the pearl clutching going on over someone directing "fuck you" at President Obama

[cali]

is, well, ridiculous. He's a politician, not some deity. It's not terribly rare that DUers direct that phrase to other elected democrats, and yet that hardly results in the outrage currently on display. And the circumstance in which that utterance was issued make it at least somewhat understandable.

Yes, he's the President, but the anger and outrage clearly have nothing to do with the old saw about respecting the office. This reaction has much more to do with those who are so devoted to the President that their sensibilities are offended by the anger toward him.

He's a politician. People get angry at politicians. They say things in the heat of the moment.

[JoePhilly]

1. Welcome to hair on fire Underground.

[ProSense]

2. Criticism for: "Fuck you, Mr. President, you piece of shit used-car salesman. "

is not fucking "pearl clutching."

"He's...not some deity."

Neither is the poster who made that comment. The attack was misguided, and judging from the followup, intentional.

The criticism is justified.

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. Bullshit. "The attack was misguided..." Put yourself in the shoes of someone whose OTHER HALF is

suffering from a terrible disease and have some damn empathy, rather than rushing to President Obama's rescue like some damn Lone Ranger.

So, in your book lashing out in despair and frustration is okay, as long as one doesn't disparage Barack Obama? That about right?

It wasn't a fucking attack on President Obama. Learn some context and practice some empathy and you might be able to see that.

[ProSense]

12. "Bullshit" back at you. It was misguided, and

"Put yourself in the shoes of someone whose OTHER HALF is suffering from a terrible disease and have some damn empathy, rather than rushing to President Obama's rescue like some damn Lone Ranger."

...instead of listening and understanding, the poster simply doubled down to justify an uninformed and vile attack on the President.

Let's say someone truly doesn't know that the President has nothing to do with formularies. After learning the facts, that person would remove the vile attack. That was not the case. The attacks continued, and were clearly personal and intentional as the followup threads prove.

Drug formularies are not the President's decision. They existed before the ACA. They exist in Medicare Part D.

The one thing the ACA did do is introduce a new rule applicable to appeals.

Appealing Health Plan Decisions

The Affordable Care Act ensures your right to appeal health insurance plan decisions--to ask that your plan reconsider its decision to deny payment for a service or treatment. New rules that apply to health plans created after March 23, 2010 spell out how your plan must handle your appeal (usually called an “internal appeal”). If your plan still denies payment after considering your appeal, the law permits you to have an independent review organization decide whether to uphold or overturn the plan’s decision. This final check is often referred to as an “external review.”

http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/appeal/appealing-health-plan-decisions.html

[fleabiscuit]

17. So what's your beef?

You're not making sense in the context of what happened. Again.

[ProSense]

18. Spare me the nonsense. n/t

[fleabiscuit]

64. You're mistaken where the nonsense is.

Individuals may take a moral stand, the STATE does not represent morality, only power. POTUS represents the STATE.

The nonsense is trying to extract some kind of political blood from an emotionally charged post. You're trying to take some kind of moral high ground at a lash out that mentioned POTUS. Learn to recognize the difference. There's plenty of crazy to go around, no sense in whipping up more.

[ProSense]

67. More nonsense. n/t

[brush]

169. I agree, more nonsense. nt

[sheshe2]

184. You know that after a few posts?

Let me guess a long time reader.

[Cha]

117. What's your "beef"? You're not making any sense.

[fleabiscuit]

171. There's plenty of that going around. ~eom

[Cha]

177. I can see that.

[sheshe2]

185. Ooops~

They just went bye bye!

[Cha]

199. Wow.. musta been a Malicious Intruder.

[In_The_Wind]

392. It's called a Z_O_M_B_I_E ...

from a site that shall not be mentioned [img][/img]

[hootinholler]

428. I think that one was a sock

Since it attacked ProSense.

[In_The_Wind]

493. But, was it a sock of a PPRed DUer ?

[sheshe2]

217. Where's the beef?

It's gone Cha~

[Cha]

219. ..

beef bit the dust.. we hardly knew ya, flea.

[sheshe2]

237. They are flea to be me~

They are flea as a bird. Fly away home.

[fleabiscuit]

261. Bummer, I missed it.

I've been told it's the 'biscuit that scares people.

[AnalystInParadise]

515. That's a daily occurrence

for Nonsense.....

[cherokeeprogressive]

27. I'm talking about how a person feels when their OTHER HALF is suffering from a terrible disease and

you're talking about an "uninformed and vile attack on the President."

Take the blinders off there... Lone Ranger.

People of devout faith have been known to blaspheme against and curse whatever God they believe in in situations like this... and all YOU can see is an attack on our beloved president.

Empathy. Buy some.

[ProSense]

35. No

"I'm talking about how a person feels when their OTHER HALF is suffering from a terrible disease and you're talking about an 'uninformed and vile attack on the President.'"

...you're trying to justify why someone decided to direct a vile comment toward the President, and then refuse to acknowledge it was worng even after being informed.

"Empathy. Buy some."

Spare me the lame attempt at guilt.

[cherokeeprogressive]

44. You can't even THINK about posting without including "a vile comment toward the President".

What does that say about you? That you can absolutely totally completely ignore any and all context, empathize with someone suffering at the thought of losing THEIR OTHER FUCKING HALF, and focus only on "a vile comment toward the President".

Would it KILL you to even entertain the notion that his words were borne of despair and frustration and concede that maybe he was angry and hurting? Or is it simply the Lone Ranger in you that must, in any and all circumstances, ride to the rescue of President Obama?

[ProSense]

50. It was vile and misguided. Period. n/t

[brush]

175. Seems like you're not getting it

He was proven wrong and still doubled down on his attack with another post.

My prayers go out to his wife, but for him to come back with another post after it was explained to him by many, many people last night why his attack was unwarranted and extreme seems to show he meant to insult.

[Aerows]

289. To be honest, you don't get it

When you defend an inhumane system because you like a particular politician, I think you have an issue.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think even President Obama would like the pressure of being the arbiter of the US health care system. It is such a mess God probably couldn't sort it out. What I do know is that it is killing people.

Tell me how much compassion I lack, and how on the wrong side of the argument I am.

[brush]

352. So what do you want?

The old system? Talk about something screwed up.

The ACA did not create the formularies that insurance companies have used for forever (and denied Pitt's wife the med she needed with them), but it does have built into it an appeals process to get around denied coverage — something that didn't exist before.

So you see, the ACA is an improvement. No one says it's perfect but it has helped 5 million people get health insurance.

Pitt was wrong and over-the-top with his misdirected hater rant, and he even doubled down on it today even though many DUers told him how to go around the insurance companies.

My prayers to his wife but no way should he make those kind of hateful insults, be proven wrong, get the help he needed, then still not be man enough to make an apology.

[A Simple Game]

438. So the formularies have always been a problem? Obviously you are right.

Then why didn't they get fixed when the ACA was crafted? And don't tell me about the appeals process. If they knew of the need for and had time to craft an appeals process then why didn't they fix the problem correctly? I really would like an answer to this question.

Yes overall the ACA is an improvement, but with just a little effort could have been so much better.

The frustration one feels when they pay for and then don't receive correct medical care does not go away very quickly, I hope you never find out first hand.

[brush]

464. It barely got passed

No repug votes and just enough blue dog dem (repug lite) votes.

With that in the bill the blue dogs would have backed out (ordered to by their big insurance clients) and the bill would not have passed.

It's politics, we have to deal with that reality and try to work around that now and try to improve and fix the gaps now that the ACA is law.

And it won't be easy with all the bought-and-paid-for pols in the repug party and their blue dog allies.

[A Simple Game]

510. It seems the formularies could easily have just been reconfigured. It's done all the time for

all kinds of insurance including life, auto, etc.

It would have necessitated a slight increase in the cost of a policy, something that happened anyway.

But now that we know there is a problem, who's working to fix it?

[questionseverything]

486. bingo

we should look at this entire episode as a learning experience...... a problem has been identified, we should be coming together to look for solutions

not pretending the problem is not there

potus asked us to "hold him to the fire", to me this implied he needs a huge public outcry to gain belt way support for change

[A Simple Game]

511. I agree 100%. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

61. How about how the 5 million people who just got Healthcare...some maybe right here on this blog

who appreciate what President Obama has done for THEM! It was insulting to THEM particularly since the "beef" was with the insurance company NOT with the ACA OR the President...

THAT is why...

[cherokeeprogressive]

62. If you get offended by statements that neither mention you, nor your name, that's YOUR problem. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. People WHO just got healthcare would think rather highly of the man that did it for them...

seeing him disparaged that way for BULLSHIT on a website that calls itself DEMOCRATIC....might be offended...AND I might be one of those that just got healthcare...How would YOU know how that feel about this President? My grandparents were self proclaimed "FDR Democrats" they respected that President immensely....should they not be offended if someone called FDR a "piece of shit car salesman" by a person who CLAIMS to be a fellow Democrat? I think they would tell YOU you are wrong....just as he is WRONG for not admitting it. In fact...he is being hypocritical for not doing it BECAUSE he and his wife are now both benefiting FROM what that "piece of shit used cars salesman" did for he and his wife! How is that "used car now?" At least he is not having to shell out for COBRA now! Damn he should give the man a freaking break for once. But of course he cannot because that would make him look bad among his followers on DU now wouldn't it?

[Liberal Veteran]

81. Would you be saying the same if Sarah Palin said it?

Would you be saying "Well, she was just upset and was lashing out at the president because she was hurting? It doesn't concern us."

Or would you be saying, "She was misguided and out of line."?

[cherokeeprogressive]

84. Yeah, I don't have time for imagination games, and don't give a shit about what people like her say

about the President or anyone else.

William Pitt isn't Sarah Palin, in case you haven't noticed.

[Liberal Veteran]

102. A simple yes or no would suffice.

The question was designed to make you think about it in the abstract.

And you are correct. Will isn't Sarah Palin. We expect epithets from her, not from our erstwhile allies.

We are also more likely to say "I understand you were upset and angry." when someone on our side has the character to say "Sorry, I was wrong."

Especially if that someone has an otherwise excellent reputation within our little family.

[Cha]

157. Thank you, Liberal Veteran.. an apology when one is wrong is the principled thing

to do. Sarah and her ilk never apologize.

[VanillaRhapsody]

142. So Will Pitt gets a pass in your book?

Even though he claims to be a Democrat AND has a history of hatred of this President? That is the M.O. of this clique.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

173. I don't take it personally, whether from Palin or Pitt.

Jaysuz, people, get a grip.

[Liberal Veteran]

189. When someone I respect lashes out in error out against someone I respect, I do take it personally.

It lowers my opinion of the person I respect for being misguided and I tend to defend people I respect when I see them unfairly insulted.

[AnalystInParadise]

516. Being in the military

after every change of command must have difficult for you. OR you are just being obtuse on this issue. One or the other.

[fleabiscuit]

281. Sara represents the STATE.

Feel free to pelt all the rocks necessary to satisfy your need.

Sara, "...Well, if you told me you were drowning
I would not lend a hand..."

[Liberal Veteran]

288. Sarah represents herself. She holds no public office.

She has many admirers (which is about as much praise as saying Justin Beiber has admirers), but for the nonce, she is basically a high profile private citizen. I could have easily said Ted Nugent or Ann Coulter.

[fleabiscuit]

454. Ted Nugent or Ann Coulter also represent the STATE.

As do 99 percent of the paid rotating talking heads you see on "news" that recycle the talking points. Trying to argue otherwise is disingenuous.

[phleshdef]

129. Obviously, this discussion offends you, though it didn't mention you or your name.

[zeemike]

138. No they got health insurance not health care.

Whether they get health care depends on the insurance company and if they can afford the deductible.

[VanillaRhapsody]

143. So what? Its MUCH better than what he had before "COBRA".

but of course he cannot admit he was wrong because the clique that are here defending him on this very thread would lose respect for him!

[zeemike]

207. Well so you know, I don't always agree with WP.

But I defend his right to express his anger...and had it been someone I loved I might have said worse than that.

But bottom line is that it is not health care....that only comes at the pleasure of the insurance company and if you have the money...and pay what ever premiums will get the CEO a 50 million dollar pay check.

[VanillaRhapsody]

469. So if Rand Paul came here and said "Fuck YOU" and called him a "piece of shit car salesman"

that would be fine with you too....good to know how low you set your bar...

That allows every Republican to come here and vent their anger about the ACA! Because misguided anger at the President is now allowed apparently!

[zeemike]

477. That is a straw man argument and you know it.

Does Ron Paul have an account at DU...if so identify him for us.

But if Republicans come here (and I am sure they do)...they will come here as shills not trolls...and a good shill is one who adopts all the characteristics of a progressive...and usually they will be the most radical liberal on the board...because their purpose is to set us against each other and to control what can be said...not to spew RW propaganda, which would immediately blow their cover...

And should we be so foolish as to ban anger at the democrats for what they do or fail to do, it would play right into the hands of the right wing, making their criticism of us as control freaks a reallity...and turn this place into a joke of a discussion board...IMO

[VanillaRhapsody]

478. How is that strawman...if it is a FACT that if a Republican came here and said those exact words

(and it was a direct quote)...they would be banned and YOU know that...


It is my opinion he retracts or should be banned just like Rand Paul would be!

[zeemike]

485. Because the argument is NOT about a Republican coming here.

And the Rand Paul is the straw man.

A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man&quot and then to refute or defeat that false argument, ("knock down a straw man,&quot instead of the original proposition.[3][4]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.


The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
1.Person 1 has position X.
2.Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including: 1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
2.Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
3.Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
4.Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5.Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

3.Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position. The ostensible argument that Person 2 makes has the form:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[VanillaRhapsody]

508. So you say Will Pitt gets a pass because his has always been so supportive of the ACA and

President Obama up until now?

[zeemike]

512. Gets a pass on what?

On expressing his anger on DU?...Yes....just as anyone including you gets a pass from me on expressing their anger.
I don't tell anyone to STFU...because I am not that thin skinned and Obama is not my boyfriend that needs protecting from those mean old words...and I don't feel the need to control what others say, feel, and think.

[VanillaRhapsody]

513. He said and I quote..."FUCK YOU President Obama" "you piece of shit car salesman"

and ANY new member comes to DU and says that would be banned lickety split and YOU know it.

And STOP insulting everyone that supports the twice elected by a majority of Americans by calling them his "boyfriend". THAT is telling them to STFU....so even saying THAT just now proves exactly my point! Your clique should be ashamed of themselves for supporting this...Many people on this board worked their asses off to get Will Pitt and his wife that new insurance (instead of COBRA) that he will enjoy and what he said is a slap in the face to those that did that work!

Again I iterate...if anyone new came here and said it....they would be banned. PERIOD and you know that is true...

That DU'er comes here day after day doing NOTHING else but trashing this President and then he says that...and AFTER he discovered he was wrong....and IS still accepting his Obamacares.....he fails to retract what he said.......He should be banned...forever.

[zeemike]

514. I know what he said...I read the post.

And spare me your outrage...I have a right to my opinion just as you do...and unlike you I think I should be able to express it openly.
And IMO it is your clique that is calling the rest of us a clique because we call you on it.

But I think the greater danger to this party is from those who try to control what people say on a message board...And If I were a Republican shill I would have your POV about things people say, finding as many offensive things as possible to be outraged about... and it would work too, because you will hate me now and that is the whole purpose of trolling is to turn you against me and me against you...divide and conquer is always the objective.
And it may have worked for you but not for me...because your words do not make me hate you.

That is my opinion for what it is worth.

[VanillaRhapsody]

522. WHAT????

Word salad....

So to you...its those that support the TWICE elected by a majority of Americans Democratic President and his SIGNATURE Legislation which is helping MILLIONS of people....no preexisting conditions....no lifetime caps...no charging women twice as much....just to name a few....

to you THOSE are the people that are the problem????

[Voice for Peace]

68. it's about teamwork -- good vs bad, effective vs not.

Are we here on the same team?

If so, then what?

The rules of good teamwork are nearly universal,
no matter what sort of team it is. Sports, families,
business, all of them.

We are trying to have his back.

Some of us are. It is not blind adoration, but
there is at least a measure of trust in the man, his
intentions and his intelligence. It's of no value to
knock him down, or blame him and/or everybody
who respects his efforts.

There is plenty of empathy and compassion for
Will and his wife. There are many here on DU
who are suffering in so many ways. Some are
poor, some are dying, some are addicts or
lonely or crippled or old as hell, and cancer
patients, some can't afford cat food, or rent.

[zeemike]

121. So he has nothing to do with it when it is bad

And everything to do with it when it is good?

[mythology]

179. Given that it seems like the ACA had nothing to do with the problem

yeah, it's kind of unfair to blame Obama for the problem. If as Pitt claimed all of the plans he had access to were grandfathered in to pre-ACA rules, then the problem isn't with the ACA.

[VanillaRhapsody]

480. So far every single time someone has claimed harm from it...has been found to be false...

Ask the Koch bros....they have been searching and searching for that! It was an outright audition for one of their epic fail commercials...and ended exactly the same as each one of those did!

[NorthCarolina]

425. Are you Obama? If not, then get over yourself. nt.

[Egnever]

13. See that's the problem

When I put myself in his position. I don't find myself purchasing a plan that doesnt cover the most important med my wife takes...

Maybe you do.

[daleanime]

19. please tell me your joking...

[Egnever]

25. You think that's funny?

Anyone with a chronic condition for any length of time should be well aware of how insurance companies work.

[daleanime]

38. No, I find it offense...

usually only find that level of heartlessness in republicans and insurance CEOs.

[Egnever]

75. Clutch them pearls baby!

[fleabiscuit]

298. It was, quite so. ~eom

[VanillaRhapsody]

65. Do you think that doesn't happen in Canada or Great Brittain or all that other countries with

Socialized medicine cover ALL drugs? If you do...then you are just as misguided as he is..

[Egnever]

87. You directing that at me?

Cause I am under no illusions that single payer means you get anything you want.

As someone with chronic conditions in my family I have run into denials plenty of times. It didnt take me very long to figure out you need to pay close attention to what is and isn't covered when you purchase insurance.

I have done my own rounds with insurance.

Formularys are not a new thing just like doctors accepting or not accepting a particular insurance is not new.

If you have a chronic condition and you do not ensure the things you want/need are covered by the plan you are going to purchase then i have a hard time seeing you as a victim. Maybe in the first year after you are diagnosed but after that you are sure to have bumped into some denial somewhere that makes you well aware of these things.

[VanillaRhapsody]

89. Oh here comes the backpedal!

[Egnever]

94. ??? I think you are confusing me with someone else

That or I am totally missing your point.

[VanillaRhapsody]

101. did you or did you not say you would not buy the insurance at all if you couldn't get that one

particular drug for your wife? I responded that NO Healthcare system guarantees that you will get ANY drug. NONE....you are now hedging on that statement. Because its a ridiculous thing to say.

[Egnever]

108. WTF?

you are confused.

Formularys arent mysterious, you can check them before you purchase a plan and not all plans have the same formularys.

You act as if all insurance plans have the same formularys.

What i am saying is if my family depends on a certain drug I make damn sure the plan I am purchasing covers it or I look for another plan that does.

I dont know what you are going on about. I never suggested going without because they didnt cover a specific drug.

[VanillaRhapsody]

110. YOU said it I didnt....I understand Formularies....

You apparently don't seem to.

[Egnever]

124. Good lord you are wacky

I see I have to explain it to you cause you are off on some tangent you made up in your head.

cherokee progressive said...

"Put yourself in the shoes of someone whose OTHER HALF is

suffering from a terrible disease and have some damn empathy"


My answer was in those shoes i check to make sure the meds I want are in the formulary before i purchase it ...Dont know how you turned that around into whatever wackiness you are going on about.

my exact post was

When I put myself in his position. I don't find myself purchasing a plan that doesnt cover the most important med my wife takes...

Maybe you do.

then someone before you who clearly understood what i said called me a heartless bastard or some such nonsense. They clearly got what I was saying, you ...not so much.

[VanillaRhapsody]

130. but I am not wacky enough to say I wouldn't buy insurance at all if I couldnt get one drug!

some people are THAT wacky!

[Egnever]

134. no one said that but you..

[WorseBeforeBetter]

309. Best line in the entire thread. (n/t)

[VanillaRhapsody]

457. You didn't qualify it from the start.....

You just said you supported his stance to not buy Healthcare at all...why didn't you edit that response OR delete it...Apparently as you just said I wasn't the only person to misunderstand you then...Note it wasn't me that called you a heartless bastard...

[SidDithers]

455. Canada doesn't cover generally cover drugs...

If my wife had MS, and we didn't have extended health benefits from one of our employers (extended benefits are employer paid plans, which cover things like drugs, dental, vision etc), we'd be out of pocket for prescription medications.

There are government programs for large out-of-pocket drug costs - in Ontario it's the Trillium Foundation - but we would still have to pay a portion of the drug cost ourselves.

Once citizens of Canada hit age 65, then they go onto the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan for Seniors, and have their medications paid for.

There are also disability benefits in Ontario (the Ontario Disability Support Plan formulary is here: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/drugs/odbf_mn.aspx).

But working families, as a matter of course, do not have drug coverge. For years, we paid for our own birth control, blood pressure pills, antibiotics, thyroid medication etc.

Sid

[TheKentuckian]

519. Thankfully we subsidize your cost

[VanillaRhapsody]

85. so you do without healthcare at all?

That makes perfect sense....

Do you believe every drug is covered in every other country?

[Egnever]

92. No I do research

and find a plan that covers my needs or those of my family members. Will had options he just didn't bother exploring them or didn't like them.

This is not buying a freaking loaf of bread this is your health.

[VanillaRhapsody]

105. then what the hell was the rant about and why are you defending it?

if there WERE such a plan available....then what is the problem"? AND since it turns out he was WRONG about his position....he should post a retraction on his "Fuck You" and "piece of shit car salesman" statement....

But of course he can't because the clique would be mortified!

[Egnever]

111. You need to start over

you totally misread my post.

[VanillaRhapsody]

115. No I don't I understood it perfectly and You are still defending that misguided

and misinformed despicable rant....despicable BECAUSE he and his wife are BOTH benefiting from Pres. Obama's signature legislation....talk about ungrateful. But he cannot post a retraction BECAUSE the clique would not respect him! So the fact that he hasn't posted a retraction PROVES he would rather have a few DU'er's that hate the President respect him...then to have any self-respect at all!

[Egnever]

131. Holy shit take a breathe

then go to the rant itself and look for my post there and come back and tell me how you are making shit up in your head.



You are raging at someone who agrees with you lol.

[VanillaRhapsody]

139. Oh yes I know this tactic...Page 7 in the handbook isn't it?

when backed into a corner....stop arguing...accuse the enemy of being crazy....then suggest they need a rest....

Yes its so predictable....is the clique going to put out any new material soon?

[Egnever]

144. lol

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024685964#post9

There I made it easy for you.

Come back after looking and tell me how I am excusing that rant.

[VanillaRhapsody]

145. did you not excuse it? Did you not say you would do the same thing...

are you going to declare you renouncement of it or not?

[Egnever]

149. Never

did you even bother looking?

You are tilting at windmills there.

Once again you are raging at someone who agrees with you the post was bullshit.

[VanillaRhapsody]

154. then I rest my case.....

You cannot ever ever disappoint the clique!

[Egnever]

161. lol

did you have a case?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

192. Actually, for this I blame William Pitt and his fellow travelers

Democrats who come to this forum are so used to seeing insults at lies spat at the President and other Democratic elected officials, the knee-jerk reaction now is to just go in guns-a-blazing.

I was on this forum practically since day one. It was a curiosity back then. And yes, there were family fights. But I remember that Skinner held out the D.U. as a place where Democrats could relax from the relentless lies being promulgated nearly everywhere else.

It's rather sad to now see it largely as a platform to be used by Naderite/Green trolls to scream epithets at us, and waste our time going out to research every one of their exaggerations, lies, twisting of facts, etc. trying to shit all over the Democratic party.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

/ Actually, William Pitt is *better* than most of his fellow DU travelers.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

291. Wrong. We're trying to SAVE the Democratic Party.

And middle-of-the-road Circle D bullshit *ain't* gonna do it. Just look at state houses and executive mansions all over the country -- Republicans control a disturbing number. Independent voter registration is surpassing partisan affiliation. After 8 years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney fucking over the country, this SHOULD NOT BE.

[DebJ]

381. I agree. Member since 2003. More issues discussions as I recall and less

temper tantrums, unless the tantrum was directed at *.

[Rex]

417. ...

Egnever (13,434 posts)
9. You didnt check to see if an ongoing medication was covered before you signed up? Seems pretty foolish.

"Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all." John W. Gardner

WOW, it is as if the poster DID NOT go and read your post! Unless calling Will foolish is agreeing with him in some roundabout way.

[sabrina 1]

521. Pssst, egnever is on YOUR side!

Maybe this will help, s/he disagrees with ME! Now do you understand?

This is the funniest subthread I've ever read.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

263. I don't think I'm in agreement with you on this topic, but...

I see you're making the baffling and confounding acquaintance of Vanilla Rhapsody, and I feel for you. She actually agrees with you but has no comprehension of this fact. She carries a head full of rage, strong opinions, and few facts. Once she gets started in a direction, there's no going back--reverse engineering will be conducted as necessary to keep a flawed point going. She's hopelessly incapable of admitting she may have misread something, even though we all misread things now and then. It never ends well because it never ends until you just decide to let it go when you realize that you may as well be talking to a stump. And yeah, this post may get locked, but in no way does that mean there won't be 58 DUers nodding their heads in complete recognition and understanding when they read this. I hope they're the ones on my jury.

[Egnever]

265. I got to see it

if it does get deleted

[fleabiscuit]

304. IMHO, a righteous person would self delete it. ~eom

[Bobbie Jo]

147. I think so too....

VR....go back, read, and ease up a bit.

Egnever, you make some good points.

[Egnever]

170. Thanks

[brush]

187. He's not defending it

Vanilla, I'm with you on just about all of your posts but pls go back and read your exchange with him.

He's making good sense.

[questionseverything]

495. with specialtiy drugs, you really can not be assured they are covered before you buy

since they are covered on an individual basis after ins plan purchase.....if you meet the criteria


////////////////////////////////////////////


http://www.bcbsil.com/PDF/rx/rx_list_std_il.pdf

Specialty drugs
Specialty drugs are used in the treatment of medical conditions such as hepatitis, hemophilia, multiple sclerosis
and rheumatoid arthritis. Specialty drugs may be oral, topical or injectable medications that can either be
self-administered or administered by a health care professional. For a current list of specialty medications,
visit myprime.com or bcbsil.com and log in to Blue Access for Members.
Note that some drug classes may be excluded by some plans and therefore may not be covered under your
pharmacy benefit. Your plan may have a different coverage level for self-administered specialty drugs. If you
have questions about your coverage for specialty medications or your prescription drug benefit, call the
number on the back of your ID card.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

how do I look it up before I buy?

I have to be a member before I can see the list

cimzia is what I am looking for

/////////////////////////////////////////////

cimzia is about 1600 bucks a month retail so the 700/month cap would screw us over too


Add to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to questionseverything (Reply #280)

Tue Mar 18, 2014, 10:29 PM

Star Member Nye Bevan (14,819 posts)

344. Yeah, they are (deliberately, I think) vague about coverage prior to you taking out the policy.





Which sucks and is frustrating. I looked up cimzia on my plan and all it told me was that pre-approval was required (it would not even give a price). For this drug, however, the manufacturer's website seems quite helpful (go to http://www.cimzia.com/cimplicity/patients.aspx). They have a copay savings program where they help you verify insurance coverage and you get a savings card which (they claim) resulted in no out-of-pocket costs for 97% of the participants in 2013. It sounds like what they do is help walk you through the approval process to help you get the drug approved and then absorb any deductible or copay themselves, just accepting whatever the insurance company pays them, with you getting the drug for no out-of-pocket cost. You should definitely look into this; I have used a similar manufacturer's program with another drug and the savings can be enormous. Good luck!
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

we need to look at this as a teaching moment, a problem has been identified...we need to work together to fix it instead of placing blame on consumers

[Egnever]

497. Sure you can

The formularies are available and if your drug isnt listed in the formulary you can be fairly certain they aren't covered. There are formularies for every single health plan on the planet including single payer plans.

This is not new stuff. I think educating consumers to this is important but any one with a chronic injury for more than a year has almost certainly run into some sort of denial. There is no excuse for someone with a chronic illness not being aware of these things and ensuring when they make their health care decision they take the time to see if what they want/need is covered or to look for another plan.

We arent talking about buying a bag of popcorn here we are talking about a decision that will affect your life. millions of seniors every year go through different medicare plans to find the one that covers the drugs they take.

This is not a new situation for Will they have been dealing with this for years now.

It sucks that he didnt bother to take the time to find out if the most important drug his wife takes is covered by the plan he purchased but that isnt Obamas fault. If he was a totally healthy person just diagnosed with a chronic condition I might understand the ignorance of how insurance works. But his wife has had this condition for years now he should be well aware of how insurance works by now.

No plan covers everything not even single payer plans. If you need a certain drug you should make damn sure the plan you are buying covers it or find another plan. Wailing at Obama was totally misplaced. Formularies are not new and they are not going away.

[questionseverything]

500. i posted a formulary

specialty drugs are in there own category and always need individual approval, after you buy


from reading what will said, wife's drug was first thing they asked about and were verbally assured it was a simple process to be approved......turns out the insurance company was not quite honest about that (imagine that)

your blame the consumer attitude is misplaced

[Sarah Ibarruri]

42. Honestly? They should've directed the attack where it belonged - at the right wingers who are the

cause of our country being so fucked up and who are STILL hijacking it.

[Rex]

446. 50 fucking votes to repeal the ACA! Repukes are THE source of all our problems.

Third Way types don't help - but to assume the GOP is not working hard at denying benefits to the working class, is someone that doesn't pay any attention!

It is a MUST that we get back the House in 2014...and absolute MUST! I'll be driving people to the polls, as I always do.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

450. Yup. That's why I don't want to hear the BS of attacking our president, when he is not the

source of all the damage we've suffered for decades.

That would be like a surgeon, rather than removing a cancerous tumor, removing a nearby organ because, well, it's there and easily removed.

SOME have lost sight of who started this, and who is continuing it - the repukes.

[Rex]

451. It was very out of line and uncalled for I agree.

I like this POTUS, I might have been very mad at him after the way he handled BP in his first term...I've even said at times he is an empty suit (and I was wrong) he has separated work from insurance (brilliant) and it eliminates the bosses ability to lord health insurance over their employees! It was a great progressive move to help the working class! It is THE reason the GOP tries to repeal it IMO. You know how their record is with the working class, the GOP can barely contain their hatred for those that are not rich or well off in some way.

We do need to focus on the people that hurt us daily - the GOP, NOT the POTUS. If we want to blame a branch for wrongdoing, CONGRESS is the one to focus on! Congress has failed us miserably year after year. The Tea Party Clowns have caused more damage then we can ever imagine. They want to DESTROY government!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

468. I, too, want a sudden change from all this crap that has been going on so long. But the thing is,

how does one change everything? I believe that one changes everything by changing what is causing the wrongs: the right wing ideology that swept this country, and the neo-con elections in office.

To expect 1 president to behave as if he were all-powerful, when all around the right wing ideology is still very much there, and the neo-cons are still stopping any chances of reversing damage, is lunacy.

It's like being a battle, and instead of shooting at the other side, you shoot your own because you think he's just not great at doing battle.

[lumpy]

66. Misguided my ass. I would think he would apologize to all of us who respect Obama if he truly

didn't mean what he said. By trying to blame Obama for his misfortune indicates he has no respect and more than a helluva lot of dislike for the President.

[VanillaRhapsody]

88. and how about the fact that WE worked with the President to get he and his wife that

nice healthcare they both are not going to benefit from....how about some thanks to those of us who stood by President Obama to get it done! We deserve some respect yet all we expect is an apology for saying that....

[phleshdef]

127. No, it was definitely misguided because it wasn't Obama's fault and the problem DID get solved.

So obviously, if you are all "fuck you" to someone over something they didn't do and something that actually was fixable, then yea, misguided is a nice way to put it.

[Rincewind]

136. Why didn't he cuss out the insurance company?

Why blame the President for a decision the insurance company made? For that matter, why didn't he check to see if the insurance would cover the medicine he wife was taking before he signed up? Can he appeal the insurance company's decision? Can he drop that company and sign up for one that will cover the medicine? Can he actually do anything to try to improve his situation, or is he just going to cuss at the leader of our country? He is understandably upset, but cussing at the President isn't going to help, at the least, they should ask their doctors if any other treatment, that the insurance will cover, could help.

[brush]

165. Disparage the right target, dammit, the insurance company

My prayers go out to his wife and I hope she gets the medication at an affordable price, but the attack on President Obama was so unwarranted and over-the-top in it's hatred that it's inexcusable — especially coming from a writer who should be able to express himself without going into the gutter for disgusting insults.

And it's not the first time Pitt has attacked the President unjustly. He did a similar wrongly-targeted attack on the President after the State of the Union address.

[sheshe2]

182. Is he the only person on DU that has a person suffering in their life?

Not just a spouse. A child, a father, mother, sister or any significant member in their life.

Yes cherokee, do put yourself in another's shoes. Is Pitt the only one on DU that suffers? Out of all the members, how many others have you seen make this same rant? Ten,Twenty maybe a Hundred. Nope just Pitt.

You all want to trash and take away a health care law that has saved lives and one that gives people some freedom of mind? Really? Because Pitt said so.

And before you respond, yes you are trying to take it away. Your negativity towards this bill falls into the GOP's hands and they will use it. Before the law is even fully working you lambast it. I believe that the smartest thing to do would be working together to correct those flaws. Then move on to single payer.

But hey, that's just me.

[treestar]

311. Oh so you get to use your OTHER HALF (lol) as an excuse to be illogical?

Gee I'm not married but do I have any relatives I can use as an excuse to be absurd?

So you get to blame anybody and call them a piece of shit so long as you can pretend they did something to you OTHER HALF?

How insane to blame the President of the United States for the bad things that happen to your OTHER HALF. I wish I had one so I could have a scapegoat of any famous person.

[pnwmom]

348. Of course it was an attack on President Obama.

I do have enormous empathy for Will's situation and I understand why he was on fire that night-- and I didn't criticize him for his emotional response.

But I did try, and I am continuing to try, to set the record straight about some of the false things he repeated in that first thread. His "friend" the agent told him it would be a waste of time to check the formularies of the other 9 insurers, that his wife would be rejected by them for having a preexisting condition. That was terrible advice.

Because Will's post was getting so many recs, there was a real danger that it could discourage other people who were on the fence from trying to get insurance. And I hated to see that happen.

[theboss]

441. I like this idea that all of us who criticized Will have perfect health and healthy relatives

My mother survived breast cancer. My mother in law died of breast cancer. My adopted daugther has been in a psychiatric hospital twice in the two years since we adopted her.

And Will was out of control.

[Logical]

48. Any criticism of Obama is unfair and an attack according to you. n-t

[lumpy]

80. Criticism is one thing, slinging hate is another.

[JoeyT]

174. It wasn't the critics that blurred that line.

It was the people that insisted any criticism, no matter what it was over or how mild it was of being hate that did it. It didn't take them long to do it, either. I remember "hater" and "racist" being hurled at people that were upset over Rick Warren. So before his first term even actually started, the line was being blurred.

When people run around screaming the village is aflame every time someone strikes a match, eventually not even a smouldering house is going to catch anyone's attention. They've become the BOG who cried hate.

[LuvNewcastle]

430. Very true.

[stg81]

483. +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[treestar]

316. Ironically most of the criticism on this board is illogical, stupid and unfair

including that attack. some people seem to think that getting elected President, even one you supposedly support, makes you a scapegoat. Which was what that was exactly. Immature scapegoating.

[sabrina 1]

343. I think that having a wife with MS who is being refused life saving meds, sort of takes precedence

over ANYTHING else. I would think most people understand that. Apparently they do.

Politicians have pretty thick skins, I would worry more about someone with MS without meds, than the possible hurt feelings of any politician.

[Egnever]

498. His wife was not being refused life saving meds

She was being denied her med of choice. there were other options that were covered. There's a difference.

[AnalystInParadise]

517. Ahhhh

So in this case a woman being told what she has to do with her body is totally cool......Thanks for clearing that up.

[1monster]

443. If Obama couldn't handle the criticism, then he shouldn't have ever entered politics.

I've never had any passionate feelings toward Barak Obama one way or another. He is a politician. Every one of his decisions will affect millions of people, most of whom will have no say one way or another in those decisions or their consequences.

I can understand Will Pitts' rightous anger; he is paying for health insurance for his family and that insurance MANDATED BY LAW will not pay for his wife's necessary meidcations. It is just throwing away the money that could be used more wisely.

The money I will be spending on that MADATED BY LAW is far more than I can afford or justify and will not cover any medical expenses for my son or myself until after a $12,000 (for each) deductible is met and then it will pay only 60%. A policy I had in the past paid 80% after meeting a $2,500 (per person) deductible and 100% after meeting $8,000 out of pocket. And that was a policy for five people and cost $144 less per month.

ACA is a bad joke for many of us. I'm happy, really happy that it is working for those who were unable to be covered before, but I"m in the same place I was before ACA -- coverage is way to high priced for way too little benefit.

[stg81]

481. [phone]

[lostincalifornia]

529. I am amazed at this justification that some feel for the over the top hate filled attack personally

on the President.

Yes, when someone says, "FU" or calls you a "POS", that is a hate filled personal attack, not a criticism of a policy.

and yet when some threads criticize that thread through reference, it seems that many who are the first to justify calling the President a "POS", seem to have a problem with those threads by calling it "immature or childish.

Seems like tunnel vision and arrogance to me

[840high]

3. I had no problem with this. TY

[Aerows]

6. Me either

He got criticism, and I'm sure the President is more than capable of absorbing it. To see grown men and women have a fit because he is criticized kind of looks like a child being told the Easter Rabbit isn't real.

Politics get pugilistic.

[lumpy]

86. Pitts remarks were not criticism. They were rantings of a person who shows his obvious

disdain of Obama.

[VanillaRhapsody]

91. they act like we don't read Democratic Underground and we have never seen anything else w

written by him!

[lumpy]

209. Verily

[cali]

380. Will has also written praise of the president

[VanillaRhapsody]

458. so small as to be invisible to the naked eye...

[cali]

499. codswallop.

[VanillaRhapsody]

506. Evidence then.....

[Aerows]

99. I didn't realize that when I voted for President Obama (twice)

I had to treat him like my husband and defend his every word and deed.

[lumpy]

214. Who says you have to treat Obama like your husband ? What ever that means.

[Luminous Animal]

233. Not tell tales out of the house. Not reveal their vulnerable intimacy

[Aerows]

295. Have you visited DU, General Discussion

for more than 20 minutes? If that doesn't convince you, head to the BOG.

[VanillaRhapsody]

461. HAVE You? Outside the Bog this Democratic President is RARELY given credit....

and any time he is...YOUR clique are there to excoriate him! And THIS time it is particularly egregious BECAUSE here you are defending the words "Fuck YOU President Obama" and "you piece of shit car salesman" when that poster was DEFINITELY wrong for his assessment AND hasn't once taken those words back thus far!

Meanwhile HE and his wife are going to greatly benefit from Obama's signature legislation.....that the rest of us who defended this Democratic President WORKED our asses for him to so greatly benefit from. And here he is throwing it back into our faces like feces....and yet no retraction!

He can't retract because his clique won't allow ANY defense of ANYTHING this President has done. He would lose face with them. Therefore his respect by the Anti-Obama clique is more important than his own dignity.

[VanillaRhapsody]

459. That is NOT what this is about.....your twisting of it is duly noted.

But this time....is about something that that DU'er IS going to benefit greatly from....YET no admission of that fact!

and here you are pretending that you don't hate this President defending that....hahahahaha.

[Enthusiast]

377. We cannot have disdain for Obama!

That would be insanity!

[VanillaRhapsody]

462. Actually for the DU Poster in question....quite the opposite is true!

[sheshe2]

132. Aerows, that was not criticism, that was full out hate.

It was misguided at best. Even when he got help from DUers he is doubling down on it once again.

Why is that? He blames this President exclusively, for everything.

Are not others on DU hurting, are not others here going without. Yes they are and they posted and told their stories to Pitt. Did he respond or commiserate with them. Not that I saw. So we only care about one person here and not all that suffer?

[Aerows]

334. It might have been misguided

But you also have to flip the coin and see the other side of it, too. People on DU are hurting under our health "care" system.

Telling the people that are suffering to STFU because Obama is President of the US doesn't help matters. It makes the people you chastise feel bad, and what does it accomplish in the end? Does it make Obama a better President, or does it just make you feel better because you love him so much?

[sheshe2]

354. When did I ever ask someone to STFU?

Where in my post did I say that?

I love him? Not in the way you insinuate. I respect the man and love what he has accomplished. Is he perfect? No. I don't know anyone that is.

People are better off now than they were before under ACA. No more denial over
pre-existing conditions. Women are getting the healthcare that they need to survive in states that are not restricting it. Medicaid is helping many working poor, again in states that are allowing the expansion.

As for people hurting, it's not just about healthcare. It is about snap benefits, unemployment funds, jobs etc. It is not just about Pitt. It is about all of us. Nothing is ever going to be perfect for all of us all the time.

[VanillaRhapsody]

465. It was more than misguided....it was insulting to those others on that thread

who tried to describe there situations AND to all of us who have worked our asses off to get Healthcare Reform. To say what he said HERE on DU...was like throwing that in our faces.....and he STILL hasn't retracted what he said.....why? Because people like you and the rest of the Anti-Obama clique would lose respect for ANY one of you to give this Democratic President even a word of praise...he would lose face among them....so he cannot. He painted himself into a corner...

Frankly I think he should be banned UNLESS he retracts.

[JI7]

4. come on now, it's not like anyone threatened to kill him for saying that

[morningfog]

5. Some posters take criticism of the President personally. I have never understood it.

[polichick]

7. They certainly are protective of him - as if he needs them to be...

But I doubt he sees himself as someone who needs to be coddled.

[Aerows]

8. You would think their

grandfather's graves or their grandmother's graves were desecrated. Someone pissed in their child's crib. It's weird.

[VanillaRhapsody]

104. You would think someone benefitting FROM the ACA AND calling themselves a Democrat...

would have a little respect for those that GOT his family that help....

but of course he cannot because his clique would be upset to hear him say anything positive about the President.

[Glitterati]

271. I'm certainly no Will Pitt fan, but

This is the perfect example of what's going on - a complete lack of empathy, sympathy or concern for a fellow DUer suffering real pain.

On no! He callled my President Hubby a bad name! GET him!

[sabrina 1]

361. Amazing isn't it. So little compassion for the sick. This has been an eye-opening situation. I am

appalled at the priorities people have. It certainly helps explain why we lost the battle for actual Health Care.

[Glitterati]

384. Yes, it is amazing.

What's truly amazing is that the posts which COULD help Will's wife were buried in all that cheerleading and attacking.

[VanillaRhapsody]

466. the sick are GETTING more healthcare....some of us worked our asses off for that legislation.

and this DU'er threw it all in our faces....But he is welcome to just go back to COBRA....but of course he wouldn't. He goes on and on with his disdain for the President day after day.....and then he did this...the fact that so many of us worked to save HE and his wife FROM Cobra....even THAT gets no respect.
keep doubling down on NEVER giving this President praise for anything EVER.

[Democracyinkind]

372. +1

They are oh-so-moral and high-standard-demanding when defending Obama and sooooo fucking callous when attacking others.

It's just not believable.

[Glitterati]

385. You're right

It's not believable.

I still want to know if the Cheerleading Gang has matching uniforms with short skirts and all.

[NYC_SKP]

518. It's shocking. Shocking, I tell you.

Welcome to DU.

[VanillaRhapsody]

467. So its fine with you when a DU'er calls the Democratic (twice elected by majority) President

saying "FUCK YOU President Obama" and calls him a "piece of shit car salesman"....

That sets YOUR standard pretty damn low....

I guess if Rand Paul said this....you would support that too!

[Democracyinkind]

476. Yes, that was EXACTLY my point.

[fleabiscuit]

330. I read the word but they have me confused.

Someone might think that a politician should at the very least try to benefit the public. How does a politician earn extra credit by doing the job? Take a second look at blood letting posts and you'll see that they are mostly about the 'self.'

[WorseBeforeBetter]

23. I've never seen anything like it -- EVER.

And I've lived through ten different presidencies. What is it about Obama that makes them coddle him so much? I just don't get it.

[morningfog]

30. I think it has to do with him being the first president in the "social media age."

There are people whose job is to practice message control on message boards. It only takes a couple to rally others to echo. I don't think the level at which some take it so personally is genuine.

[ProSense]

59. That seems

"There are people whose job is to practice message control on message boards. It only takes a couple to rally others to echo. I don't think the level at which some take it so personally is genuine. "

...like what happens when anyone criticizes Greenwald or Snowden. LOL!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

82. Greenwald often comes across as a total prick.

Pitt can be a bit of dick, too.

Snowden doesn't phase me.

Obama definitely has some slickie boy used car salesman in him, just like so many other politicians. (Yes, Virginia, Obama *is* a politician.)

I agree with them sometimes; others I don't. See how easy that is?

LOL!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

73. True. Those pulling the strings don't come across as genuine...

but they're quite good at making the puppets dance.

[Glitterati]

77. I just don't get it

You and me both, Worse! I've never seen anything like the Obama Cheerleading Squad.

I don't think it has anything to do with social media - just immaturity.

It's downright juvenile.

[laundry_queen]

141. I agree. I don't get it either. nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

151. It's really evident with the Crap Blogs that are trotted out here.

Cesca, Smartypants, Spandan, et al. Furiously tweeting and blogging, with no dissent in their comment sections. NONE. These blogs are chewed up and spit out by a majority of DUers, which amuses the hell out of me.

I'm thinking back to my office during the Clinton years and God knows there was plenty of criticism then, I just don't remember ANYONE taking it so personally. Hell, even Bush fans I worked with didn't take it personally, and we had some major disagreements.

I have no idea what 2016 will bring, but just think, maybe we'll have 8 years of a Clinton Cheerleading Squad. And instead of being called racist for criticizing Obama, we'll be called misogynistic for criticizing Hillary. I can hardly wait!

[Glitterati]

242. What amazes me is the lack of INTELLIGENT conversation

or debate.

I've never seen what I see here before - post some crazy blog link and then everyone fights about what the stupid blog says........it's absolute insanity!

There was a time when lots of intelligent debate was had on DU. Not anymore.

Now, it's just hair on fire, chew each other up and spit them out day after day.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

326. That died around 2008...

when Team Obama arrived, with their body-surfing pics and cutesy Facebook graphics. It still can be found, though; most of us know which GD posters offer up quality, thought-provoking, sincere posts. And I love my NC group for news. I miss the activist feel -- the old DU would have been ALL OVER Moral Mondays.

[QC]

386. [phone]

[Glitterati]

390. How right you are

It's just too bad we've been overrun by the teeny bopper crowd.

I hate those posts which are nothing but a graphic with misspelled text on them.

Jeez, incapable of thinking of something smart to say all by their (note proper spelling, kids) itty bitty selves?

[L0oniX]

407. The change from DU2 and the elimination of the mod system has a lot to do with it IMO.

[Glitterati]

416. Sure it does

This whole foot stomping temper tantrum is all about the fact that the Cheerleading Squad couldn't get a jury to agree with them and delete Will Pitt's entire thread.

[LuvNewcastle]

433. You nailed it.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

509. Could be. But I can think of a couple of former mods...

who exhibit flaming asshole behavior and shouldn't be sitting in judgment of ANYONE. I seem to recall a recent in post in which a current MIRT member said something pretty hideous and had his/her post hidden. Many complain about the jury system, but I like it -- "you take your chances." And there's always going up the chain of command if you're not happy, which I imagine Team Obama has been doing non-stop since Pitt's post.

This is the first I'm logging on for the day -- can't wait to see what today's dust-up is all about.

[brush]

194. Call it immature if you want . . .

Last edited Fri Mar 21, 2014, 02:28 AM - Edit history (1)

but i don't want to see that kind of hatred on DU. If I want that kind of disgusting stuff I'd go to Freeperville where that kind of stuff reigns.

This is DU dammit. Show some respect to us. Pitt should cut out the guttersnipe insults or go to Freeperville and post.

[Glitterati]

235. I called it juvenile

And it is. As is this post.

Jeeezus! Even Obama asked that we hold his feet to the fire.

Maybe when you grow up and deal with real life like an adult, you'll realize that some things are really frustrating and TERRIFYING.

And, quite frankly, there's nothing more terrifying than watching your loved one in extreme medical danger. Been there, done that. And I watched him die in my living room waiting for the ambulance to arrive.

[lumpy]

256. Good grief, you call 'the DU rant' holding Obama's 'feet to the fire' ?

Some of us would call that now-famous rant a juvenile tantrum filled with the worst kind of animosity toward a decent man who is trying to do what is best for us against the worst odds.
Many of us have dealt with loved ones dying right in front of us without little help; you are not alone.

[Glitterati]

267. No, I call it a human being in pain

real pain, experienced first hand by all of us.

Some who watched, pointed fingers, and displayed not one iota of sympathy for the pain a supposed ally was suffering.

Yeah, juvenile reactions.

[lumpy]

277. You use Pitt's rant as 'putting Obamas feet to the fire' in your previous post.

Was it Pitt's 'pain' or setting Obama's feet on fire?

[Glitterati]

282. Here's a clue

Some disagree with Obama's actions........deal.

But what you watched, then spent the last 24 hours bitching about was a man in pain, terrified of losing a loved one. Sometimes people strike out at their most beloved when in that kind of pain.

It happens. Deal.

Why is it such a big deal for you? Did the jury disagree with you or something? Admin refused to ban Will on your orders?

[Lars39]

274. Damn. I am so sorry for your loss, Glitterati.

[Glitterati]

275. Thank you, Lars

We still miss him greatly.

[brush]

357. He's a writer for God's sake

You wanna talk about somebody being immature, it's someone supposed to be a writer and can't express his anger any better than that.

And as far as growing up, tell that to the writer.

[Glitterati]

397. And, therein lies your problem

Will Pitt is an internet writer.

The world does not revolve around the internet, contrary to the belief of the teeny boppers.

Real life intervenes on regular occasion and sometimes, it's painful and difficult to watch.

Watching Will deal with the idea that his loved one was in danger was a real life intimate moment he came here to share. Hoping for some empathy and help. Instead, he got finger pointing and accusation. How sad.

How utterly sad that anyone leads a life without empathy and gets upset when a jury disagrees with their alert.

That's what this is really all about......that jury just pissed you off!

[brush]

440. Guess you haven't been paying attention

I've posted on this and the previous thread the my prayers go out to his wife and that I hope she gets the meds she needs at an affordable price.

There is no lack of empathy here.

What's lacking is Pitt's control of his anger, his respect for DU (who wants his Freeperville-style, ot-of-control rantings on a progressive site) and ability to act like a man and admit he was wrong when shown his rant was mis-directed

And if you don't get that, therein lies your problem.

[Glitterati]

442. ROFL, paying attention?

Who the hell can miss the American Idol supporters who believe the alert button is their vote for their idol?

Good GAWD, no one can miss it.

Hell, you folks start 15 threads a day praying for a ban of another DUer because they DARED to disagree with you about your idol.

You keep tossing fellow Democrats out of the boat and drowning them means you're gonna run out of voters real soon.

Get over it. The jury disagreed with you and let his post stand. Deal.

[brush]

460. Like I said, guess you haven't been paying attention . . .

because many of his posts lean decidedly to the right, but maybe he's a blue dog dem (repug lite).

But it's a big tent, even big enough for people who calls someone an American Idol supporter who just doesn't like to see Freeperville-type crap on DU.

[lumpy]

239. If you don't get it, you might have a lot to learn yet.

[Glitterati]

245. ROFL

Honey, I'm waaaay past the learning stage. Besides, what I learn today, I forget tomorrow because of old age.

[lumpy]

270. Sweety, I am probably old enough to be your great aunt. Old age hasn't affected my abilities

to learn and know when someone shows his true colors.

[Glitterati]

272. Bwahahahahahaha

woot! There is it. Rah, rah, sis boom bah! Wave those pom poms!

[lumpy]

280. Yes you too, wave those pom poms for your Democratic hero Mr. Pitt.

[Glitterati]

283. You really are a classic example

of the Cheerleading Squad.

Thanks for showing everyone exactly what I am talking about.

Good of you to be so demonstrative.

[lumpy]

303. Not sure what you're talking about.

[Glitterati]

305. Good n/t

[HangOnKids]

323. Oh FUCK YEAH This Exchange Is Hilarious

Good on you for stepping up and hitting it out of the park.

[Glitterati]

383. LOL

Actually, it was fun. But thanks!

[treestar]

324. Juvenile is blaming the President for your personal problems

No matter who it is.

Nobody blamed Bush for their medical issues. When he did nothing about them.

[Liberal Veteran]

356. Well, we did blame Reagan for his ignoring AIDS, but a different thing entirely.

I will say I have enormous sympathy for Will as someone who has had to jump through the insurance gauntlet a time or thousand myself, but I think once it was pointed out that it really didn't have anything to do with the president and being a Du'er that has some measure of clout, it would be have shown good character to say "I was misinformed and I regret aiming my comment at the President".

[Glitterati]

387. Even if they DID blame Bush

None of you would have cared. Your day was just too busy doing other things while growing up enough to get on the internet.

[CJCRANE]

389. DUers did defend Bush on some things.

It usually started with one of these phrases:

"To be fair to Bush..."

or

"I'm no fan of Bush but..."

[snappyturtle]

378. Thank you. I think it's immaturity plus:

1) the cheerleading quells honest discussion and/or
2) CYA for when the NSA comes snooping the cheerleaders will get
their well deserved gummed gold stars and deemed non-threatening
to TPTB.

imho

[Glitterati]

391. All excellent points!

Their behavior clearly shows the determination to get those gummed gold stars!

[snappyturtle]

412. Back in the day...ha! nt

[L0oniX]

405. It's the American Idol viewer type of people. Some people feel the need to...

exalt a hero, star, sports team or player. IMO it is a result of having no life or low self esteem or the desire to fit in with a group. Typically a follower and not a leader. Lacking honest introspect. In the case of Obama IMO it is also because of race. On the other hand about race it's been a great thing that has happened and should have happen long ago. The ideal American POTUS would be one of mixed race which represents the melting pot that America is however a cult like worship of anyone is not mentally healthy IMO. People are not gods.

[Glitterati]

424. Someone needs to clue them in to the fact

that they really don't have to "vote" every week for their idol.

President Obama already won the race.

[L0oniX]

432. Indeed. "Obama already won the race".

[jsr]

482. Eternal vigilance is the price of something

I hope there will be a forum for "The Great President formerly known as The Greatest President" after the next presidential election. At a minimum, His presence on every Greatest List must be defended and protected.

[bobduca]

26. Maybe the same 35 posters

are really only 7? or some other dividend of 35.

[woo me with science]

484. Yup.

[Maedhros]

28. Identity politics. [n/t]

[Blaukraut]

41. And some people take criticism of certain DUers personally and post multiple threads

in his or her defense. Sycophants come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, and their subject of adoration can be a president or a DUer. It's a little disturbing in either case.

[Capt. Obvious]

43. And some people post multiple threads trolling that person

and DU in general.

It's a little disturbing in either case.

[Blaukraut]

51. Not disagreeing with you. But it does cut both ways, and if you're honest

You'll see it.

[morningfog]

58. It makes no difference to me, but at least on DU, posters actually know each other.

To the extent posters can know each other. It is a much shorter step to a fellow DUer than a national politician.

Regardless, the reactions to any and all criticisms of the President by some is to take it so personally. Far more so than responses and new threads about DUers. Posters take personally criticisms of the President's policies as well as criticisms of his person. And they are nasty about it. And they engage in personal attacks against DUers. It makes no sense for the most part. Unless they are trolls or shills (which are still trolls).

[Blaukraut]

72. My gauge is simple:

If a DUer posts nothing BUT criticism of the President, and the posts verge on thinly veiled hatred, the poster is suspicious. At the same time, if a poster has nothing BUT praise for the President, and even bends over backwards to explain the inexplicable, that person looks suspicious. DU has both. In equal numbers.

[Voice for Peace]

107. I can't speak for others, but I feel a strong affection towards Obama despite a lot of stuff I could

criticize him for.

I see a man who is trying really really hard to do a superhuman task.

Many here want to have his back, which includes objecting to disinformation
about the man: and hair on fire blame is no different than teapartiers'.

[VanillaRhapsody]

119. this was not a simple criticism....no matter how hard you sing that song...

that dog don't hunt.

[morningfog]

375. Here's a dog for you: it doesn't fucking matter.

It doesn't matter what the criticism is, the reactionary and personal offense of some is the same every time.

[VanillaRhapsody]

470. Yes by that standard ALL republicans are welcome to come here and vent their anger right?

that is okay to let Republicans come and post "Fuck You President Obama you piece of shit car salesman"

that would be fine with you huh?

[morningfog]

473. You don't understand and I think it is on purpose.

That isn't remotely what I said or implied. I remember now why I had you on ignore. Back to it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

474. You support it....therefore it must be fine with you if a republican came to DU to say....

"Fuck You President Obama" "you piece of shit used car salesman".

You down with that?

[morningfog]

475. Alright, I am going to try to explain to you before I put you back on ignore.

I know it will do no good, but anyway...

I never said I was fine with the post in question. My point was that I don't understand those who take personally criticisms of the President or his policies. It makes no sense.

It doesn't matter if the criticism is valid, which it almost always is on DU, or whether it is over the top, which it sometimes is on DU.

What is so bizarre is the posters who respond to every single criticism of policy as if they had been personally attacked. Again, so you can follow, I am speaking broadly here, not about any particular post.

And the response is often a personal attack of the poster who made the original critique.

[treestar]

320. A President is a legitimate source of political support

thinking you might be supporting a particular political direction.

Blind support of a DUer does nothing.

[Glitterati]

394. Even those who support Will Pitt can admit

he sometimes makes mistakes.

The Obama Cheerleading Squad, on the other hand, can admit no such thing about their President Hubby. Sadly.

[treestar]

400. Useless

On the other hand, it is useless to just trash everything an elected Democrat does in office because you are afraid of being called his "wifey" due to mere political support. You can't prove you ever said any DUer was wrong when they were trashing him or some other Democrat. You're only supporting this DUer because he trashed the President, who you can't stand, which is weird for a supposed liberal or Democrat.

[Glitterati]

403. You see, there's your issue

You simply can't understand the concept of intelligent debate and discussion.

You'll have to find somewhere that I have ever supported, agreed with, or otherwise interacted with Will Pitt. Because I haven't. I, personally, find him to be an illustrative writer with lots of pretty words that basically say nothing. A time waster.

However, I am sill able to see the humane side of life today and recognize pain and suffering while lashing out at those who can understand my pain and offer some empathy/sympathy.

I repeat - there is nothing on this earth more terrifying than watching a loved one be put in danger by some bureaucrat making life altering decisions.

There was a time when the majority of DU would have offered Will Pitt support.

Today, the Cheerleading Squad just alerts, alerts, alerts and then gets more pissed off when a jury disagrees with them.

THAT, dear, is what is pissing you off. Not Will Pitt. Just the fact that you couldn't get a majority on a jury to agree that Will Pitt is a BAD, BAD Man. Welcome to the grown up world.

[ProSense]

45. OMG!

They're "coddling" the President. What's up with that? It's unusual. Never ever happened before.

Make a list of them.

LOL!

Do you think this will lead people to now accept vile attacks on the President that defy logic?

What next: he's a "piece of shit" for expanding Medicaid, but not in Republican-governed states?

[Puzzledtraveller]

74. mostly just this president

if you meant that same, that's what I notice. They invested in the man more than the office holder.

[LittleBlue]

83. You'll notice how many have Obama family avatars

Some of them seem to view Obama like a father figure. Like most kids they see their father through rose-colored glasses, so debates become intensely personal. I'll leave it at that.

[KittyWampus]

258. I am laughing at this post specifically. I don't think I've seen DU'ers using Obama family avatars

Maybe one poster comes to mind. And they aren't caught up in any of the ridiculous drama.

LOL!

People end up revealing more about themselves inadvertently.

[LittleBlue]

312. Venture into the BOG some time and check out the avatars

See how many have Obama or Obama + Michelle. That's why it becomes so personal even though the DUers who disagree with Obama clearly have political and not personal disagreements.

[Vashta Nerada]

90. I don't understand it either. It's unhealthy, tbh.

[VanillaRhapsody]

95. Its NOT about the President per se....HE is now going to benefit from the very program

that slung that vile about! And many of us on DU have taken ALOT of shit for supporting this President and fighting to get him that nice healthcare he and his wife will now enjoy. I think at the very least THAT deserves some damn respect. Most people who are getting help with insurance are GRATEFUL for that help.

[treestar]

319. That was criticism?

Level headed criticism?

And why is it so needed to criticize our own side?

Republicans win because they don't make it a holy grail to use their own candidates as scapegoats.

[City Lights]

434. I've never understood it either.

Not when Republicans did it with Bush, nor when Democrats do it with Obama.

[cheapdate]

10. Reverse pearl clutching?

[fleabiscuit]

14. Maintain - see #9

~eom

[cheapdate]

54. I followed the enture Pitt debacle and posted a few myself.

For cripes sake. Practically no one at DU is insensitive or without empathy.

But "Fuck you, Mr. President, you piece of shit..." is absolutely, positively, guaranteed to stir up divisiveness and argument on a Democratic forum. Holy shit.

[fleabiscuit]

201. We can be better than that. ~eom

[Egnever]

11. As if pearl clutching isn't a DU pastime

Hell its a practically a paid position here.

[Kurovski]

16. Well, I do declare!

I'd also be a-rustlin' mah petticoats if I was not presently descendin' to the faintin' couch as I type!

[fleabiscuit]

211. LOL, 'nough said.

[Autumn]

15. Yeah.... but Will Pitt was mean to President Obama

and that wasn't nice.

[ProSense]

21. Some people have a tendency to criticize vile comments. n/t

[QC]

22. He's a big ole meaniebutt!!!

[Autumn]

32. It's very sad and traumatic.

I expect another sleepless night.

[QC]

37. I know the president must break down in tears

when he comes to DU and sees what some people are saying about him.

[Autumn]

57. My thoughts exactly QC. That's the main reason I find this so unsettling.

I'm afraid that things like this may just very well send him into bouts of melancholy. I just hope the First Lady will log into DU first, see what's going on and keep him so busy for a week or so that he doesn't have time to log in till all this blows over.

[QC]

76. I, too, lie awake nights worrying about this.

[Autumn]

106. It's going to be a long hard week, many tears will be shed

but we will get the President through this. God help us all if we don't

[QC]

140. Let us lift him up in prayer!

[Autumn]

159. Amen Brothers and Sisters. Let us join hands and get down on our knees

that we might help him to overcome the sorrow that dastardly Will Pitt has inflicted on him.

[Iggo]

445. This is definitely my favorite sub-thread.

Thanks, guys!

[Autumn]

452. Come, won't you join us in prayer?

[Iggo]

453. Oh gawd yes!!!

Lift up, lift up, Prez.

Lift up, lift up, Prez.

Lift up, lift up, Prez.

[Iggo]

444. This is definitely my favorite sub-thread.

Thanks, guys!

[OnyxCollie]

122. Hope he doesn't put us on the Terror Tuesday kill list.

Or detain us indefinitely with the NDAA that he signed.

The NSA's probably going through Will Pitt's porn habits right now, upon the anonymous tip of a concerned DUer.

God help the person that says something bad about President Daddy/pretend boyfriend.

[Lars39]

137. Cue the Mikado Chorus!

[grasswire]

218. you win, for the Gilbert and Sullivan reference!

Topsy Turvey!

[Lars39]

224. Lol...Thankee

Looks like a good movie. I keep humming Little List.

[grasswire]

255. yes, me too...

"They'll none of them be missed, they'll none of them be missed..."

Yes, you DO need to see Topsy Turvey. You will love it.

[Lars39]

259. Thanks, grasswire!

We don't really watch tv, just movies or good series, so I'm always on the lookout for movie recommendations.

[Autumn]

234. Shit, that DUer wasn't anonymous we all know who it was.

[ZombieHorde]

20. I guessed I missed something. nt

[Rex]

114. Will got pissed off and called the POTUS some pretty foul stuff.

I'm sure you can imagine the fallout. Ranting about personal business, you know how that goes on a public forum.

[ZombieHorde]

156. Aha!

Thanks for the heads up!

[Rex]

167. NP.

Happens to me a lot...leave...comeback and it is like WWIII in here. Sometimes I have to find out why.

[uponit7771]

24. It's a conservative criticism ... Something "progressives" should stay far from no?

[Liberal Veteran]

29. Anybody who has dealt with a chronic complex disease has had insurance/formulary issues.

This is not a creation of the president or even indirectly his own fault. This shit has been going on for decades now. (As an HIV patient with heart disease, I can't tell you how many times I have had to fight a little to get something covered).

People who have garnered a lot of respect on this board over the years are still human, but they should at least be willing to say "Yeah, I was angry and didn't make a very good argument. My bad."

[Egnever]

34. Exactly

[uponit7771]

46. Amen

[brush]

198. Bingo! Well said.

And not that hard a thing to do. If you're wrong, you're wrong. Admit it like a man/woman.

[Number23]

284. Hope you are doing well, Liberal Veteran.

[Liberal Veteran]

297. Thank you. That is very kind. I am doing pretty well all in all. -nt

[lumpy]

293. So true. Thing is, some of us believe Pitt has lost all respect for the Prez and that is why he

refuses to acknowledge his booboo. He really believes Obama (the used car salesman) should fuck off and he wishes this with all his heart and soul. Looks like he is not here to support our President.

[HangOnKids]

336. His booboo?

Ah fucking GAWD.

[JaneyVee]

31. yeah, it's almost like the FDR pearl-clutching.

Who is one of my favs.

[cherokeeprogressive]

33. Spot fucking ON cali. n/t

[Voice for Peace]

36. it's all understandable but in my opinion it makes for poor teamwork.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

39. Sorry, I disagree. He's our Democratic president. If the fuck you came from a right winger

it might be understandable, since right wingers are assholes who hate all Democrats, all libs, anyone that's not a right winger.

And as I said before, if you behave like a right winger, and say things a right winger says, hey, guess what? You ARE a right winger.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

56. I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. nt

[albino65]

63. I'm sorry. I'll delete it. I don't need to get in the middle n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

70. No, honestly, I didn't understand. nt

[uponit7771]

52. *******Right On******

[Whisp]

118. That is correct. Talk like a winger, you get the same amount of respect from me

as a fleabag winger.

This site is under a hostile takeover.

[VanillaRhapsody]

123. You got that right....I have been saying that for months!

[grasswire]

225. LOLOL nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

365. so easy, this black and white world you must live in

[Sarah Ibarruri]

447. You're not living in Europe, where one can work with shades of gray. Here? The system is

dichotomous. Unless you can come up with a solution that will succeed, your only tactic is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and opening the door for the Republicans to take over fully. That's not a solution. That's just plain damaging.

[albino65]

40. Goddamn it!

Cali, I keep putting you on ignore, but you keep showing up like a bad rash.

[Capt. Obvious]

53. Let Skinner know in ATA that your ignore is broken

[albino65]

55. I have

Maybe it's better that I police myself rather than depend upon someone to do it for me.

[Capt. Obvious]

47. Apology accepted

[Autumn]

200. Here, take my apology.

I don't need it. If you get a lot of them you can sell them on eBay.

[Capt. Obvious]

382. That was uncalled for

You owe everyone an apology for that.

[Autumn]

422. Do you want my apologies to everyone too? This could be

a nice little business.

[Capt. Obvious]

423. Not sure how much they're worth

An apology from someone like Pitt (a member of the 1% I read on here) would probably go for more money.

[Renew Deal]

60. If someone on DU really said that about Obama, they should be banned.

I don't want to hear the lame rationalization. This is not the place for that type of hatred. They can take their tired act to freeperville.

[Puzzledtraveller]

79. lmao

Wow!

[Cha]

109. Yeah, this is the wrong thread for that, RD.. this is the..

"we pearl clutchers can Hate and call Obama anything we want with impunity thread.. "

[Renew Deal]

120. I got mixed up again

Where are my pearls?

[Cha]

162. ..

[Autumn]

276. Can you please point out the posts in this thread where Obama has been called names with impunity?

I've gone through it twice, maybe I'm just overlooking it or them. Unless I am misunderstanding the "call Obama anything we want with impunity" part.

[VanillaRhapsody]

128. Oh believe it...They did say it!

[brush]

203. AGREED 100%

And to then double down the next day? Some kind of hater.

[SwankyXomb]

243. Can we do the same to

the Professional Posters of Nonsense, regardless of their high post counts?

[Puzzledtraveller]

69. Hear, hear!

[Vashta Nerada]

93. It's the same people who clutch those pearls, too.

If there's one little criticism of Obama, you can always guarantee who'll be there to defend him.

[Cha]

216. "Little criticism".. rofl. there was "pearl clutching" but it wasn't from those who won't

condone the raging hate coming from mr knee jerker.. who wouldn't know "truth" if it gobsmacked him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4686372

[woo me with science]

96. Trying to change the tacit rules for political discourse...

in the good old USA.

Trying to suggest that anger toward politicians is somehow unseemly or inappropriate, instead of an expected part of vigorous, passionate political conversation in a representative democracy.

What surreal, Orwellian nonsense, to argue that apologies are owed, or that the community should be collectively offended and demanding of contrition...

[font size=3] ...because someone expressed anger toward a politician on a political discussion board in the United States of America.[/font size]

The demands are not just pathetic and silly to anyone who understands how political discourse in a vibrant and free country actually works. There's an underlying creepiness to it that fits right in with the constant weird demands to shut up all criticism as a proof of loyalty...instead of what we as Americans *should* be doing, which is to constantly challenge those hired as our REPRESENTATIVES to explain how their POLICIES will actually represent us.

There's a chill authoritarian wind blowing in this country. We're still at the point where we can laugh off and mock demands like this made on political discussion boards....but we had better damned well be sure to continue mocking and disgracing them, because there are people in power and implementing propaganda campaigns here and across the pond who, in other ways, have already shown their desire to make many types of previously safe dissent not so acceptable anymore...

UK government wants power to censor not just illegal, but "unsavoury" content
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-03/15/government-web-censorship

Criticize the President? We should not even be having serious conversations about this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022666913

[PowerToThePeople]

97. I think I need to timeout on DU for a bit. This is turning into suckville.

[steve2470]

220. it is indeed

I think this was the very first time anyone has called a Democratic president a POS used car salesman.

[PowerToThePeople]

379. My personal "pile of shit" moment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12592919

It was directed at a policy not a person. Yet, it was taken out fast.

[lumpy]

296. I'm going to hit the sack.

[Whisp]

98. Fuck you Bernie Sanders, FUCK YOU!!

if Bernie Sanders was called a piece of shit used car salesman.

Of course you would be just perfectly fine

yah sure, cali

[Cha]

113. Bernie Sanders.. who voted for that

"signiture legislation" of Obama's. WTF was he doing voting for "used car salesman pos" Law? Fuck Bernie from my god damn heart and.. aw shit.. I can't keep that up.. ROFL.

[VanillaRhapsody]

133. You forgot he is a "piece of shit car salesman" to boot!

since he ALSO voted for the ACA!

[Whisp]

164. We know That would be totally unacceptable.

the self appointed monarchy here is sometimes frustrating, but mostly hilarious. It's like a petri dish experiment gone real bad where only the protozoas think they have their rights and the multi cells are the lower, stupider class.

[VanillaRhapsody]

472. EXACTLY.....I keep repeating ...if a Republican came here and said those things....they would

apparently accept it too....you know because its just venting right? I think he should be banned frankly.

[ProSense]

153. Could you imagine someone posting that after the food stamp vote? n/t

[zeemike]

196. Well you just did.

And I am not upset by it because I have the freedom to tell you you are full of shit and would do so...
But what you suggest is that we take both those freedoms from us...because if you are not allowed to say it I have no reason to say it back at ya...
What some seem to want is a sanitized DU where we praise Obama all the time and never is heard a discouraging word and the sky is sunny all day.

What a boring fucking life that would be...and I would not waste my time in such a place.

[cali]

388. depends, whisp. I know what I wouldn't do- try and have the person banned or

freak the fuck out.

[postatomic]

100. Holy fucking shit on a stick

The ACA sucks. Big revelation.

I'm probably just as angry about how much the ACA does suck. I guess my only complaint is that I saw it as a tad bit 'preferential' in allowing reactionary comments to just float merrily along.

[crimeariver1225]

103. I just read that thread. I guess it was more about calling him

a piece of s#!t. That seemed more than just anger and downright insulting to the actual man in office.

[Skip Intro]

112. Some here are in permanent attack mode. Question Obama, and you must be desroyed.

Facts be damned.

"You will have blind faith in him as I do, and worship him as I do, or you're a rw racist freeper who..."

Yeah, fuck all that.

[Aerows]

116. I'm tired

of it being implied that I am a racist teabagger because I have a hospital bill that isn't covered and complain about it.

I was called a birther and a teabagger and the jury let it stand.

[Skip Intro]

152. Yeah, me too. Those are trolls, and that's exaclty what they are, because

Last edited Fri Mar 21, 2014, 12:39 AM - Edit history (1)

they are ONLY here to disrupt discussion they don't favor, and most of them run together in a very small pack, and some obviously have more than one screen name. I'll pm you a list of those I'm aware of. I'll bet they're the same ones harassing you for daring to have your own opinion on things. Sounds just like these cowards.

At any rate, Aerows, don't let a few, a very few, jerks define your experience on DU. Don't let them shape your activities here, your will to speak freely, start threads when so inclined. That is what they want. They want to cower you into shutting up, they want to silence you, because they can't engage you in the realm of reason, in the realm of reality, because they know reason, and reality and logic, their empty spin evaporates. So they can only attack.

Again, they're not here to discuss, but to disrupt.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

240. So says the troll.

What you're complaining about is that your attacks don't go unanswered. As if you really expect to be able to go onto a Democratic website, attack Democrats, and get nothing but support. Seriously?

Listen, if I shit on Warren or Sanders to only *half* the degree you people shit on Obama - often including lies and blaming for things they have has no control over - you'd be screaming to the admins.

I know its true. It's happened for considerably less.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Skip Intro]

249. As if to prove my point. n/t

[Glitterati]

278. Haven't you noticed?

They just can't control themselves. Same little gang, same bunch of Obama Cheerleaders on every single thread. I wonder if they have matching uniforms with short skirts?

[ProSense]

125. Huh? Good grief.

Some here are in permanent attack mode. Question Obama, and you must be desroyed

Facts be damned.

"You will have blind faith in him as I do, and worship him as I do, or you're a rw racist freeper who..."

Yeah, fuck all that.

The attack was on the President, and it was as fact-free as one could get.

Yeah, "fuck" facts, right?

As long as it's an attack on the President, it's justified.

[Skip Intro]

155. Spin it baby!

[ProSense]

158. You have nothing. n/t

[Skip Intro]

166. Rofl. Were your ears burning, Prosense?

You'd have everyone on their knees if you could.

Do you really think you fool anyone in what you do here?

[ProSense]

168. Do you? n/t

[greytdemocrat]

178. Tsk, tsk...

I seem to remember many people here on DU
ragging on republicans as Bushbots.

But if some recognize an Obamabot here, certain
people on DU go on a search & destroy mission.

Such a shame. It's a good thing clear headed people
see bots for what they are.

[jeff47]

172. What facts?

"Facts" like the ACA causing formularies to exist?

Guess what? Medicare has one. So does Canada's single-payer system.

Guess where people have to fight to get the same drug? Canada. The UK. And lots of other single-payer systems.

You don't have the facts here. You have a rant you like.

[Bernie2016]

126. I have to agree with the OP.

While DU is a private forum and therefore "Freedom of Speech" does not strictly apply, it should still be practiced to whatever extent is reasonable. And sometimes people get frustrated and lash out. While the statement was clearly rude and inappropriate, I don't think it should be censored.

[crimeariver1225]

135. I agree about the freedom of speech. but the immeasurable cost to reputation

also has to be considered.

[truebluegreen]

369. Whose?

[crimeariver1225]

487. anyone's. a person has a right to speak freely in this country. but there are still consequences

think about a KKK member publicly acknowledging who they are and speaking their hate. That is an extreme example, but demonstrates how others will judge that person for their words--even if the government and our society protects free speech.

[brush]

146. Try "piece of shit" not just "fuck you"

If I wanna read that kind of stuff I can go to Freeperville.

I don't go there so I don't want to see it here. It's about respect for not just the Office of the President but for DU.

We're better than that, at least the vast majority of us are.

[ecstatic]

150. What kind of site do you want this to be?

One where we can say the most vile things about each other with little or no consequences? The great thing about DU, at least what USED to be a great thing, was that people aren't allowed to throw around offensive words like, "bitch" etc. Disrespect leads to more disrespect. Next thing you know, this will be a pretty disgusting place. That poster was out of line. Period. Why waste time defending the indefensible? If we're now changing course into a site where ANYTHING goes, then count me out, but not before I squeeze in my "fuck you, piece of shit" comment as well. 

[hrmjustin]

160. People don't have to like it.

[jeff47]

163. That's not what the pearl-clutching is over.

Political speech should be built on truth and opinion.

Will's rant is not built on truth. His problems were not caused by the ACA. Formularies have been part of insurance for decades, and there's several routes to getting a drug covered despite not being in the formulary.

Additionally, virtually all single-payer systems have formularies. And people in Canada, the UK and lots of other countries have to fight for coverage of the same drug.

He blamed Obama for something Obama did not do. The proper thing to do in such a situation is admit you made an error, once you have cooled down.

Political speech should be built on truth and opinion. To do otherwise is to say Fox News's bullshit is A-OK. They're just politicians. Why should we care if Fox lies about them?

[ProSense]

176. Fat chance

Will's rant is not built on truth. His problems were not caused by the ACA. Formularies have been part of insurance for decades, and there's several routes to getting a drug covered despite not being in the formulary.

He blamed Obama for something Obama did not do. The proper thing to do in such a situation is admit you made an error, once you have cooled down.

Facts don't matter. This is about some people wanting to justify the name calling by ignoring the facts. They approve of the name calling and the blame despite the facts.

[jeff47]

181. Doesn't mean we can't explain it to them.

Someday, they might bother reading the posts and find out what the objections really were.

Not gonna hold my breath.

[Whisp]

186. At least we now know he's not an investigative journalist. n/t

[phleshdef]

180. When was the last time a President was disrespected, attacked, slandered, etc, like PBO?

It does make me angry. And I'll let you know why. Its because people from both parties and both ideological spectrums set out to undermine him since day fucking 1. The Republicans, the blue dogs, the Joe Liebermans of the world, the pissed off Hillary devotees, the corporate media and so on and so forth... since day fucking 1 have rooted for and actively engaged in encouraging, not just the failure of the Obama presidency, but the failure of Obama's reputation, his public image and his sense of dignity.

There are definitely things I disagree with the President on when it comes to drones and the NSA and a few other items. But he is never really given the benefit of the doubt for anything by the people that engage in this crap. No matter what he does, he gets shit on for it. Regardless of the political circumstances with Congress, regardless of the fact that this guy got more death threats his first year in office than other Presidents get in 8, regardless of the fact that he has to be everyone's President, not just the President of the left.

So yea, after 5 years of watching the first African American President, a man from humble backgrounds who devoted a good deal of his life to helping poor communities and being an educator, who literally did pull himself up from his bootstraps, who HAS done a lot of damn good things for this country while constantly dealing with opposition fueled more out of hatred than policy disagreement, then yea it does piss me off when well established, progressive DUers go take another knee jerk verbal shit all over him... especially when they were ultimately proven wrong about their own situation and especially when what they were shitting on him over is ultimately a huge set of laws, programs and program expansions that is UNDISPUTABLY saving and will continue to save a lot of American lives.

I would probably have been a lot more vocal in my criticisms of the things I disagree with this President on if it weren't for the extreme dog pile of unwarranted criticisms that have been aimed at him since day 1. We didn't even treat Bush this bad as a party/ideological spectrum... and he actually did WAY more shit to deserve it. Considering all of that, it kinda makes me not even give a damn about the warranted criticisms because I've been so desensitized by the never ending dogpile of hateful bullshit that isn't based on anything other than pure derangement towards Barack Obama.

The last point I'll make though is this. Criticism of a politician or personality is a two way street. If you think that its "okay" for a person to publically blast the President, and say "fuck you" and call him names and all that shit, then you need to also believe that its "okay" for others to publically defend the President, express why we appreciate things that he has done and send it right back at that person. I don't see you making threads calling people out for picking fights with posters who create threads admiring the President for something he did or just getting amusement from looking at his family and daily life type stuff. If you don't want to be guilty of engaging in a double standard, then you probably need to be calling out those folks as well and you also need to recognize that defending the President is just as valid as criticizing the President. Otherwise, you have a bit of a conflict of standards going on there. And if Will Pitt or whoever isn't prepared to deal with that kind of feed back, then its probably unwise to be posting such things on a public forum DESIGNED for giving and receiving feedback about the things you are posting.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

188. The Clintons were accused of murder.

Did you take those attacks personally? How about all the "-gates" -- did you take those attacks personally?

Jesus, "Democrats" on this site need to toughen the fuck up.

[steve2470]

190. you are correct about the Clintons but we don't need to toughen up

We already are tough. DU is supposed to be somewhat of a safe haven. It's always been this way, since the beginning. You can criticize Democrats but there's a line you don't cross.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

195. Not on the D.U. Trolls like that were Tombstoned.

These days, trolls like that are lauded.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[WorseBeforeBetter]

205. Anyone who uses "the D.U." should be tombstoned.

Are you accusing Will Pitt of trolling?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

212. You seriously think he wasn't using deliberately inflammatory rhetoric?

Written specifically to get a rise out of people?

Come on. That's plain as day.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[WorseBeforeBetter]

221. Well, "mission accomplished" if he were.

I imagine the e-mails to Skinner are flying, in an effort to get him banned. Better Believe It will no longer be the BOG's crowning glory. Bra-vo, Will Pitt.

[phleshdef]

231. I don't think he should be banned and I was one of the harshest critics of that post.

I believe his post should've been trashed though.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

247. Actually, I don't either

But the whole "Republicans libeled Clinton, therefore DUers should be able to do the same to Obama" argument is stupid.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[phleshdef]

252. Right on, completely valid point.

And its not even a matter of "can they do the same to Obama" but more of a matter of "when they do, we can and SHOULD set them straight". The attitude by some seems to imply that harsh criticism is okay but harsh defense isn't and that's just a double standard.

[Number23]

315. You are bang on. The ones making that asinine argument don't even seem to understand what they

are saying.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

248. Sounds reasonable.

But many here have a major hard-on for Pitt, and it seems to me they're not going to let up.

[cherokeeprogressive]

241. What I read was written out of despair and frustration. Taken in that context it's wholly and

completely understandable. The very notion of losing my OTHER HALF brings tears to my eyes if I dwell on it long enough. I cannot imagine a life without Her. My love for my Wife is eternal. I'd like to think I'd stop a bullet for her? A politician? ANY politician? Not so much. If my Wife's life were on the line, I'd be lashing out at God, my neighbors, people in the supermarket, the next cop to drive past me on the boulevard... I'd be lashing out at the WORLD. Try, if you can, TRY to understand his words in that context.

So even though the question wasn't asked of me; Yeah, I seriously think he wasn't being deliberately inflammatory, and wasn't specifically trying to get a rise out of "people".

I'm like that... I have empathy rather than blind loyalty, and politicians are just that... politicians.

[Autumn]

208. DU did not exist during the Clinton years.

If trolls like that were tombstoned that's one magnificent trick

[phleshdef]

210. So there were no discussions about the Clinton years after DU's inception?

[Autumn]

230. I'm sure there were discussions but we were all kind of licking our

wounds from the selection of bush by the supreme court. And then the fucking bush years kicked into high gear and Clinton was irrelevant other than a fond memory for some of us , and then later we all learned what a fucking douche Clinton was. I'm sure you can still see a post crop up once in a while snarking and trashing old Bill . In fact I saw a reference to his cigar just the other day by another high profile DUer but a jury let it stand too.

[laundry_queen]

408. There has been a lot of discussion over the years

both bashing Bill Clinton and worshipping the 'big dawg'. It wasn't really all that different from how people react to PBO here, except that it was maybe a little less passionate because BC was not the current pres at the time.

[ProSense]

197. By Democrats? Ted Nugent called the President a POS

That kind of attack isn't supposed to be condoned by Democrats, and worse it was about as fact-free as some of the RW attacks.

[phleshdef]

202. They went after Clinton hard but still not nearly as hard as they have Obama.

The Republicans in control of Congress worked with Clinton. The country was in decent shape because of that.

I was a teenager when Clinton was in office and never knew about Vincent Foster or any of that shit until many years later. The only big thing with Clinton was the Lewinsky shit and yea, I was really offended by the whole impeachment thing related to that. It was political theatre meant to ruin Clinton's legacy.

Still Clinton was never disrespected the way Obama has been. Clinton was never obstructed the way Obama has been. Clinton had a good 8 years, even with impeachment bullshit being pulled.

And no, we don't need to toughen the fuck up. Sticking up for our elected leaders, having their backs when they are being wronged, that IS being tough. More Democrats need to be out there sticking up for the leader of our party instead of wallowing in this cynical, knee jerk shit fest nonsense.

[steve2470]

206. +1 nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

286. I don't feel Obama represents me as well as (a dwindling number of) others in the Democratic Party.

Last edited Fri Mar 21, 2014, 02:28 AM - Edit history (1)

Many of his policies do not make me want to "have his back" (what genius came up with that expression?). Honestly, I don't really trust him. And I'm not "sticking up" for policy I don't believe in just because he has a D next to his name.

After 8 years of Bush we needed "revolution," not Obama's Captain Bipartisanship bullshit. I live in NC and have watched Republicans seize power and destroy DECADES of progress in a matter of MONTHS. I'm scratching my head as to why Obama and the Democrats didn't approach early 2009 the same way, only using their power for good, rather than destruction. What a colossally wasted opportunity! Speaking of NC, Obama needs to get his ass down here and help Senator Kay Hagan sell his SIGNATURE LEGISLATION. She's vulnerable.

[Cha]

204. By Dems?

[Whisp]

253. ^^The $64,000 question^^

funny that people don't get what that means.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

264. I know it's hard for some to accept...

but, yes, Clinton was criticized by Democrats.

[Cha]

266. Well then they were stupid.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

268. Well. LOL That settles that!

[ProSense]

317. Clinton was not "accused of murder" by Democrats. The murder accusation was your point. n/t

[WorseBeforeBetter]

332. Don't put words in my mouth.

I never suggested Clinton was accused of murder by Democrats.

Many on this site seem to be forgetting one Richard Mellon Scaife and his deep-pocketed attacks on the Clintons. Everyone can spin all they want, Obama is not the only Democratic president who's had a rough go of it. DUers know Republicans are the enemy, too bad he didn't figure it out until recently, finally finding that magic pen (and telephone).

[ProSense]

338. Well,

"I never suggested Clinton was accused of murder by Democrats. "

...let's see:

The Clintons were accused of murder.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024700249#post188

By Dems?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024700249#post204

I know it's hard for some to accept...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024700249#post264

[WorseBeforeBetter]

340. LOL I'm not your trained seal...

clicking on ProSense links.

[phleshdef]

342. You don't need to click on the links. Its a direct transcript of your own discussion.

You know what you said. ProSense doesn't even need to point it out.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

346. And nowhere did I state that Democrats accused the Clintons of murder.

All the blue links in the world won't change that.

[ProSense]

353. All the denial in the world isn't going to change what you said. n/t

[WorseBeforeBetter]

355. Keep fucking that chicken, Pro.

As stimulating as this has been, I'm off to bed.

[ProSense]

360. Do you deny

Greenwald often comes across as a total prick.

Pitt can be a bit of dick, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024700249#post82

...saying that?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

366. Why not share the entire post?

Greenwald often comes across as a total prick.

Pitt can be a bit of dick, too.

Snowden doesn't phase me.

Obama definitely has some slickie boy used car salesman in him, just like so many other politicians. (Yes, Virginia, Obama *is* a politician.)

I agree with them sometimes; others I don't. See how easy that is?

LOL!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024700249#post82

Aaah, better.

Sweet dreams!

[ProSense]

368. LOL! Thanks for the link.

[Whisp]

398. omg, that link is BLUE!!!!!

did you hire him as an Assistant?

[phleshdef]

358. No, but by your responses to her questions, you insinuated an equivalence.

You said Clinton was accused of murder.

She asked "By Dems?"

You said something along the lines of "Yes, Democrats criticized Clinton". Now I know you probably didn't mean they went along with the murder accusations, I'll give you the benefit of doubt on that, but you were seemingly implying that Democrats criticized Clinton at that level at least.

But again, Clinton did get his share of bullshit to deal with, but theres no way you can say its anywhere close to the bullshit Obama has had to deal with in those same regards. After what Bill Clinton dealt with when his sexual issues were brought to light, how the hell do you think Obama would fair under those same conditions? I guaran-goddamn-tee he wouldn't be allowed to place the country in any position that would enable him to leave office with a 60+% approval rating.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

362. I can't control what others infer from my posts.

In the first thread I also mentioned the various "-gates" Republicans launched against the Clintons, but that is being overlooked by the gotcha! club. And Dems "criticized" does not equal Dems "accused of murder."

[ProSense]

344. LOL!

Denial.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

350. LOL! Hey this is fun!

"Criticized" does not equal "accused of murder." But you knew that.

[Whisp]

191. +++Great post, I especially relate to this part:

I would probably have been a lot more vocal in my criticisms of the things I disagree with this President on if it weren't for the extreme dog pile of unwarranted criticisms that have been aimed at him since day 1.

Exactly my thoughts. I would rather cut my arm off than give the haters the satisfaction that I may have a criticism of the President's work. It's a very sick environment here.

[steve2470]

193. it's amazing that a site like DU is so negative towards the President

No one expects this place to be a house of worship or an echo chamber, but....wow.

[Cha]

290. Hate sells and it's apparently contagious.

[steve2470]

292. yes

I think there's a happy medium between Yahoo comments/YouTube comments and BarackObamaTempleUnderground.com. I think we're getting too far towards Yahoo. The POS tirade was well over the line.

[Cha]

300. ..

thanks, steve.

[steve2470]

302. always my pleasure ! nt

[phleshdef]

227. Thank you. Honestly that might've been the most vindicating thing I've wrote in a long time.

[Bobbie Jo]

226. Bravo!

[egduj]

228. The answer to this question is always going to be...

the preceding president.

[phleshdef]

229. I address that and its simply not true.

[egduj]

232. You're right. That couldn't be the answer for George Washington.

I withdraw my broad brush statement.

[phleshdef]

238. Actually lets just go as far back as Bush.

Bush got to have his way with the country for almost his entire tenure and the Dems, after taking power in 2006, never shut the government down, never played games with the debt ceiling. They worked with Bush to pass all the normal "business of government" type bills. They never went after Bush for phony scandals, they didn't even go after him for the real ones. They never heckled him during a state of the union. No Democratic governor got up in Bush's face. Bush's base gave him the benefit of the doubt on the right. He got his way on just about everything his first four years and a good deal of everything his last four years. He was given free reign to destroy the economy, blow up the debt and pull us into 2 painfully long, obscenely expensive wars.

So yea, I call bullshit on your premise.

[betsuni]

337. Thank you

This is exactly what I think. The extreme dog pile everywhere. I've never had to do so much research just to find out what's really going on in a simple news story because of all the misinformation. In Clinton's day everyone still socialized in D.C. and still had to work together and that hasn't been the case for many years. This is a unique situation.

[KittyWampus]

489. That was well written. I thank you and wish you'd consider as an OP.

[betsuni]

523. I second that!

[steve2470]

524. another rec for an OP nt

[steve2470]

183. cali I respect your opinions

My only comment is, a line is crossed when you call a President a "piece of shit used-car salesman". Yes, we called Shrub that and worse. However, DU is supposed to be somewhat of a safe haven for Democrats and their sympathizers. Should we have called Shrub those nasty vile things ? Some would say yes, some would say no. It was certainly allowed here and even encouraged, perhaps. Shrub certainly deserved the vitriol and then some. A nice cell in the Hague, IMHO.

I completely understand rage and frustration about healthcare, insurance companies and the shortcomings of the ACA. I just don't think targeting President Obama for the vitriol is ok. Yes, every poster here has free speech, no arguments.

If the day ever comes when I feel the need to call President Obama a "piece of shit used-car salesman", I'll quit DU forever and go post at PissedOffAtPoliticiansUnderground.

I know I changed no one's mind with this. I'll just agree to disagree with those who don't see it my way.

Have a pleasant evening, cali.

[nomorenomore08]

371. Call it misguided, call it whatever you want. But focusing on that single phrase misses the point

completely. The guy is (understandably) very upset about his current situation, which neither he nor his wife has done anything to deserve. I think having compassion for the Pitts is the most important thing here, honestly.

[steve2470]

373. I truly do have compassion for them

I think all decent DU'ers should and do agree on that point. The current system sucks. The old system sucked. Unfortunately, for many, the system will continue to suck for a while.

People can get rather....brusque in GD. I'm not perfect in that regard. I do have compassion for them.

The whole shitstorm about WillPitt needs to end. Dead horse, etc.

[Warren DeMontague]

213. Yeah, we wouldn't want anyone to ever overreact to something posted in GD, would we.

...

[kestrel91316]

215. And you just love to see all the attacks on him. You always have.

You don't fool anyone who's paying attention.

[lumpy]

328. I have noticed that also.

[cali]

396. that's absurd. A) I was one of his earliest supporters here

B) Whenever I can praise him, I do. Do a freakin' search. C) I personally would not call him that. I didn't like seeing it and I wish Will hadn't said it. Nevertheless, I understand that his anger came from a place of fear about his wife's condition. Was it misplaced? I think so. Do I think Will should say that? Yes.

Stop making stuff up about me. I've never called President Obama anything like that. I criticize policies and his pro corporate bent.

[ReRe]

222. Ha! You didn't know that you would be accused....

... of being the "pearl clutcher," by the end of the thread, now did you? The Hero "Trolling for Obama" worship here is getting way out of hand. They sow seeds of discord among us. All I can say is I sincerely hope they have insurance good enough to cover psychological counseling and get the care they need. Something tells me that PO himself would not defend the behavior of these childish trolls, who look at themselves as his defender!

[Capt. Obvious]

409. "Trolling for Obama"

Very apt

[Niceguy1]

223. agreed

He is a good guy, married to a great gal.

In the end he is still a politician and should be treated as such.

[aikoaiko]

236. I don't think its about the president as much as it is about who we are.

We don't have to sound like asshat freeper jerks when criticizing the president.

[DesMoinesDem]

244. In the BOG Obama IS a deity.

[ProSense]

246. Obama is a man. No one here is stupid enough to think of him as "deity."

The attack in question was disgusting and ill-informed.

[DesMoinesDem]

254. I get a much different impression from the BOG.

[Cha]

287. We have respect for the Prez and we support him on the whole and those who just can't get that..

think that's "deifying" him. But, this is oke dokey..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4686372

And, when all else fails bring up the BOG..

[phleshdef]

257. Outside of the BOG, defending or praising Obama is some sort of blasphemy.

Not that your characterization is actually true to begin with... but the double standard of "criticism = good", "defense = bad" has to be addressed.

[JoePhilly]

411. Some of the angry folks on DU live in a black and white world.

The ACA is either good or bad, there is no in between.

Same with the President.

And the same on every other topic discussed around here.

If its not great ... its the worst thing to ever happen, until the next thing that's the worst. thing that's ever happened.

Their outrage meter stays pegged to 11 at all times.

[steve2470]

262. It's the yin to the yang of GD

GD is 99.999% negative towards the President. BOG is 99.999% positive. I don't have an issue with that. If I choose to constructively criticize the President, I take it to GD or Politics 2014.

[grasswire]

250. Question: Is a Democrat "allowed" to hate a Democratic president?

I wonder how many Democrats hated Bill Clinton back in the day.

I don't see how a POTUS can be universally loved by his party.

That said, I don't think Will hates Obama. I think Will is just extremely disillusioned and feels betrayed, as do many Democrats today.

I watched Obama on the Ellen show today. He's so cool, so attractive. Easy to like. I like the man. But I DO NOT like everything he has done or failed to do.

And what I DO dislike is Obama's squad of fluffers. I hated the Bushbots and I dislike the Obamabots, who are quite comparable to the Bushbots in blind allegiance. They really are doing Obama no favors. They earn him no favor. Quite the contrary, actually.

[Puzzledtraveller]

367. You echo my exact feelings

[djean111]

404. "And what I DO dislike is Obama's squad of fluffers. I hated the Bushbots and I dislike the

Obamabots, who are quite comparable to the Bushbots in blind allegiance. They really are doing Obama no favors. They earn him no favor. Quite the contrary, actually."

Can't be said enough. The accusation that anyone who does not revere him is a troll has me thinking that some are deliberately trying to drive liberals and progressives out of the party - and who benefits from that? The disdainful sneering at liberals, all the while saying we are responsible for any losses, is a pretty fucking stupid tactic. Some days the disdain and sneering has me wondering if this is a group i want to be associated with. And I think that is the purpose of it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

251. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. Lord Acton

Freedom for supporters of the government only, for members of one party only, no matter how big its membership may be is, no freedom at all. Freedom is always freedom for the man who thinks differently.
Rosa Luxemburg

One leader, one people, signifies one master and millions of slaves. Albert Camus

[pragmatic_dem]

260. lol @ pearl clutching, did someone go off message? Good. Honesty wins over corporate

compliance. We all get enough of that shit from 9 to 5, or 9 to 9 including weekends for many of us (while being paid as if we were only working 9 to 5).

Last thing people need is to be treated like subservient employees by a political party that claims to represent us.

[pnwmom]

269. I understood why he was so fired up and I felt bad for his wife. What bothered me

was that he was repeating false statements about the ACA.

We are in the last week of sign-ups and we don't need distraught people drawing hundreds of recs who are saying things that are simply untrue.

He said that there was no point for him to consider the other 9 insurers in his state because his "friend" (some friend) told him it was a "waste of time" because insurers outside of the exchange would reject his wife because of her preexisting condition. And that is false. The rules of the ACA apply to all insurers, both inside and outside the exchanges. They can't reject you because you are sick, or charge you more, or dump you if you get sick, or set lifetime or annual limits..

And they must offer drugs in every single category of drugs -- even expensive M.S. drugs -- though they don't have to offer each competing brand or generic in that category. And there is a way to quickly appeal internally, and then externally, and there is a way to have a doctor request an exemption if you need a special medication.

At the point he posted his first, furious post, he hadn't done any of that yet, and he appeared to be giving up based on false information. I don't blame him in the slightest for being on fire because of his wife. But I didn't think the misinformation he was highlighting should go unanswered.

This is part of what he said in that first explosive thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4686037

"There are ten different health insurance companies in NH. According to the independent (family friend, ally) insurance adjuster I spoke to at length this afternoon, pursuing coverage with any of them would be a waste of time. Why? Because - according to dude - the whole "You cannot deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions" thing only applies to insurance companies within the ACA network. You heard all that shit about "Grandfathering." Well, this is that, and all of them will turn us down because they still can.

"I am in the process of running down the facts of the matter, but family friend and ally was confident enough to basically tell us not to bother. "

[Whisp]

273. It was a dishonest post

Why, is anyone's guess.

One thing I did learn from that tho is investigative journalism is not his niche. At one post I believe it was said that it's been 2 or 3 months working on this problem...

Just doesn't add up.

[pnwmom]

279. I also was working, at first, with a broker recommended by a relative.

His email boilerplate had this disclaimer at the end about the insurers being able to reject the application, and I knew that wasn't true. I finally asked him in December why it said that and he acknowledged that the law was changing on January 1. And yet the boilerplate still hadn't changed after January 1.

I ended up doing the research myself and dumping the agent. I felt like the choices he was giving me were based on what was easiest for him, not necessarily best for my son and his GF.

[grasswire]

285. you do know that Pitt is a NYT best selling author...

....for his book on the run-up to the Iraq war?

D D D D.

[Whisp]

301. so?

[grasswire]

321. just want to make sure you are clearly aware....

.....that the professional body of work of Will Pitt is being disparaged right here on DU, picked up on google. Twice, in one thread. You seem determined to damage that reputation.

[pnwmom]

341. That's rich.

Will Pitt was here cursing out and disparaging the "professional body of work" of President Obama. And Will was doing that because he was furious based on misinformation some agent-"friend" gave him about the ACA.

I don't blame him for being beside himself about his wife and her health. But his fan club should recognize that he was getting lots of recs here for saying things about the ACA that are wrong -- with only about a week before the end of the sign-up period. They shouldn't blame those of us who are trying to set the record straight.

[Whisp]

395. He does damage to himself. Good lord just because he wrote a book

he is supposed to be some kind of noble and not have to follow the same rules us pathetic serfs do? Does he have a set of pom poms to give to his adoration of the Pitt Tiger Beat fan club like Obama apparently does?

Do you have an idea how many books are published and gt on that list? Lots. Are we to give each of those people extra rights us commoners don't?


this is good belly laugh and eyeball roll exercise, please continue.

[treestar]

327. so is Ann Coulter

[grasswire]

331. there you go again.....nt

[Bluenorthwest]

419. How you speak to others.

treestar (40,648 posts)
457. There is nothing bigoted about the fact

There there is only one right you do not have. And people who give no credit to Obama for what he did already while making as if it is the only issue that matters are just wrong. There's always going to be some new demand. I am a woman and we don't have all our rights all the time, or some are threatened, but this is the US where we can talk about it, protest and I don't go around saying I have no rights. Not when looking at women in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia for instance.

If I am a bigot for caring about other issues, then fine. I don't think gay marriage is the only civil rights issue there is. Or the only issue that matters. And there is free speech. And the rest of the bill of rights. You should be ashamed for not caring about anyone or anything else."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113727459

Of course LGBT people have no protections in employment nor in housing from the Federal government and obtaining those rights is a constant battle which Democrats should be aware of and supportive of. We are missing many, many rights.
You never said sorry. You hid behind Obama and Biden and say LGBT should be ashamed and accuse us of not caring about others.
The idea of you claiming others are speaking harshly is disgusting. You have no standing to make such claims.

[Capt. Obvious]

421. I'm waiting for her response

Will it be "some people make everything too personal"

[Rex]

507. *Crickets*

Then again the poster in question cannot be taken seriously by me, I've seen way too much stuff like that.

[pnwmom]

339. And the relevance of this is what? He didn't do all the research in this case.

And he was saying things he that weren't true.

[Whisp]

399. Which leads me to think maybe the book isn't all true?

funny how that works but when a person puts out false information on one thing, or is just too lazy to check out the facts before blowing gaskets, other things he writes takes on a bit of that same stain.

[Lars39]

488. Wow....that is a staggeringly ignorant statement!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022388813

[Whisp]

490. apparently he isn't very good at looking into facts

before he blows off - and that is the #1 rule for journalism with integrity. So it's a natural question to wonder if he did this at other times too - just didn't look into things deep enough before spouting.

I haven't read the book, nor ever will. I imagine it was popular here as that time everyone here was on the right side and worked together against that mass murdering chimp.

[Lars39]

491. You know, going after someone's livelihood is pretty goddammed low.

[Whisp]

494. oh yeh, I forgot about another time of poor fact checking - Karl Rove Indictment

It's on the record. It's more about someone who should be careful about fact checking if it's integral to the livelihood.

Karl Rove Indicted!
Say what?
Yes, sure as shit I got the scoop - he's perping this Friday
No way, where'd you hear that?
I got sources, reliable sources!
it's Friday, where's the walk?
No No I meant the Other Friday with the longer business hours!
I think you are full of shit,
No way, you f••••••! why don't you just •••• go and ••••••ing die. How dare you challenge me, you •••••••••!!!

[Capt. Obvious]

496. The posts in this subthread are beyond low

[pnwmom]

503. I wouldn't draw that conclusion. I just think that his emotions got the better of him

in this situation, for understandable reasons, and he panicked and vented, rather than pursuing the facts first.

[treestar]

347. then he doesn't even need the ACA

and can afford whatever drugs are needed without worry.

[KittyWampus]

471. Which makes his inability to do basic research on #1. choosing an insurance plan and #2. how to get

meds for his wife all the more strange. Don't you think?

[Cha]

299. The investigative journalists are a rare breed.. like Steve Benen, Rachel Maddow,

James Schlarmann.. the reality based community. Not the raging types to garner clicks

[Whisp]

306. The Click Garners...

Sounds like a Stephen King book.

I just thought journalists had this ethical thing about finding facts,
the who what where when why questions, but that may be old school.

It's not the 5W's these days, it's the 5 F words, maybe?

[Cha]

308. LOL.. I think that was the old days

when that happened and those who didn't have their facts straight were properly shunned.

Fortunately there's still some around.. can you imagine if every single journalist didn't give a shite about facts? Like fox and their truther brigade or Putin's RT?

We're actually Lucky we can discern!

[MFM008]

294. i wish i had pearls

just adding nothing here....

[treestar]

307. It was an unfair attack

BS it was "pearl clutching."

But we know defending Obama would bother you. How dare anyone do that?

[lostincalifornia]

310. An apology of misdirected anger would be appropriate. A lot of people have bad things happen to

Them everyday, and they don't go bonkers. They try to see what they need to do to remedy the issue

[steve2470]

313. so so true nt

[LittleBlue]

318. I won't alert on you, but I'd advise you to delete that

before it gets hidden.

Cali isn't your public servant, she doesn't accept voter anger as part of her job. Obama is, and managing voter anger is part of the job.

[Drunken Irishman]

322. That is, well, ridiculous...

Obama is also a human being who, mind you, is a Democrat. We wouldn't tolerate right-wing trolls spouting off that type of crap to the President. Why should we tolerate it when it's supposedly our own?

[LittleBlue]

325. Obama isn't even reading this

It's like saying bad shit behind someone's back and it won't get back to them.

Different than telling someone to their face "f*** you".

[Drunken Irishman]

333. Who says cali is reading it? Maybe I'm blocked...

[treestar]

329. Tough shit

All adults have to put up with the heat from what they say.

Not just the President.

[fleabiscuit]

335. Sheesh...

Since when did cali gain the STATE power POTUS has? Ridiculous.

[donheld]

345. I'm usually on William Pitt's side

This time is no different. While I don't totally think the President is a used car salesman piece of shit, I can understand where Will is coming from. I very much think he had a right to post that rant.

[lostincalifornia]

351. Calling someone a POS is more than a rant

[truebluegreen]

370. in your opinion

[donheld]

526. Calling the President a piece of shit is not a big deal.

Obama is not a deity.

[lostincalifornia]

528. Calling anyone a POS is a big deal, and if you don't see that isn't my problem

[pnwmom]

359. Does it matter to you that he was getting a lot of recs for repeating a lie?

His agent-"friend" lied to him when he told him not to "waste his time" checking into the 9 other insurers in NH, saying that all those insurers would reject his wife for her preexisting condition. And then Will flipped out . . . instead of getting the true facts . . . and then he repeated the lie here and got hundreds of recs.

The truth is that under the ACA, no insurer, either on or off the exchange, can reject a customer on the basis of her health, or charge her more, or drop her if she gets sick, or limit annual or yearly benefits.

I think his "friend" was feeling lazy and didn't want to check out the alternatives himself so he told Will there was no point. Some friend. But I really expected Will would have been smarter than that. How could such a smart, well informed man -- someone for whom health care issues were critical -- not understand by now the really basic facts about the ACA? I'm still mystified.

[Whisp]

401. it could also be an imaginary friend.

hey, anything is possible knowing what we know now.

1. Facts Schmacts
2. If it maligns Obama, it's cool
3. Clicks n' Clickz

[randome]

402. I think his 'friend' didn't exist.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[donheld]

525. I know Will went through hell this week over his wife's meds.

He had every right to react as he did. I believe Will spent many many minutes if not hours dealing with this. It's a very emotional, anxious thing he had to go through. If he had some facts wrong help him through that process. Don't tell him he cannot speak about the President the way he did.

[pnwmom]

527. My concern was that we were in the last days of sign-up and he's an influential person.

I hated to think that he could have influenced even one person who needed insurance from bothering to pursue it, on the basis that Will Pitt said it would be a waste of time. A person with a serious preexisting condition could delay signing up now and have to wait all the way till next January for coverage, and that would be a shame.

But I never criticized him for his anger and his language. I knew where that was coming from, even though I believe it was misdirected.

[theboss]

449. Every fact he stated in that post was false

It was an ugly, pointless rant that was not based on any reality.

[Aerows]

349. When you get too comfortable

using a heavy hand, beating on people for thinking differently than you, and generally being a negative simply because a human being dared to criticize government policy, I'd imagine it is a shock when suddenly people stand up and say "No More".

You can only ridicule, deride and disdain people that are true to their Democratic beliefs too long.

[Douglas Carpenter]

363. I think I'm going to faint

[msongs]

364. when GW Bush was called nasty things on here the moral squad raised few objections nt

[politicman]

374. we criticize Obama because he we think he is capable of more than what he settles for

For all you Obama worshippers, (and believe me I like Obama, his good outweighs his bad), stop being so damn protective of this president when he disappoints.

We criticize Obama simply because we like him and he has disappointed on a few things.
We hold Obama to a higher standard than other presidents, simply because we think he is a better person than other presidents.

So when Obama uses a drone program that kills innocents, when Obama authoritizes illegal wiretapping, when Obama gives up the fight for single payer, when Obama caves to the GOP on many issues, when Obama leaves plenty of Bush appointees in high level government positions, when Obama kowtows to the 1%ers, etc, etc, we lash out at him simply because we view Obama (coming from a community organizer background) as our last chance for a president to effect the meaningful change that America so dearly needs.

Obama could have had the whole world fawning all over America again, instead he does many things that previous presidents have done simply to avoid the backlash from Republicans who even if he did what the want will still criticise him, so why he kowtows to them I have no idea.

[Enthusiast]

376. K&R! Our only hope to change the President's position is to criticize his position.

Wake the fuck up, people!

[DebJ]

393. DU was the reason that back in 2003 I actually got up off my butt, out of my shyness and isolation

and actually did something to make a difference in elections between 2003 and 2010.
It was the constant flow of threads with information on issues, people's positions, who was running where,
etc. Great quotes and votes references on McCain, et al, that helped me to change voters minds.

I got so involved that eventually I was asked to introduce Ted Kennedy on CNN when he came to York Pa,
something I NEVER thought I'd do, stand up in front of so many people and on TV yet.

That's all because of DU.

Can we PLEASE get back to that now? I think everyone has had ample opportunity to post their opinions
on this issue. I can understand both sides... or, maybe three sides: a)bad for future elections to be name-calling and nastily disrespectful instead of issue-focused 2) sometimes people just need to vent their frustrations at politicians and 3) have some empathy for someone who is in fear for his spouse's life...if you haven't been there yet, just hope you never will be!

NOW LET'S GET TO WORK LADIES AND GENTLEMAN!

[Glitterati]

410. Exactly! Thanks

It's like the moment the doctor comes out and gives you horrible news about your loved one.

You turn to Mom, or his Mom, or your sister and start screaming at them. Blaming them for everything that ever went wrong in your life.

Because you know they will grab your shoulders, give you a crushing hug and let you cry for a few minutes.

Then you all square your shoulders and deal with what's coming.

THAT'S how friends and family deal with soul crushing news.

Now, let's DEAL.

[jsr]

406. "Your job is to hold my feet to the fire...

so, you need to be out there everyday raising these issues, telling us when we’re doing the right or wrong thing. My role is to be President of the United States, and your role is to be a strong voice for people who aren’t always heard."

[randome]

413. You don't hold anyone's feet to the fire by throwing juvenile insults around.

That's not supplying information, it's not helpful, it's not doing anything but throwing a temper tantrum. With children, it works to ignore them and they usually settle down. It doesn't work so well for adults.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Glitterati]

414. Well, then

Perhaps the Obama Cheerleading Squad would have been wisely advised to ignore him.

Kinda like that day the Vice President of the United States told a sitting senator to "go fuck yourself."

Right?

[randome]

418. Well, I did ignore the original thread. I'm surprised to see so many threads about the thread.

You don't need to be part of a cheerleading squad to have disdain for writing that sounds like it came from someone with tourette's syndrome.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Glitterati]

420. For you, I sincerely hope

you never have to deal with that moment....

When you open a letter from some bureaucrat saying your loved one won't get the recommended medical care.

When you're standing in a private room at the hospital ER and the doctor comes in and says "We did all we could, but we couldn't revive him."

When you're surrounded by loved ones when the horrible news arrives.

When you lash out at anyone and everyone because your whole world just crashed in on you.

When you just need to rant....

Because, I can tell you first hand how soul crushing and horrible those moments are. I sincerely hope you never have to deal with any of them, much less all.

[JoePhilly]

426. Used to happen to my neice all the time before the ACA.

Doesn't happen to her, and my sister, anymore.

[Glitterati]

427. Still happens to some

So, do you think you can find some empathy for those who are still dealing with it?

Or is your idol just too important for you to find some humanity to expend on your fellow travelers along this road?

[JoePhilly]

429. I do have empathy for them.

In fact, within WillPitt's original rant, I provided references to materials he could find on the National MS Society's web site.

I have a friend with MS who has looked to that organization for help in the past when an insurance company would try to deny a treatment or drug.

See, that used to happen before the ACA too, and unfortunately, although its now mush less frequent, it can still happen. The ACA didn't solve every problem, nor do I know of anyone who has ever said it does.

In any case, I have a great deal of empathy for some one who is suffering (like Will's wife). I have less empathy for one who is throwing a tantrum and pointing their anger in the wrong direction (like Will himself).

[Glitterati]

431. Perhaps a virtual hug

would have been more appropriate than an alert.

What happens in those moments is "finger pointing" at people who are supposed to understand your pain and help you through it.

I repeat, lashing out at Mom, or his Mom, or Sis in those moments is typical. Because you know that those people will grab you by the shoulders, give you a chest crushing hug and let you cry.

Instead, on DU, we get an American Idol moment when Obama supporters believe hitting the alert button is their vote for their idol for this week.

[JoePhilly]

436. I did not alert. I never do.

I sent help. That is what I did.

And, I said nothing to Will about his tantrum.

The problem with your family love fest story is that Will tends to throw tantrums.

He's not looking for hugs and sympathy, he's looking for folks to join his tantrum. And he got plenty of that in his thread.

I sent help, more help than most of those who cheered his anti-Obama ranting.

[Glitterati]

437. So sad

you couldn't get a jury to agree with you, so Will Pitt became the enemy. Even though he's on your side.

Throwing mutual supporters overboard isn't going to win the next race. When you make every effort to drown supporters who dare to disagree with you, you eventually run out of voters.

Good luck with that.

[JoePhilly]

479. I think you responded to the wrong person.

I did not alert on Will's OP.

Didn't try to get a jury to side with me on anything.

You seem very confused.

Which I'm starting to think is a common thing for you.

[1StrongBlackMan]

415. Well, Thank you for explaining that ...

Now I can go on with my life!

[randr]

435. Grow some skin DU

Looking at this post today makes me wonder how much we have started to sound like the Republicans.
If we keep up with this it will be easy for us to lose the Senate.
All politicians require scrutiny, I personally feel Obama has done things that we would be demanding impeachment for if he were Republican, yet know without him we would be far worse off.
I am very glad to hear Will's wife has found a source for the meds she requires. I will forgive and forget Will's rant because I understand where he was coming from.
I hope all who are concerned, what ever for, take their frustration to their elected reps and let them know what happened to Will's family.
Write Obama about it and demand this situation be fixed in the ACA.
We deserve Health Care, not Health Insurance.

[Glitterati]

439. It's pretty frightening isn't it?

DU has become the mirror of Freerepublic!!!!!!! Yikes!

Survival of the fit; Darwinism at it's finest. Right here on DU.

Lack of empathy because Will Pitt dared to tell Obama "go fuck yourself" just like the Vice President did to Patrick Leahy.

Cheering for the ACA version of Dick Cheney!

Never thought I'd see it on DU.

[Whisp]

448. Well, Ted Nugent would approve, that's for sure. n/t

[LordGlenconner]

456. I feel the same way about TPP

And the war in Syria that never happened, chained CPI etc.

Lots of pearl clutching from the OP and others with those issues as well.

[sufrommich]

463. Maybe it's considered OK for the majority

of posters who regularly post at DU,but I never ,ever promote this site to other democrats. It's not really a very welcoming site for your average democrat,nor is it very useful for actual,realistic discussion regarding the democratic party.

[DanTex]

492. "Pearl clutching". Hardly.

Yelling "fuck you" at Obama over what (unsurprisingly) turned out to be yet another phony ACA horror story is a teabagger move. It is a little surprising to see the same Fox News narrative (Obamacare destroyed my life!) parroted here at DU. Yes, people get mad at politicians. People (Democrats, at least) also take issue with someone lashing out randomly and irrationally at Obama.

[RetroLounge]

502. Poor cheerleaders, someone was mean to their messiah

This place is mostly a joke.

How I miss the old days before these true-believer posters got out of high school.

RL

[liberal N proud]

504. He is also very good at dealing with hecklers.

[Sheepshank]

505. PO, way to insult everyone who doesn't think name calling=policy criticism n/t

[sabrina 1]

520. Lol! n/t