mikekohr Dec 2011 #245
Texasgal Dec 2011 #244
tabatha Dec 2011 #247
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #248
Pab Sungenis Dec 2011 #335
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #339
BlueMTexpat Dec 2011 #251
napoleon_in_rags Dec 2011 #264
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #271
Wait Wut Dec 2011 #275
JTFrog Dec 2011 #345
bertman Dec 2011 #293
begin_within Dec 2011 #296
vaberella Dec 2011 #324
stevenleser Dec 2011 #297
bigtree Dec 2011 #304
Ikonoklast Dec 2011 #314
sellitman Dec 2011 #315
JVS Dec 2011 #316
patrice Dec 2011 #321
akbacchus_BC Dec 2011 #322
Pab Sungenis Dec 2011 #327
vi5 Dec 2011 #325
Scootaloo Dec 2011 #333
Bluenorthwest Dec 2011 #334
Scootaloo Dec 2011 #338
leftyohiolib Dec 2011 #342
cyberspirit Dec 2011 #337
leftyohiolib Dec 2011 #341
Le Taz Hot Dec 2011 #343
JTFrog Dec 2011 #344
Pab Sungenis Dec 2011 #347
JTFrog Dec 2011 #349
Pab Sungenis Dec 2011 #350
JTFrog Dec 2011 #352
Pab Sungenis Dec 2011 #355
JTFrog Dec 2011 #358
patrice Dec 2011 #359
Swede Dec 2011 #371
treestar Dec 2011 #374
Marrah_G Dec 2011 #375
Puzzledtraveller Dec 2011 #376
JNelson6563 Feb 2012 #383
JVS Feb 2012 #382
Better Believe It Feb 2012 #384
SidDithers Feb 2012 #401
JVS Feb 2012 #403
NNN0LHI Feb 2012 #385
DevonRex Feb 2012 #405
aquart Feb 2012 #388
jpgray Feb 2012 #417
Evasporque Feb 2012 #393
Proud Liberal Dem Feb 2012 #396
Post removed Feb 2012 #397
AtomicKitten Feb 2012 #402
renie408 Feb 2012 #406
DevonRex Feb 2012 #408
AtomicKitten Feb 2012 #409
Post removed Feb 2012 #412
DevonRex Feb 2012 #415
fascisthunter Feb 2012 #410
Tarheel_Dem Feb 2012 #414
woo me with science Feb 2012 #416

Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:31 AM

1. Shorter version: Obama is our nominee.

I'm going to vote for him because he is a good President and a good man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:33 AM

2. I've always supported him

and will continue. The alternative would be the ruination of the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:52 PM

106. Right, I don't see why non supporters are still trying to convince us he's a terrible President

What use can it be at this point? He's our nominee and we need to focus on the positive.

Non supporters get to decide whether they will vote third party or not vote at all. Why are they here trying to discourage us and get us to do that? They can use other bandwidth to support their candidates or their non voting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #106)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:33 PM

128. he's a terrible President

 

He's not

But he's not a great prez either.

Like with everything in the US these days, he's...uh OK... and better than the alternative.

USA!.... USA!... We're mediocre!... We're mediocre!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #128)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 04:47 PM

160. Well according to Obama....

USA!....USA!....We're the envy of the World!...We're the envy of the World!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SammyWinstonJack (Reply #160)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 12:04 AM

308. What is the country that most of the worlds emigres want to immigrate too? I'm totally unbiased, I

find many things I don't like about the good ol' U.S. of A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demosincebirth (Reply #308)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 09:14 AM

340. The richest one of course. No surprise and no reason for pride.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #128)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 12:00 PM

395. Please name a "great president"

here or elsewhere, I'd like to know your criteria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 05:27 PM

172. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:31 AM

323. I agree, President Obama inherited a lot of shit and sometimes I do not agree with some of his

policies but for crying out loud, he is the best you all elected, but no, some people have to beat him down all the time. He did say he was representing all Americans, he tried to work with the Republicans but all they wanted was to make him fail and they are doing their darnest to make that happen. The rethugs want America to fail to bring down this President! Frankly, he should not run again!

You know what, if a rethug gets into office, the world would be in a turmoil! I have no idea what Americans want!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:34 AM

3. did you say Obama defenders are 'morally bankrupt and contemptible?'

 

"Short version: Obama's defenders are unassailable as regards what should be done in the next election. They are morally bankrupt and contemptible regarding the direction of the country over the long term."

I think I read that right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:51 AM

12. Yup,

"Short version: Obama's defenders are unassailable as regards what should be done in the next election. They are morally bankrupt and contemptible regarding the direction of the country over the long term."

...you read it right. Those "morally bankrupt and contemptible" unions support ruining the country.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100233214

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:59 AM

20. well, the new system will let it stand on this new DU (I was just informed)

 

Fucking perfect that someone can come onto a place which is supposed to be a Democratic refuge and get away with calling Obama supporters 'morally bankrupt and contemptible.'

If I were a republican viewing this, I'd see it as an opportunity to bash the president's supporters here, just like this original post, 24-7.

What is the actual difference between a supposed Democrat calling Obama supporters 'morally bankrupt and contemptible' and a republican doing the same? The effect is certainly similar. I feel like I'm in a hostile place where I'm considered 'morally bankrupt and contemptible.'

Way to go new DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:14 PM

56. This is a Democratic refuge, the Obama refuge I've been told is called the BOG,

 

which makes sense because it seems that group is bogged down with an odd sort of blind faith following of a president who has seemed to many to abandon and undermine Democratic principles as well as democratic principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #56)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:31 PM

67. Then it is permissable for non-supporters of the leader of the Democratic Party to call those

who are actually Democrats and still support this president 'morally bankrupt'.

DU is no longer supportive of Democrats if this is now allowed, there are those posting here that never supported either Democrats or this president, and can now bash both with impunity.


Awesome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #67)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 05:32 PM

174. Many of the people who are critcle of Obama not only voted for him

 

but worked to get him elected. I'm one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #174)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:17 PM

196. That includes almost everybody I know.

Now we are supposed to praise him and follow him blindly? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #174)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:32 PM

204. I never called a poster that criticised Mr. Obama 'morally bankrupt' and an 'addict'.

That *used* to be verboten, now it is acceptable.



I wonder if I can now personally attack posters who criticise Obama here with impunity, as long as a jury deems it acceptable?

One deadlocked vote shows the flaws in the jury system, this was never allowed to stand before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #204)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 08:52 PM

254. Nope. You can't

call any posters even, um, those creatures under the bridge in fairytales, but any rightwing zealot and paid astroturfie gets to come on DEMOCRATIC Underground and attack DEMOCRATIC President Obama without having to fear to be called out for what they really are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #174)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:03 AM

353. A big HELLO to that

and will continue to be critical of Obama as I see fit. Don't like it, how very unfortunate for you, but it deters me not one whit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #174)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:33 AM

361. exactly-- me too. I am not just disappointed with Obama, I am disgusted with him.

 

And I am a life-long Dem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #67)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:42 PM

211. Blind faith is for the other side.

We democrats are supposed to be the intelligence people. Intelligence questions everything, and has no unfaltable god.

And criticism doesn't equal hatred. I am critical of Obama. I am going to voice my criticisms in hopes that somehow, my voice matters, and something maybe gets addressed. That's more useful to this nation than a bunch of yesmen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muskypundit (Reply #211)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:57 PM

225. Name calling is so like 'the other side', too.

We 'democrats' are 'morally bankrupt' and 'addicts', per the OP.

Criticism is one thing, do you then agree that the OP is valid since he demonizes all that disagree with him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #225)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 07:00 PM

229. I agree with most of the OP. It would have been a better OP

If he would have left that out of it. It was unnecessary, and detracted from the message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muskypundit (Reply #229)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 08:04 PM

238. The real problem with that is, that WAS the message.

Came across loud and clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muskypundit (Reply #211)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:31 PM

298. thank you. Exactly as I feel. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muskypundit (Reply #211)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:50 AM

360. Not to mention the fact that the President himself...

The President himself asked us to hold his feet to the fire and to let him know when we're displeased with his course of action. The original poster may have been a little overly vitriolic in his contempt for those enabling and condoning some of the more (imho) egregious things done by President Obama but that doesn't change the fact that this President has not been honest with large subsections of his base and the American people in general. When President Bush lied to us, there was no one here (or on any other, ostensibly, Democratic blog that I read) that came to his defense because he's a part of the other side. Now that it's a Democratic President who has been less than honest with the American people in general and the liberal wing of his base in particular, there are those here who feel the need to justify his actions by chiming in what a "powerless" position being the leader of the free World is simply because he's on our side and has a "D" next to his name. This is the phenomenon to which the OP refers and, although, his rhetoric may have been a bit overly harsh it doesn't mean that he's not, in some sense at least, correct. Many of us in the liberal, progressive wing of the party (the damn "dirty" hippies) feel as though we've been marginalized and sloughed off by a man that many of us spent a lot of time and money getting elected when the very same President makes every concession to individuals who have overtly stated that their sole purpose is to see that he not be re-elected. Pardon us but, many of us are not inclined to take that slap and turn the other cheek (probably because many of us are Atheists but, that's another discussion for another time). Speaking only for myself, I will vote for Barack Obama to continue being the President of the United States but I will not stop chastising him when he commits what I see as egregious errors in judgment regarding the direction our Country is moving in....last time I checked, the Constitution guarantees me (and the rest of us damned "dirty" hippies) the right to redress grievances with our Government. In short, quit telling us that we have to shut up and clap louder while the modern iteration of our Party's leadership sells out our core beliefs as Democratic party members!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green917 (Reply #360)


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #67)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 10:31 PM

287. why not? you call anyone who criticizes him a Republican voter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarsInHerHair (Reply #287)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:57 PM

306. Link to where I have ever done so, please.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #306)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 12:02 AM

307. I don't bookmark such trash, it is commonly done, most here have seen it & I was generally referring

to the robust supporters so I've searched a bit SaintPete said it http://www.democraticunderground.com/100234632 Old&InTheWay did too more obliquely dionysus too I'm sure you can find more if you want. Just because they say it doesn't make any of us Republicans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarsInHerHair (Reply #307)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 12:23 AM

313. You were referring to *me* directly. You cannot back it up, so you deflect.

You called me out, then backtracked and changed the story when asked to support your accusation.

I am not responsible for what is posted by any other member on this or any other website, I take credit or blame for only those posts under my name.

I know you won't apologize for it, so I won't ask for one from you, as every other poster on this site now knows that you make false accusations against other members with no facts in evidence to support them.

Anything else you wish to accuse me of, that someone else may have posted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #313)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 12:45 AM

317. how about this? back the fuck off of me!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100236215#post67

"DU is no longer supportive of Democrats if this is now allowed, there are those posting here that never supported either Democrats or this president"...

there it is!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarsInHerHair (Reply #317)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 01:11 AM

318. What part of that is not true?

You said that I called non-supporters Republican voters.

I never posted that.

Ever.

You have nothing to support your accusation.

Do you deny that there are, indeed, non-Democrats and posters that never supported Mr. Obama on this site?

I see them posting here every single day.

In fact, there are many here that do not call themselves Democrats, and many here who state that they will not support this president in the upcoming election, they POSTED IT IN THEIR OWN WORDS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #318)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 01:15 AM

319. then link it & you don;t know what a person is registered Dem or other

plus you need the carefully look at post #287..........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #56)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:11 PM

190. Rec this post!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #56)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 01:16 PM

404. Classy.

I hear there's a place out there called FireDogLake, where they toss everyone who doesn't stand with them 100% of the time overboard in order to preserve a delusional state of purity. Not unlike the Tea Party.

I think you might like it there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 04:26 PM

152. What is the goal here?

Is it just to elect the Democratic nominee no matter what he or she stands for? No matter what that candidate's record is on the economy, on human rights, on fairness to labor?

I beg to differ.

If we were here just to discuss how wonderful Obama is, we would not need to be on a website of Democrats.

If you want to sell your candidate, go into the big, wide world and start selling.

As I understand it, this forum is a place where Democrats can discuss things amongst ourselves and try not just to support our party but to improve it.

You might be surprised to learn that many of us who criticize Obama's policies strongly support a lot of other Democrats -- some members of Congress, some local politicians, some aspiring politicians.

I belong to my local Democratic Club. Do you? How active are you as a Democrat in the real world? Because for me, that is the essential question. Let people say what they want on DU. What are they doing to help get Democrats elected in 2012.

Democrats really messed up in 2010. It's time to get some good candidates running for seats now held for Republicans.

Obama is, in my view, far less than he should be, but we can still influence the course of our national history by backing good, strong Democrats who are not as corrupt as many from both parties who are now serving in public office.

It is up to us to participate and do something positive about corruption when we see it. Back good candidates and send the corrupt ones packing. That goes for all politicians, including the president. He did not have to appoint Bernanke, Geithner, Summers, and the Daley with too many ties to Morgan Stanley.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #152)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 05:13 PM

170. Goals mean nothing without

an executable path. Wishes and fantasies are not reality.
Our goals as liberals are far more achievable under this president than the alternative. That's the way it is.
That's the way it's ALWAYS been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Estevan (Reply #170)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:05 PM

187. But just what is the goal?

Higher incomes for the top 1%?

Good paying jobs for the rest of us?

Lots of jobs for Chinese slaves?

A tax system that evens the playing field for American companies and workers?

Prison camps for Americans?

Respect for and adherence to our Bill of Rights especially with regard to First Amendment rights and of the rights of those accused of a crime?

The best of all possible health care that bankrupts the country?

Never ending wars or peace and the acceptance of our place in the world?

Continued dependence on carbon-based energy sources, especially foreign oil?

Or a truly aggressive effort to develop better sources of clean energy?

Continued privatization of our schools and prisons?

Or an economic system in which business has more profitable and productive things to do than to cannibalize the public sector and eat our tax dollars?

We have to make choices here. I am not impressed with Obama's choices in some of these categories. On which of Obama's policies and goals do you agree? Which of his goals do you reject? Which policies? Which do you like?

Just saying nice things about Obama is meaningless.

We all agree that he is a nice guy with a nice family. The problems are with some of his goals and policies. I agree with him on some things but disagree with him on a lot of others.

It isn't a Rah! Rah! my team matter. It is about deciding what is best for the country. It is about negotiating real change with regard to things we do not like, not just electing a president and a party with a different name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #187)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:21 PM

198. The situation is thus:

You have 2 doors to open. If you choose door A, you get some of what you want and a little you don't want. If you choose door B you get nothing you want.
Everything you said is valid. But how do you get everything you want when you have a republican house majority with tea sprinkled on top?

Take the Keystone pipeline. If you choose the door with middle class payroll tax cuts you have to agree to the pipeline. If not, regular people see their paychecks decrease. Which door will you choose. Last year the door was temporary extension of Bush tax cuts or no UI extension. Which door do you choose?

Of course when voters had the opportunity to vote in democrats they sat at home because they were mad. So now, everything we want is harder to get and we'll never get EVERYTHING we want anyway because 300million people don't all want the same things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Estevan (Reply #198)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:32 PM

203. The payroll tax cut weakens the underlying principles of Social Security.

The payroll tax vacation is one of Obama's worst policies.

I say do away with the payroll tax cut and don't allow the pipeline. Quite simple.

In fact, Obama really wants both to weaken Social Security -- which is why he proposed the payroll tax cut in the first place -- and to have the pipeline. Is anyone really so naive as to think that the State Department approved the pipeline without discussing that approval with Obama in the first place?

Obama needs an excuse to OK the pipeline because our government is already committed to it and Obama fears the embarrassment of reneging on promises he made and should not have made. That's my guess based on the facts I know about that pipeline.

Your example throws the spotlight on the duplicity of the administration with regard to its handling of progressive policies. In fact, he is a conservative himself. If he weren't he would be able to negotiate better deals. The payroll tax cut means very little to the people in this country who need help -- the minimum wage earners and those many, many people without jobs. Tax cuts are not the way to improve the economy. Most of Obama's stimulus plan was tax cuts and those cuts did not improve things much at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #203)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:38 PM

207. That "payroll tax cut undermines s.s"

Is a Fox News right wing talking point. Everything else you said points to conjecture and speculation.
It all boils down to what you believe the president's philosophical intent to be and that in turn drives your emotions.
Nice talking to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Estevan (Reply #207)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:18 PM

265. I wouldn't have a clue as to what Fox News says.

The premise of Social Security is that you pay in, most of your money supports retirees in the currently retired generation, and then when you retire, you receive benefits according to what you paid in. It is like an insurance policy. If you don't pay in, you don't get benefits.

This payroll tax cut undermines that basic premise. The money paid out in Social Security benefits over the years has come from the payroll taxes paid in. Now with this tax cut, the benefits to us seniors come not from the money paid in currently and not from the Social Security Trust Fund for which we paid out taxes beginning during the Reagan era. No, now it comes from the general fund. That makes Social Security just another government program dependent on general tax revenue. That undercuts the entire idea of Social Security as being a separate, independently funded program.

That is one of Obama's many bad policy ideas -- the payroll tax cut.

During the primary debates, Obama stated that he would solve problems with Social Security and Medicare by RAISING THE CAP on the payroll taxes. When I was walking precincts for Obama in 2008, I talked to many seniors who were voting for him because of his stance on raising the payroll tax cap and insuring the future of Social Security. Obama reneged on that promise. He will lose some of the votes of seniors that he got in 2008 thanks to his bad policies on Social Security. I will never forget one woman who was undecided. She said she was trying to choose between the babies and Social Security, meaning abortion or the safeguarding of Social Security.

Obama can only win in 2012 if people think they are in better shape now than they were in 2008. I want him to win because he is a Democrat, but honestly, he isn't doing much to help win the election.

His stance on gays and lesbians in the military will help him, and his health insurance reform bill would help him if only more of it were fully implemented now. But really, not many of his policies have improved the lot of Americans in a way that is easily perceptible to the majority of us.

The thing that Obama has going for him is that he is very likeable and, as far as I can tell, leads a personal life that is without reproach or controversy -- great family and a very upright man personally speaking. But too many of his policies are really not well thought out.

It doesn't help that states are cutting back so severely either. The cutbacks will be blamed on Obama even though they are not his fault. The general state of the economy will be blamed on Obama although it is only partially his fault.

So, Obama needs to try to think of some very popular measures that he can sponsor with quite a bit of energy and enthusiasm. The NDAA bill is not a popular measure, not at all. The payroll tax may be popular with people who haven't thought about it, but it won't be popular when people realize what it is doing to Social Security. How in the world can Obama argue that Social Security needs fixing and then propose a policy that defunds Social Security. That inconsistency is a big problem.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #265)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:30 PM

269. Republican Senators Push False Argument That Payroll Tax Cut Will Undermine Social Security

From Think Progress

"The latest argument to emerge from the GOP has been that extending the payroll tax cut would undermine Social Security, since payroll tax revenue goes directly into the Social Security Trust Fund. Multiple Congressional Republicans have adopted that theory of late, including South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint (R), who put it to use on CNBC last night:


DEMINT: Republicans are always ready to cut taxes, as you know. We don’t think it’s a good idea to do it by raiding Social Security.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) made the same argument on Fox News earlier in the day:


PAUL: Well, you know, Social Security is $6 trillion short of money. So the president is advocating reducing the amount of funding to Social Security when they’re already $6 trillion short. So it doesn’t really make any sense and it really argues that he’s going to bankrupt Social Security even quicker by reducing it’s funding.


That argument, which has been adopted by members of both parties and perpetuated by news outlets like NPR, has one problem: it’s not true. Each of the plans under consideration is fully paid for, replacing revenue the Social Security Trust Fund would have lost from lower payroll tax receipts with money made up from either alternative revenue sources or spending cuts. The earlier payroll tax holiday, set to expire this month, was also fully-funded, and the program has thus far “been held harmless” from the holiday, as Reuters noted today.

And while the opposition from Republicans may seem like an impassioned defense of a vital and popular program, a look at their history with the program shows it is not. DeMint has supported privatizing the program while Paul is a proponent of means testing — “solutions” that are both bad policy and unnecessary. Despite Paul’s $6 trillion assertion, Social Security actually has a $2.6 trillion surplus and is solvent through at least 2037".


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shellgame26 (Reply #269)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 10:25 PM

284. Replacing Social Security taxes with general fund revenues is what I personally object to.

It is contrary to the concept of pay in-pay out that Social Security is based on.

Once you start funding Social Security with tax revenues from the general fund, then you change the whole nature of Social Security from one of earned benefits that seniors can accept with dignity to one that has a taint of "welfare payments" from the generosity of the public at large. Paying Social Security benefits from the general fund changes those benefits into charitable gifts of a sort rather than earned pay.

Just because some Republicans agree with me on this very basic view of the situation does not mean that I am a Republican. I had no idea that any Republicans cared that much about Social Security. In fact they are always wanting to privatize it. I want it to remain a program that permits senior Americans to live in dignity.

As a senior, this principle is very important to me.

I thought this through for myself. I read the statutes and studied this issue. That is how I came to my conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #284)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 11:26 AM

387. I agree with you 100%

Read this position paper from NCPSSM.

They are a seniors advocacy group that by no means is Republican at all:

http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/vp_payroll_tax_bad_deal_seniors/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Estevan (Reply #207)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 11:21 AM

386. Not true. Democratic seniors groups are highly critical of the payroll tax cut

Yes, Republicans are being duplicitous and claiming they all of a sudden care about Social Security (motive is bad) but the payroll tax cut is problematic...also don't forget that this payroll tax cut is traditionally a GOP idea of stimulus because it puts SS on shaky ground.

The Nat'l Cmte to Preserve Social Security and Medicare is very concerned about this payroll tax cut:

National Committee Concerns

• From its inception little more than a year ago, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare has expressed grave concerns about the wisdom of cutting the Social Security program's funds as a means of stimulating the economy. When we first expressed our opposition to this idea, we thought it was bad Social Security policy and that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to end this tax cut.

• It's bad Social Security policy because it undercuts the essential principles upon which the program rests. First, it undercuts the concept that Social Security benefits are an earned right that stems from the contributions that workers make to the program. Second, it undercuts the principle that Social Security is funded exclusively by workers' contributions, and thus does not contribute to the deficits that continue to challenge this country.

• Unfortunately, events have borne out our concerns about the permanence of this tax cut, as the Congress has now extended it through the first two months of 2012 and now is attempting to extend it through the remainder of the year.

• Don't get us wrong. The National Committee appreciates the importance of finding some means for stimulating the economy, especially given the fact that the recovery that we've seen in recent months has been weak, and the risk of slipping into another recession continues to hang over the economy. Clearly, the government must do something to strengthen the economy. We are concerned, however, that the approach that has been adopted is not the best way to accomplish this end. More troubling, we are convinced that using Social Security in this manner constitutes a long-term threat to the program.

• We agree with the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities and the Center on Economic and Policy Research that there are more effective ways of stimulating the economy. For example, extending the "Making Work Pay" tax credits would do more to boost the economy than extending. What is more, it is a less complex and more progressive method of stimulating the economy, and does not threaten Social Security's integrity.

• We acknowledge that the Congress has been careful to make sure that the payroll tax cut does not directly weaken the financial integrity of Social Security by replacing lost funds with general revenues. Still, the perceptual problem exists, and we are concerned that those who want to weaken or change the program will use this change in perception to the detriment of current and future seniors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #203)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:52 PM

220. and to address that other RW talking point

that the stimulus was not effective. That's not what the cbo thinks
http://m.examiner.com/examiner/pm_60977/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=8GC3W58e

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Estevan (Reply #198)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:48 PM

216. and here's what I don't understand about the unreasonable persons: They think that if they

 

don't vote "to punish Obama" for what he did and did not do, that somehow a Republican Congress will pass more progressive legislation. It makes absolutely no sense.

Change in government has always been incremental, not comprehensive and not quick. The Civil Rights leaders knew this and knew it well. What they did back then and what we're NOT doing now is learning how governance actually works. These leaders studied Congress; they studied the laws, and they knew who their allies were (Yellow Dogs) and were not (Dixiecrats).

Why can't we do the same now?!?!?!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #216)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:59 PM

226. That is why it is so important that we here on DU

discuss the substance of the proposed laws, not just the reactions of this politician or that pundit to them.

I would like to have a group here on which we get copies of the texts of controversial laws and discuss them. We should also track the votes on them.

We need to focus much more on retiring certain members of Congress and less on banning people from DU.

If a lot of DUers are unhappy with Obama, there is a reason. I for one have been very, very active campaigning for Democrats most of my life. I'm not happy with Obama. My focus is going to be on congressional campaigns in 2012.

We really have to change Congress in order to change the conversation in D.C. The Teabaggers have made things a lot worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #226)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 07:17 PM

232. Thank you so much for your thoughtful post. You understand what many of us need to be doing.

 

This is all about *completely* changing the makeup of the Congress, especially the Senate!!

I'm a political science professor, and I am teaching my college students to study actual bills, not op-eds or commentary from pundits are who are not inside and don't really understand governance.

Edit to add: Perhaps the Research Forum may be the place to start a sub-forum where we can discuss bills/proposals/amendments to legislation.

Many folks--on BOTH sides (pro-Obama/con-Obama)--don't understand how complete actual legislation is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #232)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 08:45 PM

250. There have been many threads here on the new DU3 in GD regarding ...

bills/proposals/amendments to legislation - where links to the bills, amendments, and articles have been posted and discussed.

I do not see any reason to have a 'group' that many folks wouldn't even know was there.

Why not keep those discussions out in the open in General Discussion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #232)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 10:46 PM

290. I have to check whether I am on the research forum. Great idea.

Yes, we need to encourage more scrutiny and understanding of actual bills.

We also need to read the judicial decisions every once in a while. I have to admit that I am often lazy about these things and have difficulty finding the federal ones.

The bills in my state are easy to find, and I am used to working with the state codes, but I have not worked with federal bills that much.

Maybe you could start a thread about how to find federal bills, etc. on line. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #290)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 09:55 AM

348. Finding actual texts of proposed/passed legislation is very easy.

 

Library of Congress is the best place to go:

www.loc.gov

Also, the Congressional Record not only has the bill text, any amendments, and vote tallies, it is known to record actual floor speeches.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/

Very easy to search for key words, or if you know the bill numbers themselves, just plug them in the search engine on the site.

I think DU desperately needs this in the Research Forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #348)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:02 AM

369. Thanks. Bookmarked it.

I know where to look in the law library. I know how to deal with the hard copy. I also know how to find this information on Lexis -- to which I no longer have access.

So, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #216)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:21 PM

266. But, on many issues such as privatization of schools

and cuts in payroll taxes, Obama is moving backwards. He is moving toward policies that undercut the progress that Democrats have made over the decades. That is why the strongest Democrats on this board are the most dissatisfied with Obama.

I would have liked a stronger health insurance reform bill, but can live with what we got. But on many other domestic issues, Obama is less progressive than the American people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #266)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:04 AM

354. He's not moving backwards. He's working within the constraints of a Congress that we gave him in

 

2010 when we decided not to vote.

So, you want a more progressive health care reform bill, right? You will get that, but you won't get it with Blue Dogs in the House and Senate that were NEVER going to allow the Public Option to move forward. Trust me, I spent many days and hours calling Kay Hagan's office, calling Max Baucus's office, and other Blue Dogs, and writing letters.

PLEASE LISTEN TO ME CAREFULLY!

Give the president MORE progressives in BOTH the House and Senate, and you'll see more progressive legislation come forth. I'm sorry, but it will never happen with a Republican-dominated Congress or with a Democratically-controlled Senate full of Blue Dogs and Corporatists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #354)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:07 AM

370. When given a choice between backing a progressive or backing a Blue Dog,

Obama backed the Blue Dog. That is one of the things that disappointed me. I think he should have stayed neutral in races like that unless there was really something wrong with the progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #370)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:20 PM

380. You're right. I was highly upset that he butted in the Blanche Lincoln race, so I agree with you

 

here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #380)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 12:42 PM

400. It was Bill Clinton that slammed liberals and unions for challenging Blanche Lincoln in a primary.

 

>>> It was Bill Clinton that campaigned his ass off for her.

Bill Clinton Tries to Shield Lincoln From Voters' Anger:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/100581-bill-clinton-tries-to-shield-lincoln-from-voters-anger

Bill Clinton Vs. the Unions: "Here is an article from the Washington Post, it says some national unions made a decision a few months ago, that they wanted to make Senator Blanche Lincoln the quote "poster child" for what happens when a Democrat crosses them. This is about using you and manipulating your votes. If you want to be Arkansas's advocate, vote for somebody who will fight for you. Vote for Blanche Lincoln." - President Bill Clinton



>>> Regarding Pres O and Blanche Lincolon, there was a rampant rumor on the intertubes that Pres O offered Halter a job to dissuade him from challenging Blanche Lincoln. That is not true. The extent of Pres O's assistance for this incumbent was a robocall on her behalf.

Bill Halter, Arkansas Senate Candidate, Said He Had No Discussions With Administration About Job Offer: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38099.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #216)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 10:43 PM

289. no if voters are moving away from Obama then he should realize he needs to win them back b4 they

vote

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarsInHerHair (Reply #289)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:01 AM

351. Yes, push him towards the action we want. But bitching on an online forum does NOT constitute

 

"pushing him." Indeed, it is not effective and is counterproductive.

But if you really want to push him, not voting is insane!! You can't expect him to do anything with a Teabagger-led Congress.

The answer is not voting. The answer is working to give him a supermajority in the House and in the Senate. And I'm NOT talking about Blue Dogs like LIEberman, Lincoln, Baucus, and Manchin. Howard Dean gave us a 50-state strategy, which was great. However, as a result of that strategy we got plenty of Blue Dog and Corporatist Democrats who have decided that their interests come first.We need MORE Bernie Sanders, not more Blanche Lincolns.

Do you understand this?

What we are witnessing now is the manifestation of what happens when people--out of anger--decide not to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Estevan (Reply #198)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 08:05 PM

239. Right on

Seems so simple, why do these facts elude so many?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Estevan (Reply #198)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 08:36 PM

246. hmph

It is precisely BECAUSE we've been faced with these abysmal choices that we MUST be far more active and far more committed to rescuing our co-opted system from the Corporate Megalomaniacs who've usurped our politics, our media and our global economy. This mandates that we remove from office as well ALL of the corporatists’ milquetoast sock puppets.

It is well past time for blaming and shaming, or for harboring resentments toward those who point out the weaknesses and missteps of our POTUS. Our nation is facing a cultural crisis, and our willingness to be activists must transcend merely ensconcing ourselves in front of a computer and pontificating about how wrong it is to criticize Mr. Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #246)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:13 PM

262. I never said it was wrong to criticize President Obama

but criticism without analysis is meaningless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Estevan (Reply #262)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:25 PM

267. I've seen a lot of defending of Obama without analysis, but not so much

criticism of Obama that wasn't based on a lot of thought and analysis.

It is natural to want to support the candidate of your own party, the party to which you have belonged all your life. It is very hard to have to admit to yourself that you do not agree with some of the policies of the candidate of your party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #267)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:40 PM

270. Never said i agree with all of his policies

But I'm not naive enough to expect that I should.
He is President of a big diverse country so he's bound to disappoint everyone sometimes.
And to say there hasnt been raw emotional rhetoric passing for critical analysis (on your side of the fence, if you will) is simply a joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Estevan (Reply #270)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 10:08 PM

278. There is so much emotion on this topic because the euphoria

at the time of the inauguration (which I felt like everyone else) was so great. Our expectations were very high. And we are disappointed. It is as though we were jilted.

For me, having been a Democrat since I was 9 and having worked for many Democratic candidates, I just am heartsick at the nonchalance with which Obama has rejected or neglected a number of time-tested Democratic policies such as public education, such as dedication to the payroll tax as the means for funding Social Security, such as maintaining a strong Medicare program, such as supporting American workers and unions. The list is pretty long.

Obama does not represent the traditional values and policies of the Democratic Party.

He is too far toward the side of Reagan. Occasionally he gives a great speech that inspires everyone, but then he never follows through.

The current Congress is very difficult to deal with, but Obama is far too ready to compromise with the Republicans.

You cannot be the president of all Americans. We are as you pointed out Estevan, too diverse a country. Obama, whether he likes it or not, was elected to be a Democratic president. Some of his policies have been good, solid Democratic ones -- like enlisting gays and lesbians in the military, but too many of them have been more conservative than the traditional Democratic ones. This administration is a step backwards for the Democratic Party and the American people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #278)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 11:32 AM

390. Thank you.

President Obama is not strong on Social Security and Medicare. That much is painfully obvious. He was willing to trade them away to end tax cuts millionaires should have never had in the first place. Not an even trade.

Democrats built these programs. It is incredibly dangerous politically to weaken them. It basically tears up Democratic traditional platforms from their roots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Estevan (Reply #198)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 08:41 PM

249. PS

I did NOT sit at home, and I DID vote for every single Democrat on the ticket. If I could not vote for a Democrat in a particular race, I voted for whoever was opposing the Republican.

Furthermore, I am not altogether sure we can trust ANYTHING that's been promulgated about the last election results, since the touch screen machines are now prolific, and exit polls have been deemed ineffective, and who knows for certain whether our 'votes' are even a part of the process these days...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #249)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:11 PM

261. Yes you are right

My apologies
All the more reason to come out in droves next election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Estevan (Reply #198)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 10:37 PM

288. The payroll tax cut is fucking stupid, given that 48% of the population--

--is either low income or outright poor. It amounts to around $200 for them. The $1,000-$1,700 number that keeps coming up is a benefit for the top 20% minus the 1%, and those folks are doing fine already. To put money into the hands of the bottom half of the population, you'd need to reinstate Make Work Pay or boost EITC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #288)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 11:33 AM

391. I really wish we extended Making Work Pay instead. Much better stimulus. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Estevan (Reply #198)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:25 AM

326. Politics is not the Monty Hall Problem.

 

The way we got into this situation, with an African-American Democratic President further to the right than Nixon or Reagan and a Republican Party calling him a Socialist and running even further to the right than HE is, is because we keep being told we have to pick Door A. It's not the Monty Hall Problem, it's Xeno's paradox.

For those who don't know how the paradox works: if every step takes you halfway down the road you never reach your goal. The goal is a mile down the road, so you travel halfway then stop. Then your goal is half a mile away, so you travel halfway then stop. Now your goal is a quarter mile away so you travel halfway then stop. Now your goal is 600 feet away, so you travel halfway then stop. Now your goal is 300 feet away, so you travel halfway then stop. Now your goal is 150 feet away so you travel halfway then stop. Now it's 75 feet away. Then it's 38. Then it's 19. Then it's 10. Then it's 5.

Unless you travel the entire distance you never reach your destination. Half measures do. not. work.

And with the Republicans have been playing the game, we don't even get halfway. We travel maybe a quarter, maybe one eighth of the distance for everything we give up. So now the destination is 3/4 of a mile down the road and we give them everything they want to travel another 3/8 of a mile. Each step makes it harder to make any progress at all, and you never reach your goal.

The answer? Stop playing their game. If a Republican (or, as is too often the case, a Democrat) tells you that you have to choose Door A or Door B, you don't pick either door. You walk out of the "Let's Make A Deal" studio and go play "The Price Is Right" instead. And if they don't want to play your game, then they can go pound sand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Estevan (Reply #198)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 01:23 PM

407. We only get one vote when November comes.

That's when we pick a door.

Until that time, we as Democrats have the responsibility to keep questioning, to continue to demand more of our leadership -- more integrity, more concern about human rights, more honesty about our economy, a fair chance for everyone.

DU is not an official organ of the Democratic Party. DU is a place for discussion. We should demand much more of our leaders, much, much more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #187)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 12:37 PM

399. You know your list of things is something that takes time...if you look at what it would take...

To end those points you listed....in one or two years...we have to go to war with Republicans....fight them in the street. I for one would rather see them lose elections...and we keep chipping away at progress....always mindful of the future...and each other.

Continuously braying like lost distant cow about how awful Obama is and how the Democrats that support him are mindless automatons should offer something more besides divisive criticism....find common ground...write him a letter...write a letter to the editor....I am sure they would be happy to print any Anti-Obama diatribe from a Obama voter.

Real change...is happening, it started and it is just the beginning....don't think it isn't.....lets work to take congress back....and strengthen our senate majority...

Then you will see change happen....a little more expeditiously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #152)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:46 PM

214. In this world there are those who get it, and those who dont.

You get it. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 08:54 PM

255. I saw a post hidden earlier today because a poster was called immature or something

really light like that. It will be interesting to see if the alerts will be dealt with in an even-handed manner. I just sent an alert on another thread where Obama supporters were called his fellators. We shall see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 10:20 PM

281. You left off the last half of the sentence, which was

--"regarding the future direction of the country."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:44 PM

38. I grow so tired of the ENDLESS cheerleading......

 

Many posters on the DU sound like they work for the DNC. They find NOTHING wrong with ANYTHING Obama has done.

And if you complain about any LEGIT Obama error or mistake they always respond with "Here is a list of stuff Obama has done". They never want to discuss the mistakes they want to shut down discussion.

It is a joke. Blind 100% support is not healthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #38)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:53 PM

107. You get so tired of hearing anything positive?

You sound like you just don't want to hear anything but criticism.

Why can't we be positive about our candidate for POTUS? On a site for Democrats?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #107)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:01 PM

113. Why can't we give valid complaints about Obama without being slammed or dismissed? And why....

 

are the Obama Cheer Leaders not willing to admit that Obama has some major policy issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #113)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 04:46 PM

158. Why should you be able to post anything without getting opposed?

Why do we have to admit anything and give the right ammunition?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #113)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 05:38 PM

177. As a pretty consistent Obama detractor, you do a lot of "slamming".

See the irony in your claim to be some sort of outcast?

You seem to have a fair amount of company. Why so put upon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #107)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:09 PM

115. Should we cheer getting a free pint at the pub while the pub

owners and cops steal our possessions and loot our car while we're there celebrating?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AllyCat (Reply #115)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 04:47 PM

159. I doubt it but what has that got to do with anything?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #159)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 09:49 AM

368. That is what we are getting with this Administration

We get a few bones now and then (a couple good parts of health care reform, draw down of troops in Iraq, etc) while they continue to give banks free rein, Wall Street is taking all our money, people out of their homes, and education in the toilet. Among other things. I feel like supporters want us to overlook all the really BAD things that this Administration is doing or allowing to continue because we got a couple points on other issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AllyCat (Reply #368)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:57 AM

373. Why not?

Progress can be slow and difficult, especially with our system and the Senate and the filibusters.

You'd be giving up on a battle and blaming the general because he didn't take the fort right away - what if it took days of battle and a lot of loss along the way?

Nothing worth fighting for is easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #373)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:47 AM

377. I guess this is where we disagree. I don't think he's fighting.

And the Congressional Dems aren't either. When they held a majority, they couldn't do anything because they didn't have a "Super" majority. I don't think we are making progress. We're out of Iraq, but have escalated Afghanistan.

We never even CONSIDERED a public option. Our elections are a farce that aren't being investigated. We aren't even going to consider prosecuting his predecessor. Arne Duncan has put NCLB on steroids. We're fighting Occupy and medical marijauna, while there are more homeless trying to find a place to live and get food for their kids and corporate criminals go unprosecuted.

And now we can detain ANY citizen (that might be a terrorist, but who knows? no trial!) for any reason. He signed this and even asked for it?

I just can't get too excited about the little successes when so many bad things have not only been left untouched, but actually been propelled by this President.

I won't vote for a Republican't , but if a legitimate third party showed up that mirrored my values better, I'd vote for that person. It won't happen though. But I'm not going to cheer this Administration and I have no illusion that anything will get better with four more years. But it would be worse with a Con. Hard to get excited about this election at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #38)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 08:54 PM

256. Perhaps it is the way that criticism is posted?

Perhaps if when someone (anyone) posts criticism of Obama if they did it as 'constructive criticism' - such as I don't care for such and such, but if it was done as such and such it would be an improvement.

Normally when criticism is posted about Obama is it usually totally negative and many times posted by folks that 'only' post negative things - and many folks see it as 'bashing'.

I think that is why so many folks feel the need to jump in and say something positive.

As long as folks post negative stuff, I will continue to post positive stuff

Just my opinion.

p.s. I find many things that I do not agree with, but I prefer posting about the good things and not the bad. That's just how I roll




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #256)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 01:41 PM

411. Maybe we would all benefit if we simply tried to be honest when we

post. If you don't like something, say so. If you do like something, say so. We don't owe a debt of absolute loyalty here on DU or anywhere when it comes to politics -- unless we are employed by the Democratic Party or something like that.

I would appreciate your honest opinions Tx4obama, whether I agree with them or not. We can't improve our world or our party if we only praise the status quo.

I remember the Civil Rights Movement. If people had only taken a positive view of the status quo, we would still have segregation. You have to have seen segregation, the separate water fountains, the African-Americans standing in the back of the bus while white people had empty seats at their sides, the separate waiting rooms in bus stations, the segregated schools, to understand that if you want change, you have to make a fuss. Being positive about segregation did not change the situation.

Obama does a good job in many respects, but in certain very important areas, including human rights (killing American citizens by drones, for example), the economy (Geithner and Bernanke???) and education, I am far more liberal than he is. I am not ashamed of being a liberal, and I plan to continue to express my opinions honestly on DU.

No one has to agree with me. I am interested in hearing opinions that differ from my own. It is important to argue about issues and hash them out on DU. Where else can we do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:54 AM

16. Yes. Jpgray thinks we are morally bankrupt and contemptible. Thanks SO MUCH jpgray!

I did my civic duty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:03 PM

22. This thread is allowed to remain open. If I had started a thread like this questioning the moral

 

legitimacy of Obama detractors, it would most assuredly been shut down at first post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:09 PM

27. Thank you SO MUCH DU jurors for KEEPING this disgusting post.

Last edited Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:45 PM - Edit history (2)

We do indeed know where we stand here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:55 PM

224. I've left DU and came back. I leave for a period, then come back. Were it not for BOG, I may think

 

to leave FOR GOOD!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:15 PM

30. it's not as if one couldn't be devised. A little policy discussion and then the hook

 

This post isn't anywhere near the standard of provoking a reasonable discourse that I thought our threads had to adhere to. It's positively flamebait. And, as you say, I'm just burning to take the opposite tack, just to keep from feeling like I'm in some republican refuge. If you can't come here as an Obama supporter during this election and not feel like you're under assault, I really don't know why Democrats would bother to convene here. There is no viable opponent in the primaries. Everyone knows this is our nominee . . . I can imagine the reaction of an outsider looking in who is interested in expressing support for our Democratic nominee on a board called Democratic Underground . . . this goes to the heart of why *most of us participate in this process and why we have an internet refuge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:19 PM

31. OTOH, it lets us know exactly where we stand on DU, doesn't it?

One way or another...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:44 PM

39. I'm sorry but inane threads scolding people are allowed to stand here too. This is a reasoned

 

and very thoughtful post about the incongruent arguements given by the more fervent Obama supporters. They could learn from this. That other thread, you know where they rewrite the meaning of being progressive? Please show me if there was anything more to that than sneering at fellow Dems. That OP was un-thought provoking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:46 PM

40. Fuck that shit. Calling Democrats morally contemptible and bankrupt is over the line.

It's fucking disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #40)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:05 PM

51. It's not an attack on all Democrats, just some who act in a particular way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Reply #51)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:07 PM

52. Sure. Just Obama supporters. None of those here, right? Fuck that shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #52)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:18 PM

59. you are totally mistaken about the "all or nothing" nature of being an Obabma supporter

 

thank god some of us have more complicated thought processes than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #59)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:57 PM

146. Then you agree that OP has created a strawman

Perhaps there are indeed a all or nothing posters, but I would say only a handful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #146)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 08:09 PM

240. I see poster after poster here assuming JP, I and others are not "supporters" because they believe

 

this means that you have to claim 100% satisfaction, and not engage in conversations where we reveal any dissapointment. To me, thats bullshit. We should be able to discuss what direction we want the govt to be taking. Not only the accomplishments, but the mistakes made. And we should, as Obama supporters be able to discuss these things, without being called freepers or being told to go somewhere.
So the OP is on target about that mindset, because none of these people are honestly reacting to his OP about the heart of it- the nature of the "defending" they sometimes do- the contradictions and rationalizations that are out there for all to see.
All they do is lick their wounds and stick to the "either you're for him or against him" BS. I guess they see things in a very simple black and white way, and can't fathom that many people are 60-70% happy with BO, and would like things to get better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #52)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:43 PM

102. That is simply false, the OP speaks of 'defenders' not supporters and yet you rewrite and then

 

argue with the word you introduced as if it was the OP's. Really, you are not alone in the thread doing this, and it is exactly what the OP is addressing if you ask me. Why alter the words used? To better characterize them incorrectly, of course.
The defenders defend it all, the wrong along with the right. That is not support at all, so the name supporter does not apply. To say there should be only agreement with the President is servile and in fact, morally treasonable to the people. To do so is not support, it is just self indulgence in a fawning sort of courtly politic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Reply #51)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:45 PM

103. You're correct it's not an attack on all Democrats...

just Obama supporters.

from the OP...

Obama's defenders are unassailable as regards what should be done in the next election. They are morally bankrupt and contemptible

there it is in black and white.

I support the DEMOCRATIC president, and I would prefer not to be called morally bankrupt and contemptible. I'm sure I'm not alone in this preference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to one_voice (Reply #103)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 07:25 PM

233. And again, the Moderators haven't done anything about this. Had I started an OP calling Obama

 

detractors "morally bankrupt and contemptible," a "jury" wouldn't be necessary. The Mods would just close my shit. Period!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #40)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:50 PM

219. you are missing the point completely

take your blinders off and actually READ

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #40)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 10:52 PM

291. & calling Dems Republicans or Republican-enablers is fine with you/or supporters in general

since I almost always see that insult. Holding his feet to the fire does NOT make me a Republiscum

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:04 PM

50. it's just a well-couched attack on Obama supporters

 

It's generalized as to include anyone who dares express support for the man. It's full of half-truths, and the worst of assumptions about the motivations of posters here. It's an outright attack on Obama supporters. It's ridiculous to posture like it's anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #50)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:22 PM

61. no, it's a message from an Obama supporter abut how this 100% perfect rah rah rah stuff is

 

over simplistic bullshit.
"we have a responsibility to steer our party in the direction of morally supportable policy" why do you want to shut down discussion around that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #61)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:07 PM

188. the '100% rah-rah' accusation is an outright lie

 

. . . the poster, nor yo, have any way of knowing what these folks believe. I see that hasn't prevented you from speaking for everyone, though.

I also see that you're comfortable deciding for everyone else what is 'moral.' Evangelistic bullshit.

Try this. Just say what YOU believe and let everyone else speak for themselves. If you have a problem with what someone says, tell them then and there and be done with it. Don't smear everyone else with your broad brush attacks; you or your self-righteous buddy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #188)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 08:15 PM

241. I know that some people right in this thread believe ANY criticism is out of line, and that somehow

 

it gives ammo to the enemy. AND some believe if you have any issues w/ BO, you are NOT a supporter, no matter what you say.
They think they know best what people should and shouldn't say here, and have no problem claiming that good Dems are anything but that. Sorry-everything I listed, is all over this thread. So I DO KNOW what they think.

I think they are hilarious, and see the world as a very simple place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 04:33 PM

155. bigtree, why do you support Obama?

I don't want that interminable list. I want to hear in your own words what you like about Obama's policies.

Do you think the economy is going well?

Do you like the way he pushed to get certain appointments?

Are you happy with the healthcare insurance bill?

What is it specifically that you like about Obama's presidency?

I criticize Obama in a number of areas, but there are other things about his presidency that I like.

If you want to persuade people to support Obama, then rather than attacking them for holding opinions different from your own, you would get further if you talk from your heart about the things you like about him.

Virtually everyone on DU is going to vote for Obama in 2012. There really isn't any other choice for most of us.

Why don't you try to at least make us feel good about something we dread doing?

And never mind when people argue with you. Why would you keep coming to a forum in which you only talked to people who agreed with you on everything? That would be boring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #155)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:11 PM

189. don't be dense. The OP is insulting and offensive

 

deal with that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #189)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:37 PM

205. bigtree, I'm trying to help you argue your case better.

You can't just get offended and reply in a huff. That will not persuade anyone to agree with you. It won't even persuade anyone that you know what you are talking about. Why do you support Obama?

Do you like his stance on the payroll tax vacation?

Do you like his support for the rebels in Libya?

Do you like his health insurance reform plan? If so, what do you like about it? If you want to win an argument with someone who disagrees with you, you have to organize your ideas and present the evidence supporting your argument with some sincerity and persuasiveness.

You cannot succeed in making a case if you just point your finger and scream. During the campaign, how are you going to persuade Independents and Republicans that they should vote for Obama if you can't even persuade disillusioned Democrats.

You better be able to do better than just scold people for disagreeing with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #205)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:47 PM

215. my case on this thread is against the broad brush attacks against Obama supporters

 

. . . couched in the opinionated drivel and psychobabble

I express many many views on this board and I don't need to prove a thing to you. You want to know my views? I've been here since 2003. My journal is a good place to start. From there, you can google bigtree and whatever issue you want. If I've been interested in sharing my view on a particular issue I will have shared it openly and expressed myself fully.

So you can stop this ridiculous call out. You know well why I'm complaining in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #215)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:59 PM

227. why can't you just respond to JDPriestly's questions?

seriously, why? I think it's because when you are backed into a corner you CANNOT defend the indefensible so you scream CALL OUT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #227)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:45 PM

302. because it's a bullshit deflection

 

from the bullshit in this bullshit post.

Like your attempt here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #302)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 01:32 AM

320. no it isn't

and YOU KNOW IT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #320)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:57 AM

331. it's fucking deflection

 

It's taunting. It's insulting . . .and your little attempt to call me out in this thread instead of addressing the insults is despicable. You couldn't be more dishonest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #215)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:21 PM

295. But, but... he's just trying to help you argue your case better!

Man, just when I think I have SEEN IT ALL in terms of ridiculousness and blatant dishonesty, somebody comes along and blows the other contenders out of the damn water.

"I'm trying to help you argue your case better!" LOL!!!! Oh God, my DU Christmas wish is to please not see something that hilariously idiotic ever again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #155)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 12:24 PM

398. I'll bite...here is why...

1. He and I are the same age....I believe early 60's boomers have been ignored and discounted for two long. We grew up not knowing the 50's or 40s and were too young to be overly influenced by Vietnam...what we saw....Nixon, Carter and how he was treated by conservatives....then Reagan and Bush...we sawy our nation crumble. The main streets of our childhood NO LONGER EXIST....I think Obama understands that and that ultimately we have to reclaim some of our own economy and do so on a smaller scale. To do that some of it has to be dismantled, but first we have to get the republican monkey off this nation's back.

I think there are many things he does to allow other aspects of change to occur....specifically...DADT was a big one for me, also instructing the justice department to not defend DOMA, We are out of Iraq....I never thought we would be gone...I don't know what all is left there...but it stands to reason there would be a long term residual presence.

2. I like Obama's Health Refrom....it is step closer and from the perspective of my job I see that this is a stepping stone to a single payer public healthcare system in my lifetime. Changes made will force providers to cut costs and increase quality. It also includes the end of pre-existing conditions and introduces elements LGBT equality in healthcare.

3. I think that bailing out the auto-industry was the right thing to do. We have to retain and return to America's core skills. Manufacturing goods at all levels to sell to each other is essential. Advancements in this area are hindered at every opportunity by Republicans.

4. Maintains a reasonably consistent level of compassion for the poor, the middle class workers and the aged. When Republicans seek cuts there is a battle. When egregious proposals are put forth he does slice them up...Healthcare debate, DADT, DOMA....Bush tax cuts....spending bill and debt increase....he went toe to toe with Republicans....they hate him because he is smart and effective negotiator....we don't see much of that....

I know we need to change a lot of things....I want to be married....I can't in my state....I want health coverage for my transition....I don't have that. I want us out of Afganistan...I want taxes on the rich, I want redevelopment of local micro economies....a effort with private investors ad public grants in coordination...

I was pissed at this OP....but it is here....and so is Obama....I am sticking with him...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Evasporque (Reply #398)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 01:44 PM

413. Great answer. Thanks.

I tend to be very pleased with Obama on the topics you mention.

I'm not happy with others of his policies, but I strongly support Obama on the things you mentioned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 05:35 PM

175. Which would explain the dearth of Democrats here, no?

[iIf you can't come here as an Obama supporter during this election and not feel like you're under assault, I really don't know why Democrats would bother to convene here.

Do you think a site of genuine Democrats would be full of this much angst and wailing which ALWAYS seems to lead either towards "I'm not voting at all" or some ambiguous third party candidate that doesn't have a chance in hell?

This post from JoePhilly really sums this place up imho http://www.democraticunderground.com/11021290

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #175)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:44 PM

213. I joined this website around the time of the 2004 elections.

I walked many precincts and tabled and called and really campaigned hard for Kerry/Edwards in 2004.

So, a lot of the disgruntled Democrats here are activists who have been extremely active and loyal to the Democratic Party for many years.

I wore my Adlai Stevenson button when I was in grade school.

I campaigned for McGovern. I lived overseas for some years, but when I returned I got active in politics again and campaigned for Democratic candidates many, many times.

We are genuine Democrats here. In fact, I was campaigning for McGovern when Obama was just a child. And he wasn't born when Stevenson ran.

It is people who have been stalwart Democrats all their lives -- and some of the lives have been very long -- who are disgusted with a lot of Obama's cabinet choices and policies. I am a Democrat. That I know. But is Obama??????

I will vote for Obama as I have for other Democratic candidates about whom I had doubts. But I would like to see an end to the corruption in D.C. I genuinely hoped that Obama had the courage and strength to open up D.C., but apparently I was wrong.

Don't be down on us. We are the Democratic Party. If Obama wants to get re-elected, he needs to do a lot more to make us enthusiastic. We are the guys who get out and walk precincts and talk to voters. He has made that hard for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #175)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 10:30 PM

285. Nonsense. I think the vast majority of Obama critics

--fully intend to at least vote for him in 2012, because anything else would be tactically and strategically stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:43 PM

212. It has happened twice in the last several days when I have alerted threads like this, only to learn

 

that "the randomly-selected jurors" had voted to keep the thread going. I've had my own comments hidden for much lesser offenses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:12 AM

336. You are exactly right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:34 AM

4. What

"At this point defenders (of party leadership as well as the president) resemble family members of an addict who are in denial. They look at an empty pantry, a clean space where the microwave used to be, and invent justifications, however implausible, for the theft and sale of necessities. Where the road to rehabilitation for the addict is clear and feasible, they make of minor obstacles tremendous and insurmountable barriers to justify a lack of action, and freely cling to the sort of lazy perfectionism that dogs any addict's plans for improvement, treatment, and health. The addict's plans are always fraught with prerequisites and strict time-based conditions - should any step fail or see its opportunity lapse, however minor the step, it is seized upon as a perfectly sane excuse to entirely abandon the attempt at kicking the habit."

...utter nonsense!

It's garbage like this why no one can take some of the President's critics serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:50 AM

9. If PoorSense says it's garbage, you must be onto something.

 

Selective memory and fact-picking are not just diseases of the conservative mindset, but the liberal as well. Better that they would go back to clearly articulated New Deal principles and FDR's second bill of rights and see whether their idol meets the mark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to izquierdista (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:06 PM

23. Well, izquislingdripsta, I can make up names too. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to izquierdista (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:17 PM

122. I don't agree with most of what ProSense says, but namecalling is inappropriate.

Please delete your post or eliminate the ad hominem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:51 AM

13. I think it's a very clear and accurate analogy. Do you care to explain exactly why you disagree

 

or are you content to merely slur the presidents critics and give no reasons?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:57 AM

18. Well,

"I think it's a very clear and accurate analogy. Do you care to explain exactly why you disagree or are you content to merely slur the presidents critics and give no reasons? "

...as an "addict" in "denial" and a "morally bankrupt and contemptible" soul, I'm in good company.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100233108

I will never be as pure and self-righteous as the President's critics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:32 PM

32. okay, more name calling. You have confused "having issues" with being a "purist", LOL.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:37 PM

33. Yeah,

"okay, more name calling. You have confused 'having issues' with being a 'purist', LOL. "

...saying someone is "pure" is almost as bad as claiming someone is an "addict" in "denial" and a "morally bankrupt and contemptible" soul.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:50 PM

43. the denial part is when you refuse to acknowledge issuses, and just label the person a "purist",

 

shutting down any meaningful dialog. Way too much of this crap on DU. Sorry. Not a one issue voter, or a purist by any means. Just a proud liberal progressive (not the new DU definitaion, either) who has seen Obama lose a lot of support. God forbid we talk about it here though right?
Rah rah rah!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #43)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:00 PM

48. Here

the denial part is when you refuse to acknowledge issuses, and just label the person (an an "addict" in "denial" and "morally bankrupt and contemptible" ),
shutting down any meaningful dialog. Way too much of this crap on DU. Sorry....


...fixed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #48)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:16 PM

57. the OP cites examples of a phenomenon here, and says SUPPORTof the Pres is GOOD, you ignore this

 

and focus on the name calling. Sorry. Lists of accomplishments and name calling, no matter how oft repeated are no substitute for real discussion.
"we have a responsibility to steer our party in the direction of morally supportable policy" , do you agree? If so, why is this discussion so frequently attacked here? To me, that's repulsive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #57)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:23 PM

62. Wait

"you ignore this and focus on the name calling. Lists of accomplishments and name calling, no matter how oft repeated are no substitute for real discussion."

...you expect people to "ignore" the name calling? So the name calling is because of the "list of accomplishments"? Are you suggesting that if the President's supporters would "ignore" his "list of accomplishments," they too would realize that support for the President is like an "addict" in "denial" and "morally bankrupt and contemptible"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #62)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:36 PM

70. I'm expecting people to address the issues raised in the OP. instead of cherry picking a word

 

and using it as an excuse to keep their head in the sand. I guess I expected too much.

Your second paragraph takes a huge unsupportable leap, no one said "support for the president is like an addict"- they CLEARLY said, refusing to adresss Liberal voters dissapointments was akin to enabling. That making light of them was a form of denial. He also said the president is and should be supported. Not sure how you missed all that! Hopefully, that's clearer now.

Many of us support this president AND feel "we have a responsibility to steer our party in the direction of morally supportable policy". We are not comfortable looking the other way and being handed a list to read. Enough of the lists!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #70)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:29 PM

379. omg

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:28 PM

65. after Bush got re-elected in 2004

I used a signature line from Erich Ludendorff "I solemnly prophesy that this accursed man will cast our Reich into the abyss and bring our nation to inconceivable misery. Future generations will damn you in your grave for what you have done.""

If it is important to have a political party that supports things like the New Deal and policies on the order of LBJ. To have a government that represents the bottom 60% instead of the top 20% then it is, yes, contemptible and morally bankrupt to facilitate a slide away from such a government.

As for the analogy of the addict. The addict, you see, pawns their microwave in order to buy more drugs. Then they later deny that this actually happened. They imagine that the microwave was stolen, or lost, or quit working and was thrown out. They deny their own culpability in what just happened.

In a similar way, the Obama supporter looks at the political shelf and sees that the Bush tax cuts have been extended and that a Catfood Commission has suggested odious changes to Social Security and the tax code, and those have been embraced by Obama. They see Obama appointing people who are pro-Wall Street instead of pro-Main Street to his cabinet. The microwave of a Democratic Party that stands for the common person has been taken to the pawn shop in order to get Wall Street donations for another term for Obama. Yet Obama supporters are in denial about the fatal, self-inflicted stab wound in the heart of the Democratic Party.

Back in 1968 with Humphrey vs. Nixon it seems that both candidates, even the Republican were to the left of Obama. In the future, facilitated highly by Obama and his supporters, we can predict Presidential elections in 2016 or 2020 where both candidates, even the nominal Democrat, are to the right of George H.W. Bush. We are already poised to re-elected a Democrat who openly does not represent the bottom 60%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #65)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:38 PM

72. This


"In a similar way, the Obama supporter looks at the political shelf and sees that the Bush tax cuts have been extended and that a Catfood Commission has suggested odious changes to Social Security and the tax code, and those have been embraced by Obama. They see Obama appointing people who are pro-Wall Street instead of pro-Main Street to his cabinet. The microwave of a Democratic Party that stands for the common person has been taken to the pawn shop in order to get Wall Street donations for another term for Obama. Yet Obama supporters are in denial about the fatal, self-inflicted stab wound in the heart of the Democratic Party."

...is complete nonsense. The Bush tax cuts for the rich would not have been extended if Republican Senators weren't needed to pass the package. In fact, there were a handful of Democrats who did not want the tax cuts for the rich to expire. Republicans taking control of the House made the situation more critical.

Repeating ths claims about Social Security doesn't change the fact that the President repeatedly stated that he would not cut the program, and it has, in fact, not been cut.

Still what does any of that have to do with calling anyone who supporters the President an "addicts" in "denial" and "morally bankrupt and contemptible"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #72)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:25 PM

98. as the OP said

you defend Obama by claiming he was powerless to end the Bush tax cuts.

Yet it's quite obvious they could have been ended if he had simply done nothing.

Instead of doing nothing, Obama worked to throw a big pile of money at the top 5%.

You illustrate it here. You are in denial about how Obama extended those tax cuts, about how he offered Social Security for cuts, practically begged Republicans to join him and that it only didn't happen because Republicans would not accept $100 billion in tax increases. Obama embraced the Catfood Commission, embraced the gang of six, has called for Republican-type "reforms" of the income tax. Hasn't happened yet, but he is working on it.

You are in denial about what Obama is doing. You demonstrate that. It's not Obama's fault that the microwave got pawned. The Senate made him do it. I guess the Senate also made him create the Catfood Commission too. And the Senate made him embrace their odious proposals rather than reject them.

The United States is supposed to be a Government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". One of the things making it so, is the Democratic Party, which is a party that fights for the "common person" as Kennedy said http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/166

To watch our party betray those ideals, to sit idly by, complacent about what is going on, or, worse yet, to actively assist it, certainly seems "morally bankrupt and contempible" to those who are prepared to give their last full measure of devotion to stop such a slide into oligarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #98)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:02 PM

257. Yes, they would have ended if Obama had done nothing, BUT the unemployment benefits extention

would have not been passed.

Things are NOT always as black and white as some folks would like, there are always shades of grey that must be looked at carefully.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #65)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 04:29 PM

153. +1 nt

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #65)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:52 PM

221. If Obama had the kind of Democrats that LBJ had, along with the supermajority that he did,

 

despite the Southern Democrats, I could understand what you're saying. But you neglect to consider the history of the LBJ era. How many progressive Yellow Dogs do Obama have in the House AND the Senate (especially)? And not only that, how many Rockefeller Republicans did LBJ have that created a winning coalitions? Obama simply does not have these advantages.

Work to get more progressives elected to Congress in a SUPERMAJORITY!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:44 PM

137. Well, as drug-addicted moron with retarded ideas, I can sympathize!

Did you stand up for Liberals when they were attacked and abused by the presidents representatives? Were you as outraged when someone who actually has a microphone and the power to shut people up, began these attacks on people who were supporters and were trying to help, as they had been asked to do?

I saw no such outrage back then, which was a shame as it was those public statements and the constant slamming of people who were simply asking questions at that time, that completely split the party. With the full support of many on DU airc.

This is an obscure OP on an internet board that could not have half the impact of the insults constantly aimed at Progressives who dared to question some of the policies, the cabinet choices etc of the president THEY worked hard to get elected, only to be told to 'stfu' as soon as the election was over.

Politics is tough, I really don't care what anyone calls me, so long as I know that I will always care more about issues than any individual politician and being accused of being 'a hater' or a 'person with retarded ideas' doesn't bother me at all. I simply consider the source.

If you participate in politics, you have to be able to ignore a lot of nastiness and stick to the issues that are important.

It IS about issues, NOT about people. Politicians are no more important than we allow them to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #137)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:39 PM

208. Tell it, Sabrina. Why aren't Obama supporters happy? They've got their president!

I am about issues too. Not party, not politician, not personality. If they don't stand for good policy, they mean nothing to me and they certainly don't deserve to be defended. The people who place policy first are NOT the villains here and shouldn't be marginalized and denigrated for that.

The way I see it, those who choose this president over everything else that could matter are the ones with the advantage. Their guy is the president. Their politician is at the top of the totem pole and he gets to implement policy that I have to assume they prefer. So I don't know why they think they're everyone else's battered victim. They're not. I don't get it.

They've got the presidency, what more do they want? It's not enough that Obama is President, but everyone else has to think, behave, and speak like them, too? You gotta be kidding.

And, dear Obama die-hard supporters, you are the power by virtue of his position and your choice of him, whether you know it or not. Be happy. You may not have this again.

It's tough speaking truth to power, but somebody has to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #208)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:36 PM

299. how many names did they call voting Dems? "professional Left, Retarded Left, Left Fringe"...add any

more that come to mind

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarsInHerHair (Reply #299)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:10 AM

356. Whactivists

 

Was the name that Michelle's food blogger had for people who thought a well-publicized organic WH garden should avoid using toxic soil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:25 PM

268. A question

Which of the presidents critics do you take seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:27 PM

378. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:38 AM

5. Last time

the democrats and Obama got beat up by is supporters last year we got a pile of teabaggers who have made it almost impossible to govern. If that what you want again, we are screwed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrior1 (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:40 PM

209. I'd love to see a poll of who hear voted.

I bet almost all of us did and voted straight-ticket Dem, too.

I don't think the outcome is the fault of people here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrior1 (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:54 PM

222. See, this comment is part of the problem. What you are saying is that politicians

should not have to do anything to earn the votes they are asking for other than wear the letter of either party. And once they do that, they have a right to people's votes, regardless of whether they have represented the people's interests or not.

If you refuse to face the fact that Democrats lost because they let down the people who voted for them and rather than blame the politicians continue to blame the people, you will guarantee another loss.

Progressives did not lose in 2010, except for two of them. Blue Dogs lost. Think about that before making these kinds of comments blaming the voters. Democratic voters voted for Democrats who earned their votes. That is how Democracy works. Blue Dogs did not earn their votes, so they lost.

And for the millionth time it seems, Democrats lost the Indpendent and youth vote, Progressives as they always do, went out to vote.

But even progressives, now sick and tired of being blamed for not voting, when if they had not, even the Dems who won would have lost, are getting tired of this whole system which seems to be run by people who think they can bully people, falsely accuse them of not voting when they did, and that other brilliant tactic, try to scare and shame them into voting for people who do not represent their interests.

If you do not want Republicans to win in 2012, stop slamming the people who put Democrats in the WH and gave them a majority in Congress and saved them from a complete wipe-out in 2008. They just might decide that it isn't worth it anymore and then you can be sure Republicans will win.

The people the Party needs to be bending over backwards for right now are progressive democratic voters who are sick and tired of the attacks on them by political operatives all of whom need to be fired imho.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:39 AM

6. Obama has done nothing analogous to FDR's

"fireside chats" to mobilize citizens in a certain direction. How could he have, though, having filled his cabinet with those complicit in creating the problems?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ron Green (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:45 AM

7. Some of us have noticed the cabinet.

We also know they did not have to be the cabinet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ron Green (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:53 AM

15. It's no longer the 1930's.

American families don't sit in front of the wood stove listening intently to the President speak on the radio set. Today's radios deliver nothing but right wing hate and crappy music.

Here in the present, Obama is using all of the modern media to deliver his message every day. How could you miss it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:01 PM

21. That's why I said "analagous." And if you're correct that he's used

the modern media effectively, then he's NOT on the right side of the biggest issues. He could have been, but he's not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ron Green (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:10 PM

29. Big issues like getting the hell out of Iraq?

Big issues like ending DADT?

Big issues like preventing another Great Depression in spite of Republican gridlock?

Big issues like making health insurance companies actually pay for health care?

From where I sit, he's on the Democratic side of ALL the big issues, and he's steadily delivering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:38 PM

34. He's certainly better than the Repubs, just as PBS is better than

Fox. But they're both funded by the biggest corporate players. And as long as this is the case, we'll not see a carbon tax (cap-and-trade is portrayed as "left" ) or single-payer health care (the public option is portrayed as "left".)

This president could have used the bully pulpit to set the tone and do the right things from the very start: holding Cheney-Bush accountable, for one thing. Or not bringing the Banksters right into his administration. It's a matter of communicating with the people more effectively than does the Noise Machine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ron Green (Reply #34)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:57 PM

46. +1 nt

Some true!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:45 PM

303. easy enough to provide links then, so I & others can bookmark it, it can also be printed & put in

libraries, community centers, etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ron Green (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:16 PM

120. Hate to break it to you, Obama does a weekly address every Saturday

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/weekly-address

That's the modern version of the Fireside Chat

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #120)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 07:00 PM

228. It's not enough.

In today's electronic environment, a weekly address is lost. FDR's chats were ground-breaking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ron Green (Reply #228)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 07:04 PM

230. What are you proposing exactly?

Honest question, I would love to hear your ideas. I think it is very difficult to cut through the noise generated by cable news, right wing radio, et cetera. So I am very interested in what you have in mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #230)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 08:51 PM

253. I dunno; I'm not a real media savant, but

it would have to be at least prime time TV, podcasts, something more than what's on now. My main complaint is that he hasn't called out the right wing loudly enough to effect a real "change we can believe in."

Of course there's the possibility he doesn't truly want to move against the status quo in a game-changing way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ron Green (Reply #253)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 10:54 PM

292. Did you see any coverage of Obama's speech at Osawatomie, Kansas the other day?

I sure didn't. There is some huge filter out there.

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ron Green (Reply #228)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:11 PM

260. Fireside chats worked back then because the majority of people ONLY HAD A RADIO.


You can't force everyone to sit around the radio in our day and age

Hell look at all the TV stations there are nowadays - no one even listens to the same 'news' anymore like they did a decade or two ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #260)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:52 PM

305. in the DEPRESSION? no, radio worked because it was new & not yet controlled by monied interests

like newspapers at the time. People spent money they could have eaten on to buy radios to hear him.

I think Obama needs to do podcasts, emailed as well, twice a week; especially when people are afraid, stressed about something-we need a lifesaver thrown down to us. 48% of Americans now considered poor is an enormous tragedy made by W, I would feel better to hear Obama telling how he is working-in detail on all the issues, what needs to be done, what has been done, what to expect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarsInHerHair (Reply #305)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 12:04 AM

309. Do you think that the folks that aren't watching his Weekly Address videos now


would listen to 'two podcasts' ?

For the President's Weekly Address video click here: http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse
and look in the video on the right side of the page

For what Obama does each week, look for the videos that say: West Wing Week http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse
over in the videos on the right side of the page.

And the White House White Board videos there are informative also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #309)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 12:12 AM

310. wow low standards....ok then

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarsInHerHair (Reply #310)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 12:15 AM

312. I think the videos that Obama has been making now and sending out ...

are high quality, well thought out, and well produced.

We just need to get more folks to watch them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ron Green (Reply #228)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:22 PM

364. Most things we consider lost are simply things we do not value enough to look for.

Most things we consider lost are simply things we do not value enough to look for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ron Green (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:07 PM

258. President Obama releases a Weekly Address 'every week'


Which is basically a 'fireside chat' but on VIDEO.

Perhaps you've been missing them all of these years?

They are posted on the White House website and also on YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse
Just scroll the left side bar of the videos to see the Weekly Addresses by President Obama

Hope that helps


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #258)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 12:14 AM

311. I'm sure some seniors had missed that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #258)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:03 PM

365. As I noted upthread, that's all well and good but it is in NO WAY comparable to the magnitude of

FDR's "fireside chats." He was communicating with the whole country, because radio was relatively new and in virtually every household. A weekly podcast isn't in the same universe. The very least Obama could have done was to hold frequent press conferences, prime-time speeches, whatever... in which he called out the Repubs for what they are, rather than remaining cozy with them while they screwed him and us without concern.


"...and I welcome their hatred." - FDR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ron Green (Reply #365)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:07 PM

366. Here's a link to Obama's most recent call-out on the republicans


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10171994

But surely you must have already have seen it since it was on the TV today.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #366)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:15 PM

367. Indeed I did, and this is more like it.

People who don't actively seek out the president's message need to be confronted with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:48 AM

8. +1 k&r n/t

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:50 AM

10. more incessant whining? I'll pass.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:51 AM

11. Hogwash

Critics are usually single issue voters and act like thei opinion is the only one that counts. They sound almost republicanesque!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:50 PM

42. And the cheer leaders are usually "Obama is Perfect" types and not reality based. No difference.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:25 PM

126. NO!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:14 PM

263. I will have to disagree with you on that one.


I'm a huge cheerleader here on DU - I'm based in reality.

It's just that I refuse to constantly bash Obama on message boards like other folks that I've seen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #263)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:37 PM

300. I think your defination of "constantly" is different than most!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:56 PM

110. Yes, their demands have to be met.

We even have to ask them nicely to vote Democratic!

Repeatedly we are threatened with their loss if Obama doesn't do this or that!

And they will never be satisfied, so it's no use trying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:52 AM

14. du rec. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:56 AM

17. So, you think Obama supporters are morally bankrupt and contemptible, too?

Thank you SO much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:57 AM

19. you're welcome. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:10 PM

28. Huh. Interesting. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:20 PM

197. get the money out of politics.

Yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:06 PM

24. you point out an irony with some of Obama's accomplishments

for some of the accomplishments, right up until Obama made the "right" decision, some people were insisting that it was impossible for him to do it. They come up with all kinds of things, "read the Constitution", "the president is not King", etc.

At times they even use that excuse after the president has made the decision, which of course is nonsensical.

To give a recent example, I actually was giving Obama credit for adopting a more reasonable deportation policy, and an Obama defender responded by telling me that he couldn't do anything because of the "laws". But that made no sense because as i had pointed out, he did improve the policy, without any change in the laws.

So every accomplishment ironically undermines the argument that Obama is powerless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:07 PM

25. "morally bankrupt and contemptible" ... bwahahahahaha!!!!

This OP reminds me of the righteous indignation displayed by the Baptist preachers I once knew, telling me that I was bound for Hell unless I accepted everything they said as coming straight from God.

I seem to recall them calling people like me "morally bankrupt and contemptible", as they sat on their thrown at God's right hand.

The only thing missing from the OP is a picture of this ...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:54 PM

108. Funny, it reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt. Who said:

 

"To announce that there should be no criticism of the President, or that we must stand by the President right or wrong is not only servile and unpatriotic, it is morally treasonable to the American public."
The OP addresses the constant defender, the 'right or wrong' defender, not those who are actual supporters. Constant defenders are not supporters, they are constant defenders, often harmful to the process and to the politician.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #108)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 10:13 PM

279. Where did I claim "No Criticism" ... the OP makes an INSANE claim.

And you apparently defend it.

The OP claims moral superiority. If you can't see that, than you are not paying attention.

I never trust the self righteous. Whether they take the right wing or left wing position.

They are COWARDS who attempt to use their SELF PROCLAIMED MORAL SUPERIORITY as a weapon.

I was unwilling to accept such nonsense from Baptist Ministers ... and I sure won't bow to it on an internet web site.

BTW ... I agree with Teddy ... dissent is great ...

But trying to claim that YOU own the Moral High Ground, SCREAMS of hypocrisy, and that is exactly what the OP did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 11:30 AM

389. Throne.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:07 PM

26. ROFL

Next!!1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:39 PM

35. Obama supporters: Now we know EXACTLY where we stand on DU - sewer level.

We're nothing but morally contemptible and bankrupt addicts, acc to the OP. And it's still up. This is fucking disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:55 PM

45. you are taking the "purist" approach and ignoring 2/3 of the OPs content. Calm down.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #45)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:57 PM

47. I will NOT fucking calm down after having been called morally contemptible and bankrupt & an addict

Last edited Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Fuck that shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #47)


Response to Post removed (Reply #60)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:41 PM

73. "however minor... is seized upon as a perfectly sane excuse to entirely abandon" rational discussion

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #60)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:55 PM

81. Or the response of the falsely accused.

 

The original post was clearly meant to inflame and provoke emotional response, which it has.

If one wanted to parrot your smug addition comment, it could be said that the original post is like an abusive partner telling the abused that they get treated like that because they deserve it; i.e. supporting Barack Obama. Obviously this sort of insulting can go both ways.

Instead, why not elevate the discourse and speak with civility even toward those you disagree with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #47)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:21 PM

199. get the money out of politics.

calm down

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #45)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 05:54 PM

182. Did you NOT read the short version?! Who needs the 2/3rds?!

The asshole clearly called us contemptible because we support the President. Just the first line of his "short version" kills any other point s/he wants to make and you make me sick for defending his statements and marginalizing justifiable anger against the OPs claims.

You called the other thread divisive but defend this obvious divisive thread. Like the OP said to us...maybe those who support him as you seem too...should check your morals. Cause it's twisted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:42 PM

36. "Obama's defenders are unassailable as regards what should be done in the next election."

The candidate will be supported.

But, there all policies of this administration that we cannot support while calling ourselves moral. Indefinite detention and assassination of American citizens is the clearest, most recent example. The flushing of habeas corpus is another.

Given that the overwhelming majority of Dems will support this president in the election, do we or don't we have a responsibility to steer our party in the direction of morally supportable policy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #36)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:00 PM

49. Yes! "we have a responsibility to steer our party in the direction of morally supportable policy"

 

I'm not sure why this angers his most fervent supporters.
But it's a conversation us voters need to have this coming year. I'm sick of the list of accomplishments and the pony/ purits/ one issue rhetortic that tries to paint me as a baddie for wanting the issues raised. Fuck that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #49)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:50 PM

273. i think there's a consumerist mentality that accepts pols "off the rack" as if there's no democracy

it's our responsibility to demand our party supports our interests. that's the participatory part of democracy. otherwise you're just buying the suit and continuing on your way as if it's a retail transaction.

politics is haggling. you never buy the suit without negotiating the terms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:43 PM

37. This is the crudest, most hurtful, disgusting OP I've ever seen on DU re Obama supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:32 PM

68. It's a hit-and-run too.

 

Bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:48 PM

41. The endless cheer leading gets old. There is not real way to have a valid....

 

discussion about errors Obama has made because the cheerleading crowd drowns it out with the list of stuff Obama has done good.

They do not want discussion because they do not want to admit Obama has been wrong on some issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #41)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 07:10 PM

231. Yeah, have a valid discussion by labeling those on the other side 'morally bankrupt' and 'addicts'.

Really.

That works, oh! so well in real life for you, does it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:53 PM

44. The president took office with a very weak Democratic majority in power. They didn't even impeach

Bush and Cheney for their war crimes. (Probably because too many Democrats voted to support the war on Iraq. But they could have impeached the Bush gang for authorizing torture and tossing out the Geneva Conventions and Nuremberg principles so easily.)

They didn't even dare filibuster the nomination of right wing judicial activist Sammy Alito to our supreme court because they were so afraid of the Nuclear Option-- the potential elimination of the filibuster. Had they dared to go ahead and stop judicial activism on the right even if the filibuster was removed, the Republicans would have lost their most valuable tool in opposing our president at every step of the way.

So I did realize early on that a substantial part of my opposition to President Obama's inability to return our country to what worked in healing our economy after the last Great Depression was due to a disunited group of Democratic legislators. Had they all banded together after the Bush Crash to demand financial regulation, Medicare for Everyone and the early rescinding of the Bush tax cuts for the top one percent, that would have given the president more power to heal our economy.

So I guess it really is the power of money in our political system as it now stands that I am most opposed to. That financial power intimidated so many Democratic legislators and still does today. Pretending they wanted to compromise for grand bipartisan reasons was a convenient cover. Because the multinational corporations had become quite bipartisan in their campain spending.

And earlier Democrats had allowed the media consolidation that enabled the right wing takeover of most of our news. So we got a 24/7 anti-Democratic Party news channel that pushed our other media to the right and made it even harder for Democrats to stand up for our principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:08 PM

53. the most outrageous part of this flamebait thread

 

. . . is that the poster hasn't bothered to show up and defend it. Hit and run.

Inspiring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #53)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:09 PM

55. But OP showed up in a pro Obama thread, claiming he/she is a supporter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #53)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:34 PM

69. I think it defends itself.

I am sorry that this OP has been so hurtful.

What should be impossible to ignore is that our party and the country can head into complete disaster all while nominating and electing candidates superior to those of the opposition. We could elect Democratic presidents for the next eighteen years and still lose the New Deal. If comparison to the alternative is the only standard, the principles of the party are changeable for the worse indefinitely, so long as the party platform of the Republicans remains still worse.

It is our responsibility to elect the superior candidate, which will be Obama. It is also our responsibility to ensure we do not lose but gain ground on fundamental Democratic principles. With each election we should be making progress on fundamental values. We should not take pride that we have ceded less ground than we might have done each election, because after several elections we will be far from the values that made our party in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Reply #69)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:38 PM

71. YOu're sorry? You wrote it. Called us morally contemptible, bankrupt addicts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #71)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:49 PM

77. He aplogised, so please now address the substance of the post.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #77)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:52 PM

80. If he's sorry he wll post an apology OP. And

I don't have to address anything in that slimeY OP. know this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #80)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:02 PM

86. I'm sure if you (or anyone)had a rational response to the points made in the OP, it would have been

 

posted already. All I see here is a lot of righteous indignation and wound licking. Not any counterarguement at all. Not a peep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #80)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:24 PM

125. ha ha, playing the purist game, are we?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #77)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:08 PM

114. No, he offered a non-apology "apology"

There is a big difference

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #114)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 05:41 PM

178. Yeah, the old "I'm sorry you were offended" bit that seems to be so heavily favored

by right wing evangelicals and Republican politicians caught with their pants down. Often literally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #77)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:05 PM

186. When a thread begins the way this does and ends the way it does...there is no substance.

You should be able to understand that. Ultimately it's a thread directed to hurt others and attack those who actually support Obama. The OP claims to think Obama supporters are basically garbage and you want us to find substance in that. But interestingly enough s/he claims to support Obama---to go as far as to vote for him. Do you defend that...because then s/he thinks of himself as contemptible too. Ultimately killed any substance. There is none. But I'm impressed your searching and found some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #186)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 07:57 PM

236. wow, you really are having a hard time comprehending the OP. the part where Obama supporters can

 

and do have serious issues we would like to discuss here. That we do not make excuses for him and pretend everything he has done been 100% great. Yet we are still his supporters. Our votes and opinions are just as valid as those who defend his every single action. And that those who defend his every action often use arguements that completely counter each other. And this appears to be dishonest.

Not only that, but the disgusting threads saying support every policy or leave are sickening, simple minded nast BS, and I'm fed up with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Reply #69)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:42 PM

74. If you're sorry, delete it.

 

You can. Go ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Reply #69)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:44 PM

75. What

"I am sorry that this OP has been so hurtful. "

...were you thinking? And look at the number of people defending your characterization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #75)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:52 PM

79. he explained EXACTLY what he was thinking clearly and yet you refuse to discuss the issues.

 

You don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the notion that many Dems- Obama supporters too - feel this discussion is sorely needed. Now more than ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #79)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:57 PM

82. Well

"You don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the notion that many Dems- Obama supporters too - feel this discussion is sorely needed. Now more than ever."

...you don't seem to "wrap your head around the notion" that the OP is offensive!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #82)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:59 PM

85. You continue to avoid the substance of the OP. That's interesting.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #85)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:16 PM

93. Do

"You continue to avoid the substance of the OP. That's interesting. "

...you mean the "substance" like this:

Much that is wrong and evil has taken place over Obama's term, however, and defenders have the thankless task of proving again and again that in such cases the most powerful man in the world holds a powerless office.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #93)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:29 PM

99. have at it. Ron Paul is picking up a lot of youth support because Dems have kept their heads down,

 

pretending Obama has walked the moral high road every step.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #99)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:40 PM

101. Wouldn't

"Ron Paul is picking up a lot of youth support because Dems have kept their heads down, pretending Obama has walked the moral high road every step. "

...it be wild if Ron Paul won the GOP nomination and the Presidency. Then everyone could spend time discussion who is better Ron Paul or Obama, and comparing notes about whose supporters are "morally bankrupt and contemptible."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #101)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:55 PM

109. another diversion, shucks. I thought you were actually going to critique the OP for a change!

 

silly me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #109)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 08:19 PM

242. Silly you. That's all they ever have, diversions, and nothing more.

They know there are many issues unworthy of defense.

240 posts and no discussion about any of the issues yet.

Great way to fix a problem, stick your head in the sand and blame the ones that notice there are problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Reply #69)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:03 PM

87. I went back to see if you took your insults of Obama supporters out

 

. . . the fact that you think your broad brush insults represent what you've just written . . . speaks for itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:09 PM

54. The problem with Obama's "defenders"

is they are rude insulting and have no compassion or empathy.

When people complain about Obama's policies that are hurting them and are told they are just "haters" or "whiners" or they didn't get their pony, and they have to listen to this shit while they are wondering how they are going to pay their bills or get their medication or cover their heating for the winter it tends to make them want to vote for Obama even less.

Now I could tell them, "hey wouldn't it be more unifying, if instead of laughing at someone in distress, if you offered some sympathy and then maybe explained why you see things differently? But that would draw more scorn and derision.

For my part, especially during this last go round with NDAA I tried to be nice about it, I tried to get them to read the bill they were defending, and come back with a better understanding of what was upsetting people. But that didn't fit in with the "hysterical" meme that was being whipped around.

I even gave them the benefit of the doubt on the "detention" section. too bad they were all "MISINFORMED" about the language being removed.


I'll vote for Obama, but not because he's the best man for the job like I thought in 08'. And certainly not because of anything some hack on the internet said. But because I.Have.No.Choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomethingFishy (Reply #54)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:26 PM

63. You

"The problem with Obama's 'defenders' is they are rude insulting and have no compassion or empathy. "

...forgot "morally bankrupt and contemptible."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomethingFishy (Reply #54)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:35 PM

131. Thank you SomethingFishy, you laid out the problem perfectly.

It's the attitude that hurts. When one is in pain the pain has to be acknowledged first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomethingFishy (Reply #54)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 08:47 PM

252. Same here, SomethingFishy: I.Have.No.Choice.

 

My enthusiasm is gone. I'll not contribute money or effort to his re-election. He'll get my vote, but that's it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtrockville (Reply #252)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 09:48 AM

346. I Agree With The OP Completely...

AND I agree with those who say I.Have.No.Choice! This man as a leader has been a failure to me, and I first voted for McGovern. One can say that now the Repukes won't get off the dime, but had Obama not bent over backward and leaned over to the other side so many times, perhaps the situation would be a whole lot different.

No money, nor effort will I give either. Geez, I even wonder if in the end I can MAKE myself actually vote for this person. The FEAR of the alternative is all that motivates me now, but one more cave in and I think I'll crawl under the bed.

PITFUL & PATHETIC! Most of all I feel HOPELESS and HEARTBROKEN!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomethingFishy (Reply #54)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 11:36 AM

392. Well.Said.

Every.Word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #392)

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 11:58 AM

394. thank you

also my feelings. I campaigned for McGovern. Again, I am not a "new democrat," "a reagan democrat," "a DLC democrat." I'm a pro-labor, pro-public education, pro-regulation, pro-SS, medicare, anti-privatize the shite out of everything democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:16 PM

58. Bingo. If the office of the President is as powerless as portrayed by his fans,

 

it wouldn't matter who got elected. They want it both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #58)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:27 PM

64. ...and few here are willing to admit the intellectual dishonesty the OP is refering too.

 

"we have a responsibility to steer our party in the direction of morally supportable policy" - much more than we do to continue to pretend that everything is 100% peachy.
And yes, I'm an Obama supporter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #64)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:30 PM

66. Here's

"...and few here are willing to admit the intellectual dishonesty the OP is refering too. "

...a good read: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100233108

It's possible that it's an example of the "intellectual dishonesty" you speak of, but you decide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #66)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:45 PM

76. refusing to discuss the OP's point... about simply wanting to have it both ways, is bullshit.

 

Pleas stop spamming me with your journal posts. I feel they are off point, tangeital to this discussion.
I already am an Obama supporter, just not a pure enough one, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #76)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:51 PM

78. I

"refusing to discuss the OP's point... about simply wanting to have it both ways, is bullshit."

...couldn't get pass the bullshit name calling.


"I already am an Obama supporter, just not a pure enough one, I guess. "

Welcome to the "morally bankrupt and contemptible" club.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #78)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:58 PM

83. I am an Obama supporter who is disgusted by the simple minded thought that it's 100% or 0....

 

that Obama is super effective except when he can;t be asked or expected to do anything. I agree with the OP completely, but acknowledge his language was somewhat strong. But yeah, on certain issues, I do believe the unwillingness to adress these issues is morally bankrupt. Sorry, I'm not one for sweeping things under the rug.

The OP pointed out some very big weakness in the arguments used saying that Obama has always done his level best. I just don't see a single peson here arguing he's wrong about that. I wish one of you could offer a counter to it, but it's not happening here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #83)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:09 PM

90. Well,

"I am an Obama supporter who is disgusted by the simple minded thought that it's 100% or 0...."

...I'm equally disgusted with the "simple minded" anti-Obama sentiments.

...that Obama is super effective except when he can;t be asked or expected to do anything. I agree with the OP completely, but acknowledge his language was somewhat strong. But yeah, on certain issues, I do believe the unwillingness to adress these issues is morally bankrupt. Sorry, I'm not one for sweeping things under the rug.

The OP pointed out some very big weakness in the arguments used saying that Obama has always done his level best. I just don't see a single peson here arguing he's wrong about that. I wish one of you could offer a counter to it, but it's not happening here.

That's just nonsense. All the OP did was take the opportunity to call out Obama supporters. If the OP wanted a discussion about Obama's flaws s/he should have refrained from name calling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #90)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:24 PM

95. the OP took the time to show big flaws in reasoning, you took time out to fling labels and dismiss.

 

To dismiss as nonsense with no reasons given at all. You don't even seem to understand the OP is not about Obama's flaws. Now I understand why you are flinging the lists at me, you missed the point entirely.
It's about making lame intelelctually dishonest excuses for BO's misteps- about arguing two diffferent ways that cannot both be true. Can you see the difference? It's very different from what you took away. I think your defensiveness has caused you to completely miss the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #95)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:58 PM

112. Ah

"It's about making lame intelelctually dishonest excuses for BO's misteps- about arguing two diffferent ways that cannot both be true."

...it's about a difference of opinion so the only way to address that is by name calling.

Got it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #112)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:16 PM

118. wow, you have still no idea what the OP said, or are pretending not to. Good luck with that!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #118)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:54 PM

142. No

"wow, you have still no idea what the OP said, or are pretending not to. Good luck with that!"

...I know exactly what the OP is about: the person is pissed that not everyone agrees with her/his opinion so s/he resorted to name calling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #142)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 07:48 PM

235. nope, try again

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #78)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:19 PM

94. I prefer BORG

I joined the other day.

I appreciate your welcoming open arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #78)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 08:30 PM

243. If you are truely that sensitive about name calling perhaps

you are in the wrong place. Not just on DU, but on the internet as a whole.

You are just avoiding the issues, you know it, I know it, and so does everyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #78)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:11 PM

259. What is this weird habit you have of starting a sentence, then putting a quote in the middle,

then ending your sentence after an ellipsis?

It's hard enough reading your establishmentarian drivel without such odd cadences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #58)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:57 PM

111. straw man

It is never portrayed as "powerless." The critics need to re-learn that it is meant to be limited in power, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #111)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:10 PM

116. Really? You're gonna go there? You realize that DU has a 'search' feature, don't you?

 

Additionally, you can limit google search to a specific website. If you're going to be dishonest I am going to embarrass you in a big way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #116)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:43 PM

136. Then you should search for posts where DU'ers claim Obama is powerless.

I think OP is misinterpreting reminders of, for example, the importance of electing more Democrats to the House and Senate as claims that the President is "powerless."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #116)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 04:48 PM

161. The idea that the president is "powerless" is always a snarky retort

to someone pointing out that one can blame Congress as easily for not passing any particular thing.

I could not possibly be embarrassed by you - you don't have that power. Why would you want it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #58)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:43 PM

301. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have winner here, folks!

 

+1000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:58 PM

84. Very thoughtful. "We must vote for the better candidate in this election" -

That's a big part of the bottom line. And I totally get your post, but...

This last beating of progressives/liberals by Congress and the President in his reversal of his previous stance regarding vetoing the NDAA, has sparked new outrage among progressives posting here, and caused another spate of posts critical of Congress and the President.

I'm not saying that we progressives/liberals should STFU, but seriously, what's the use anymore, except for progressives/liberals to express outrage? Or, then again, maybe we are actually helping hone the debating skills for ardent Obama supporters, so that they can more easily convince Independents and fence-sitting Democrats that are not very politically aware to vote for Obama.

*At this point before the election*, I'm very sincerely glad that there are some people that are such ardent supporters of Obama that this may cause them to not be overly cognizant of possible faults in the President's tenure so far.

Those among us that are not overly pleased with his Presidency, while we will vote for him, do not have the enthusiam in our hearts that is needed to go out and actually work to get him elected.

This is a shame, and we have good reasons for feeling the way we do, and it sucks, but it is what it is.

It's either Newtie or some other fascist tool, and a stronger fascist Congress, and a stronger fascist SCOTUS, or Obama and as many Dem Congresscritters as we can get in there. on edit Most importantly, it could mean the end of the fascist SCOTUS that selected Bush and brought us the Citizen's United decision.

Hopefully, the ardent Obama supporters here will do much, much more than just post defensive arguments on DU, and will get out and get active for the cause that they so vehemently support with opinions from their keyboards.

I'm supporting Elizabeth Warren and Alan Grayson, Dennis Kucinich, the Wisconsin recall movement, Move to Amend, and participate in, and support Occupy. These are people and organizations that have earned my respect and trust, and can therefore enthusiastically support.

Here's hoping that the ardent Obama supporters can generate the enthusiasm that the rest of us have lost over the last 3 years. If they cannot, I will not blame myself if Obama loses the election. I will have voted for him, and will be bummed if he loses. But Occupy, by virtue of its genuine progressive democratic nature, totally encompasses my ideals and beliefs, and directly acts on making these ideals come to fruition in real time. There is no ambiguity. I know exactly where Occupy stands and what we seek to achieve. So that is my focus now, and it is what I am enthusiastic about.

Like so many other progressives/liberals, I am bitterly disappointed at the many gains the 1% has made over the past 3 years, to the detriment of the 99%, enough so that we were forced into starting a movement dedicated to protecting and promoting the democratic interests of the 99%.

So, get out there and go get 'em, Obama supporters, I wish you success, and also wish I could sincerely share your enthusiasm.

peace

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #84)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:07 PM

88. This. I will vote for Obama, but work for those who are UNAFRAID to work towards my ideals.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #84)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:24 PM

97. So very well stated!

Thank you, perhaps some will read that with an open mind and heart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #84)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:51 PM

141. Times two...

 

Thanks for this post, you said it way better than any one has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #84)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 04:02 PM

147. Perfectly stated Zorra

Thank you for this post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #84)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 04:08 PM

148. Very elequently put.

 

You say what a lot of other DUers are thinking.

Yes he is better than any Repuke candidate, goes without saying. Thus the compunction to vote for him. And even though it may be a hard lesson long overdue for the DLC if the liberal base handed Obama's ass back to him, and might even start getting them to think about moving back to the center-left for the next election after, in this point in history it would be such a disaster for the country to bring in a Republican President that the only course is to vote for Obama.

Repeal of DADT was inevitable even without Obama in office. Top generals were calling for its demise. The Repukes could've only held out for so long. (Just like the US will eventually catch up to the rest of the free world on allowing gay marriage)

The Iraq war actually even went past the deadline that even Bush set up for withdrawal. Why should Obama get kudos for this? It was also inevitable. The American public had grown war-weary and the treasury was getting bare. The Repukes knew this and thats why they gave barely a whimper compared to a few years ago when it was all about "tail between your legs" and risking the security of the USA if we left. McCain had said he wanted to stay there 100 or even 1000 years, but he's not to vocal now.

So in summary, Obama's greatest achievement is towing the Washington line and not doing any MORE damage and holding the status quo by "not looking backwards" . No prosecuting war criminals, no closing Gitmo, continued renditions and torture, continued Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy, vetoing new environmental pollution recommendations to name a few. Although some would argue that the RomneyCare private health insurance plan, and the increased War on Drugs (particularly medical marijuana dispensaries), are steps backwards.

Obama works for the 1%. I'd say the Repukes work for the .01% So I guess that's something. At least he will throw the rest of us a few bones now and again. Hardly inspiring, but reason enough I guess to vote for him.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalLovinLug (Reply #148)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 07:58 PM

237. Bravo, Zorra!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:08 PM

89. We can't treat politicians in our party as if they are above criticism

without suffering serious consequences.

We NEED to hold their feet to the fire regarding policy and we need to work to make sure the best, progressive, and most honest people are elected.

I'm not understanding the desire to squelch any discussion about Obama's policy decisions - especially when they go against what we stand for as Democrats and progressives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matariki (Reply #89)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:14 PM

92. And I don't understand why every disagreement along these lines is "squelching discussion."

I mean on DU2 there was a perfectly good conspiracy theory going that mods were somehow "squelching discussion". Depending on who was complaining, we apparently were "squelching" every side of the argument.

No mods on DU3. Yet somehow disagreement is now painted as anti-free-speech.

Seriously. What the hell?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #92)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:29 PM

100. People are alerting on each other like crazy for 'criticizing Obama'

it would be nice if Obama's policy decisions could be discussed without it devolving into personal attacks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #92)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:49 PM

105. it's perectly fine to call supporters cultists, morally bankrupt, on and on and on, yet STILL people

are claiming to be stifled, censored, and oppressed.

oh, and i forgot contemptible too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:13 PM

91. You lost me when you said I was "morally bankrupt"

and "contemptible." Sorry. I'm not either of those things. If that's your conclusion, as it seems to be, you're going to be disappointed with the results of the 2012 election, I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #91)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:13 PM

117. Teddy Roosevelt said:

 

"To announce that there should be no criticism of the President, or that we must stand by the President right or wrong is not only servile and unpatriotic, it is morally treasonable to the American public."
He's addressing the exact thing the OP is addressing, not support but the poisonous twin of support, constant agreement with all and calls for no criticism from others. That is not support, it is a shirking of a citizen's duty.
At any rate the lexicon the OP uses is spot on in terms of our political tradition it would seem, considering TR and all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #117)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:16 PM

121. Did you miss that the 'criticism' (aka insult) was directed at DU MEMBERS who are Obama supporters -

NOT the President?

There's a huge difference between "Obama has done contemptible things' and "all of Obama's supporters are morally bankrupt and contemptible'.

Do you REALLY not see that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #121)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 04:43 PM

156. The OP does not say 'supporters' much less 'all of Obama's supporters'

 

The OP speaks of defenders who defend wrong headed policy along with good policy. Do you really not see that? The word used is 'defenders'. You chose to type 'supporters' as if it was the same word, then you "all of Obama's supporters are morally bankrupt and contemptible'. Which the OP most certainly did not say. The tactic you are employing is dishonest. Argue with the OP's words, not your impression of them, your rewording of them.
Read this thread. Not one of the offended readers has stepped up to say 'I am a defender who is offended'. Nope, each one says 'you call supporters names'. Why do you think that is? Why do each of the offended posts use words other than the OP's own as reason for their offense? How is it honest to claim he said 'all of Obama's supporters'? How is that anything but false witness against the OP? To claim he said what he did not say. Just not fair play at all. At all.
And tactics like that are exactly what the OP is addressing. It is not pleasant to see. It reflects poorly on the President and it is not support in any real political sense of the word. It is exploitation for one's personal emotional agenda.
Do these 'Supporters' you speak of get extra ballots, or just one like the rest of us who cast them for Democrats?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #156)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 05:27 PM

173. I am a defender who is offended. Yup - happy now? I figured it was pretty obvious.

Because Obama's supporters, who come to DU, also DEFEND him from the baseless, idiotic, right wing inspired, BULLSHIT attacks.

There is at least one OBAMA DEFENDER other than me, who has said in several places that he is offended. So you want to call ME dishonest??




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #173)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:47 AM

328. Have you ever criticized an action of Obama's

 

no matter how wrong it was?

Rick Warren? Restarting the military tribunals? Extension of the Bush tax cuts? Harassment of whistleblowers? Taking the Public Option off the table? His Justice Department comparing gay relationships to incest and pedophilia? Or the latest outrage with NDAA destroying the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth Amendments?

Those are actions of his that merit criticism. To not criticize them is, I agree, morally bankrupt. It's tantamount to rationalizing or justifying them. And that kind of mentality is what keeps our political system endlessly sliding further toward the right wing.

Criticizing the man's actions is not saying that we won't vote for him. He is better than the alternative, but for pity's sake some of us are sick of lesser-of-two-evils.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pab Sungenis (Reply #328)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:56 AM

372. Maybe people disagree with you on those actions?

You're assuming your condemnation applies. Take extension of the tax cuts - that had to be done because of the power of leverage of Congress.

People fail to criticize Congress' part in these things. If I saw as much criticism of the Congress or the people who voted the way they do, I'd sympathize.

Obama got all the flack on the PO when Lieberman should have gotten it all. If a poster criticized Obama many times without criticizing Lieberman, that shows me something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #156)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 05:38 PM

176. And speaking of 'dishonest tactic' - YOUR words -

I did not say "all of Obama's supporters". "How is it honest to claim I said 'all of Obama's supporters'? How is that anything but false witness against my post? To claim I said what I did not say. Just not fair play at all. At all. "

sniff. Think I'm gonna cry because you called me dishonest, and I value your opinion so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #176)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:48 AM

329. He didn't say all of Obama's supporters.

 

He said the President's "defenders," who offer excuses for the wrong things that he does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #117)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:48 PM

138. That's fine, and I have no trouble with criticism.

I do draw the line at name-calling of supporters of the President, though. That's why I wrote what I wrote in the post you're replying to.

Truly, the OP did lose me at that point. I was no longer interested in participating in the thread. It's a simple statement explaining my non-participation. I stand by it, and will not participate in the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #138)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 04:30 PM

154. Well then you misread the OP and also rewrite it.

 

The OP, and TR, address defenders, not supporters. Not one person on this thread has identified as an insulted defender, they all say 'you are mocking supporters' when that is not in fact said at all.
Fact is you can not disagree without rewording. That's the part you should examine. This OP is not addressed to supporters anymore than TR's words addressed all supporters of a President. It is the call for others to cease criticism, along with refusing to criticize wrongs that is at issue. Not support.
Fact is the OP's lexicon closely reflects TR's on the exact same issue. And thus, it can not be out of line at all. TR said 'morally treasonable'. The act of suppressing criticism of elected officials is morally treasonable. I agree with TR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:24 PM

96. What condescending crap. I hope you didn't devote a lot of time to it.

I am nothing like you describe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:46 PM

104. i hope you enjoy the next 5 years of the Obama presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #104)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:16 PM

119. Seems like Obama supporters only get to enjoy DU a few months

out of each Obama term. Wonder when election mode will kick in. But I guess it won't make any difference, really, since that only means the criticizers can't disparage the Pres. Looks like Obama supporters are fair game all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #119)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:17 PM

123. Yep. Welcome to the new DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #123)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:23 PM

124. The "community standards" appear to be that we're a lower caste.

The outcasts, the untouchables, inhuman in fact. Doesn't matter what is said to us and a out us. We seem to be worthless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #124)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:30 PM

127. wow, do you ever adress the issues, or is all about you you you?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #124)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:35 PM

132. lol

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #124)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:55 PM

144. lol...

 

Really?
I am so far left I can see the right...but I am not offended because I can also read. OP said 'defenders', not supporters.
Are you a blue link dropping defender? Or are you, like me, a supporter?
One is good, the other is bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i_sometimes (Reply #144)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 04:53 PM

162. So

"Are you a blue link dropping defender? Or are you, like me, a supporter?"

...that is what this is about? So the entire OP was written to condemm anyone who drops a "blue link"?

Wow!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #162)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 05:19 PM

171. Was this whole meant to attack you? So he thought he'd be BETTER off

by attacking the lot of us?

Well, it appears anyone can say anything to and about Obama supporters, one at a time or as a whole, as this thread demonstrates.

This is some kind of underground, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #162)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:11 PM

362. Dishonest at best.

 

I have no idea why the op was written.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i_sometimes (Reply #144)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:54 PM

223. Welcome to DU...

you're going to fit right in.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #223)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:22 PM

363. Yes, I will and thank you.

 

Though I was here till 08, having left during the primary wars. I saw a link at reddit so I came over to see if anything had changed.
Nope.
But DU is till the best Democratic website around even if posting here is hazardous.
Won't be around much but Hi back at ya!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #124)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 05:51 PM

181. Perhaps it is time for you to come to the realisation


that others on the left of the political specturm do not share your enthusiasm for Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #181)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:03 PM

185. I don't care I'd they do or don't.

What I object to is being called names. Perhaps you believe that's civil discourse. I don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #185)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:31 PM

202. I have already posted a response to you on this subject in "meta"


on one of the numerous subthreads therein that you are using to discuss your position on this OP. If you are, in fact, interested in my position on on this OP, please look here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124011396

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #124)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 10:07 PM

277. did it ever occur to you...that...it isn't about you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:34 PM

129. Wow, you are just begging for a thread titled ...

"Why the arguments of Obama's detractors leave many cold."

But at this point, it would be useless. No one will convince you that your position is wrong. And you're not convincing anyone that their position is wrong. You just wasted a whole lotta time creating that long post. Well, as they say, at least it keeps you off the streets.

And by the way, I do believe it probably violates the TOS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:34 PM

130. I think this raises a good point

 

That because the Obama loyalists are right about the bad and worse choices on the republican side, its not fair or ethical to use that as a sledgehammer to try and shout people down who take issue with many of Obama's policies.

If the Obama defenders would be more diplomatic about acknowledging Obama's failings, instead of responding to every substantive criticism with variants of - "Go vote for the Republican then!" or "Get the hell out of here and go to freeperville!" then the atmosphere would be a cleaner one and more conducive to real discussion here at DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #130)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:39 PM

134. And the haters don't threaten to not vote?

It goes both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to great white snark (Reply #134)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:43 PM

135. yes it does

 

never said it doesn't. Yup, some Obama "bashers" are over the top as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #135)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:49 PM

139. Well, I'm glad you were able to discern a point out of that.

'morally bankrupt and contemptible' kinda turned me off to any subsequent pearls of wisdom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:36 PM

133. You seem to think reminders that there are three branches of government

is the same thing as claiming the President is "powerless."

I doubt you will find a single DU'er who claims the President is powerless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #133)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:12 PM

191. Amen. There are people who need to take a civics class. Seriously. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:49 PM

140. 'Obama defenders' where the fuck am i?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:55 PM

143. Why do you think "the veto pen" gives the President much leverage at all? Why would Republicans care

if Obama vetoes a bill?

Let's say Obama were to say "I would veto a bill without a public option." Republicans would say "be my guest!"

Let's say Obama were to say "I would veto a bill that doesn't end private insurance." Republicans would say "please do so!"

Let's say Obama were to say "I will veto any increase in the debt limit that doesn't include a tax increase on the rich." Republicans would say "That's fine with us. You will get all the blame for the fallout, and your party will be discredited for a generation. Let us know when you completely change your mind, and have no more delusions that a tax increase is ever about to pass. Tick tock."

Why do you think the veto pen really matters all that much? It certainly matters for blocking proposals of a unified Congress of an opposing party. No question there. But there hasn't been a unified Congress of an opposing party. The Senate wouldn't even take up for debate a bill that Obama would veto. The veto pen doesn't really provide much additional leverage at all in any negotiation that has mattered thus far.

In reality, the power of the Presidency is a necessary but not sufficient condition for getting a bill passed. That is precisely why he is (correctly) not getting blamed for the inaction of Congress, but is getting praised for signing accomplishments into law. That's what "necessary but not sufficient" means. When a bill passes, his support was necessary for the law to pass. Yet it isn't sufficient -- that's why he shouldn't necessarily be blamed when a bill fails (for reasons other than his not supporting it).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BzaDem (Reply #143)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 04:44 PM

157. Imagine the mess the country would be in had the POTUS done

what these posters are demanding. No health plan. Default on the debt. No stimulus (it was not big enough).

Tax cuts would not have been extended for anyone. Unemployment run out.

Guess who they'd be blaming?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpgray (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:57 PM

145. If a person WANTS to be offended, they will be.

The people complaining about being called