Is DU "positioning itself" as the anti-Democratic Party, anti-Obama administration discussion board?

[HamdenRice]

Because if it is, I won't bother with checking the Greatest Page most days and will head straight to DailyKos.

I understand criticism of the party and administration, but most of the time, frankly, I'm just shocked by the number of "critical" posts (note scare quotes) that are based on blatantly false factoids.

It's one thing to criticize. It's another thing to embrace every fake make believe news factoid and repeat it over and over.

Does anyone really believe that the administration has made a conscious decision to continue the Bush administration's torture policy, just "because" without any evidence whatsoever? If you were told that Obama is sacrificing and cannibalizing infants to Baal in the White House basement would you believe that and generate dozens of posts based on it?

If we are going to become the forum for Rush Limbaughs of the left, then it really isn't worth coming here.

[Heidi]

1. Kick.

:kick:

[Turbineguy]

2. It seems

to be positioning itself as the opposite side of the same coin as freerepublic.

[HamdenRice]

4. Sad but increasingly obviously true nt

[bjobotts]

219. Where's your proof? Are you just ill informed and making assumptions

[bjobotts]

220. Have you not been reading Glenn Greenwald's posts. Always informed and accurate

[bjobotts]

221. Of course Obama is continuing the policies of Bush (not the torture but the rendition)

[bjobotts]

222. The denial of habeas Corpus, the refusal to allow accountability to the executive branch

[bjobotts]

223. I pray it's not so too but it is and Obama's administration has even gone past Bush's secrecy polici

[bjobotts]

224. Trying to demean DU because you don't like what you read is cowardly

[bjobotts]

225. Check the facts yourself then post to the comment you dispute rather than generalize

[bjobotts]

226. The title of your rant is one big smear by inference. Like "When did you stop beating your wife"

[bjobotts]

227. "If DU is going to continue to be child molesters and anti morality then..." get it?

[Kaleko]

231. Another bjobotts dump

of headline posts straight from the BigBotts factory. How persuasive do you think this one will be?
Will it be big enough to shut up the ones who don't agree?

Fat chance. :)

[Bette Noir]

281. I always skip 'em.

[sui generis]

310. jeepers.

[HamdenRice]

327. Bizarre isn't it? I only realized recently that it's a pattern with that one nt

[11 Bravo]

336. Should we tell him that no prizes are awarded based on post count?

[kenfrequed]

264. Uhm

While I agree with your assessment is it possible you could have just one post with all of those comments bound in it. I dunno, maybe in the BIG FRIGGIN WHITE BOX MARKED 'MESSAGE'!

[Autonomy]

298. WTF are you doing?

Major netiquette breech. Don't spam posts like that. Make your point(s) all in one post. Use edit if you remember something later. Replying to yourself multiple times makes you seem batshit crazy. Sheesh.

[kegler14]

302. Well that was so impressive. Not.

[vaberella]

260. What a way to be an obnoxious...~sigh~ n/t

[Xipe Totec]

3. You're trying to cover the sun with your thumb

Here's what you can expect to see when you go to DailyKos:

CIA Urges Judge To Keep Bush-Era Documents Sealed

There are records of 92 video tapes of interrogation. The videos themselves were destroyed in 2005, but the Obama administration is pushing to keep the transcripts of those videos sealed.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/9/740455/-Obama-Administration-Objects-to-Release-of-Torture-Video-Transcripts

[HamdenRice]

5. And that's the same as continuing torture? Do we live in the same reality? nt

[webDude]

211. Seeing only black and white is frequently a sign of psychosis.

nt

[goclark]

6. I joined dailykos yesterday

It seems to stay on a positive note.

I'm too blessed to be stressed out when I need to gain information on important issues of the day.

[BlooInBloo]

10. Plenty of criticism there - but they start off from a position of not hating Obama.

[WI_DEM]

15. true, where many of Obama's most persistent critics here have never liked him

and have carried it over from the primaries.

[Jennicut]

23. It does seem that some still are caught up in the primaries

[Cha]

138. Oh yeah..

It's not just your imagination.:(

[quickesst]

141. I was an avid supporter of HRC during the rimaries...

...but Obama THE OTHER DEMOCRAT won, and that put me firmly behind him. I believe I see some Obama fantasizers here trashing him as badly, but that's only because in their perspective, they were hornswaggled by Obama. Any HRC supporters stirring shit because they're still angry need to catch up to reality and get a fucking life, or at the least move on so the space can be taken up by something more worthwhile, like golf. Thanks.
quickesst

[suzie]

250. I find that I am in partial disagreement with you.

The space could be taken up with tennis.

[Andy823]

27. I noticed that also.

Certain posters here seem to only post negative things about the president and his agenda. Now I don't agree with everything that is going on, but the fact is that even on the worst day for Obama, it's a million times better than what we had with Bush, or if McCain would have been elected. Nobody is perfect, and with all this mess that Bush left the president Obama, it will take some time to get things working again. He has to set priorities and that's not easy when everyone thinks their priority should also be his!

Like you I believe some are just carrying a grudge because their candidate did not win, and sometimes I think they believe if Obama looks bad enough their candidate can take over and become president one day.

[mkultra]

136. you get the golden star today.

[kenfrequed]

266. Nonsense

I was never 'anti-obama' during the primary. There were candidates I liked better and candidates I thought were far worse. My criticism is reserved for his POSITIONS and the decisions he makes. I believe the man himself to be good or to have good intentions, but when someone does something I believe to be wrong it is my duty as a citizen to call, write lettes, send emails, and yes even discuss it in whatever forum (real life or online) that I commonly interract with.

To do otherwise reduces the concept of democracy to a magic holidy in November that is interracted with once a year and subsequently forgotten.

[bjobotts]

228. You can both support Obama and be critical of him. Love him and tell him when he's tearing down civi

civil liberties. You generalizations have no specifics but your impression...and that lacks supporting information.

[tomp]

243. why would i "love" any politician who is even approaching....

....""tearing down civil liberties"?

[HamdenRice]

12. Not just positive but very factual

I guess it's a different internet culture. Increasingly, a lot of stuff here is basically "made up" or just highly rhetorical and ideological.

Kos has a much more fact based discussion style so even the criticism of Democrats and Obama is at least rational.

[goclark]

58. I don't mind the straight forward talk at DU

but I don't see the direct undermining of the Democratic Party as a goal.

[AtomicKitten]

174. It seems some ferret out the worst possible take on current events.

Almost always from a blog that incites with hyperbole. It's an agenda, a drive. Almost always laced with vitriol. I disagree with President Obama on several things, but I can talk about it dispassionately. I applaud nudging him every step of the way, respectfully. Rachel and Keith and Bill Maher have been slammed here, but they all exhibit respect and goodwill toward President Obama.

[Blue_Roses]

64. I joined a few years ago...

and if things here keep going so negative, I'm heading over there.

[kjackson227]

129. I'm joining right now...

We ALL have a lot to be thankful for in President Obama, but a lot of people are misinformed, spew half-truths, and blantant lies because he's not working fast enough for them regarding their particular agendas. If it weren't for President Obama, their issues wouldn't even be considered in the first place.

[goclark]

146. Maybe Sarah will put their issues front and center in 2012

[RaleighNCDUer]

279. I have less problem with the people spewing half-truths and blatant

lies than I have with them doggedly defending those half-truths and lies in the face of contrary evidence or reasoning.

Is it possible that Obama is a one-man conspiracy, making these people all conspiracy theorists?

[destes]

263. What?

[WI_DEM]

7. You should ask Skinner & the other administrators. It's there site and they are the ones who will

allow what is on its pages. If they decide it will be an anti-democratic party, anti-Obama website they probably should change the name to Green Underground or something like that. As it is I think DU is risking losing many democrats who, contrary to what some say, don't blindly follow Obama, but do think he is basically doing a good job along with 92% of the democrats in most polls. So DU may in the end be nothing but anti-Obamaites.

[HamdenRice]

32. I think you're right and it's happening

A lot of people are choosing not to post here or even read it. I can turn on Fox news for what predominates here lately.

As more and more Democrats leave, it will take on a more and more anti-Democratic Party tone, which in turn will prompt more people to leave -- the same cycle that can be said to have happened to the Republicans with their moderates.

[Peacetrain]

52. That is what gets to me..not the criticism..but the visceral

hate of Obama that precedes it.. It gets me into a defensive position, before I even start reading the op.. and hey, maybe they have something good to say, but if I have to spend 5 posts addressing the irrational "cultism's".. I just plain old run out of energy.

[kenfrequed]

267. This is a signal to noise ratio

The problem is the echo of accusation is overwhleming the actual supposed "Obama hate." I have seen very very little actual anger or hate of President Obama here. I have seen a lot of that accusation thrown at every single criticism of decisions he has made with little regard as to whether those criticisms are silly or well reasoned.

And posts like this sort of 'DU has changed/you guys are haters' nonsense have likewise multipled wildly.

[NorthCarolina]

280. It seems to me that ANY criticism is immediately equated to "Visceral Hate" by some on DU

Criticism is criticism, hate is hate. I do not HATE Obama, but I strongly disagree with some of his policies, particularly with regard to the LGBT community, continuing unpopular wars, secrecy, defense of Bush torture policies, etc. As such, I would logically criticize those policies because I disagree with them and feel they are neither representative of Democratic principles, nor are they what most of us voted for. Many of these same folks that cannot seem to grasp the driving force behind criticism, often seem to be the same posters that routinely dump on Maddow and Olbermann because they too can at times be critical of Obama. The world is not simply black or white...the "you're either for us or against us" mentality is a product of the Bush era and IMHO really has no place here on DU. While I am quite sure there are some posters who come here for the sole purpose of trashing Obama, and could very well be paid to do so by conservative elements, I also know that many fair and impartial posters who have legitimate disagreements, and hence legitimate criticisms, with Obamas policies are often lumped in with what I will call the "freeper" posters (for lack of a better definition), by those DU'ers that simply cannot tolerate any form of criticism, deserved or not, whatsoever of Obama. The best remedy is, as my mother often said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[Blue_Roses]

67. I know...

I depended on DU during the last eight years (actually been here seven) and it was what got me through the "Bush years" but I am so sick of coming here now and seeing the bitching and whining about how "Obama hasn't done enough for me" posts. Talk about short memory...as if Mccain would have been so much better:eyes:

[Dems2002]

92. Ridiculous

No, you can't turn on Fox News for what you read here -- you will find Fox News cheerleading many of Obama's stances on Torture and Government secrets and lack of accountability.

Free Republic and republicans are common cheerleaders for their leaders. I believe that I owe myself more than to blindly agree with anyone because they have a D by their name.

That's cowardly. That's abdicating my responsibility as a voter. The only way politicians are going to do what we want is if we hold their feet to the fire.

Maybe Obama is better than he's behaved and he simply needs cover. If we don't challenge from the left, he's never going to receive this supposed cover. I say, fight and scream and organize for the policies that you want to see your government embrace.

That's where true change comes from. Not individuals...but actions.

Dems

[OneGrassRoot]

236. Agreed. I'm rapidly withdrawing.....

checking Late Breaking News primarily.

Criticism is fine; reasoned, informed debate is awesome.

Attacks, which are increasing against other posters, let alone anything Obama related, aren't necessary and turn many away.

And, if that many people are truly hopeless, why are they here? To spread the hopelessness?

Oy. Sadly, it kinda works.

Even if it's a small group doing it (I haven't paid enough attention to know if that's the case), they're very effective at poisoning the well.

[mopinko]

51. emails to the admins-

even tho they often do not get answered are read. the guys care a lot about what the membership wants. there is a rule in place that people must be democratic supporters. criticism is allowed, but it is supposed to be constructive, or it is supposed to get locked.

[goclark]

106. Really? That's the rule?

:shrug:

[mopinko]

124. it's all there.

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

.........

Your Freedom to Leave

All visitors to the Democratic Underground website are here voluntarily. Nobody is forcing you to post on this message board. The administrators try their best to be fair, and to make Democratic Underground a welcoming place for progressives who like Democratic Underground and who want to be here. If you do not like Democratic Underground, or the members of Democratic Underground, or the way we run Democratic Underground, then we strongly suggest that you exercise your right to leave. If we decide that you do not like this place very much, then we reserve the right to show you the door ourselves.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[goclark]

84. I did ask the question

Waiting for a reply.

[mkultra]

137. maybe he can set up seperate area for people who support democrats.

[Tarheel_Dem]

201. Or the new Capitol Hill Forum, since they got shut down. (nt)

[RaleighNCDUer]

282. And what makes you so sure it is the 'left' and 'greens' that are stirring the shit?

I've seen many, many posters CLAIM to be 'left', then spout such absolute nonsense that I can only conclude that they are RW moles who are presenting outrageously overblown caricatures of 'leftist' positions in an attempt to split the centrists from the left.

Seems to be working, too.

[BlooInBloo]

8. Yes...

This has been another episode of Simple Answers To Simple Questions.

[jgraz]

9. Yes, we are all becoming the Rush Limbaughs of the left

We really don't deserve such a wonderful poster as yourself. Maybe you should punish us by going away and never coming back.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[HughMoran]

170. See, you're itching to be not so nice

I've never seen you say anything nice - what up with that?

[jgraz]

182. Wait... the OP calls Obama critics "Rush Limbaughs of the left" and I'M supposed to be nice?

Generally, I share George Carlin's feelings on "nice".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fRpRXx3EEg#t=1m46s

[HughMoran]

184. Ahhh, so you ARE an "exclusive" critic and feel like you're on that "TEAM"

See, this is why I like you - you're like one of three honest people who claim to be "critics".

[jgraz]

186. I don't have a "team"

I just don't like seeing people get bullied. And when they're bullied by self-important prigs who think we care if they take their ball and go home, I get a lot less tolerant.

[HughMoran]

187. hahaha - so you're just sticking up for the "little guy"

HAHAHAHA!!!!!


I liked it better when you were being honest

:P

[jgraz]

188. Since you seem so interested in my posting history, you should already know that's true

I have no problem with people supporting Obama's decisions. What I don't like is attempts to bully people with the kinds of strawman accusations that the OP is engaging in.

[HughMoran]

190. Oh, I feel the same way

The horrible bullying by the people who I happen to know never liked Obama is really disgusting, wouldn't you agree?

[jgraz]

192. For instance?

I'm interested in seeing what you think of as "bullying". My guess is that it's anyone who isn't posting a "Rec this if you want to have Obama's love-baby" thread.

[HughMoran]

193. OK, goodnight then

I wasn't sure where this was going anyway.

"Rec this if you want to have Obama's love-baby"

:eyes:

Really, is that the best you can do?

:rofl:

[jgraz]

194. No, it's not the best I can do

But I was trying to be "nice".

[HughMoran]

196. Me too

I think people instinctively "lean" one way or the other and will tend to defend those they feel more "comfortable" with (at least over a period of time until they "flip" as some of us here do).

I was beating down on some conservadems (and some not so conservative) this past day on the healthcare issue. One thing is for sure, it's certainly not time to blame Obama for something that hasn't happened yet - I don't know how people manage that - it's really bizarre.

[jgraz]

195. No, it's not the best I can do

But I was trying to be "nice".

[Jakes Progress]

212. Cool

More mind reading from the Hugh. Why do we bother with admins. Just ask Hugh. He has the power to read minds and know what people really think.

[HughMoran]

335. Hey Jakes - it's not "mind" reading, it's reading this site for the past 5 years

Maybe you should try it sometime?

(I can't respond directly to you, you know how that is)

[countingbluecars]

11. I've been wondering the same. n/t

[Beacool]

13. Nahhhh, there's criticism of Obama all over the liberal boards.

Pick a board and you will find it.

:D

[nomaco-10]

18. And I'll bet you're loving every minute of it....

If not, why would you put a smiley face with a big happy grin at the end of your post? Oh, beacool, you just can't hide your true feelings, but then again, you never could.

[Beacool]

25. I'm smiling because it's par for the course.

The left always wrings their hands in worry. They would be doing it no matter which Dem had won the election.

:shrug:

[Autumn]

22. There is also criticism of him

in real life by real life Democrats.:hi:

[Beacool]

28. Yep, there always is.

Clinton was routinely clobbered by those in his own party. That's the Democratic party for you, a very dysfunctional family filled with sibling rivalries and jealousies.

:eyes:


:hi:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

38. The reason Clinton was clobbered

was because there was reason to do so. Obama has done good things and he has done some shitty things, he should be called out on the shitty things and commended for the good things. What is so hard to understand about that?

[Beacool]

55. "There was reason to do so" is a matter of opinion.

;-)

[Jennicut]

56. Clinton was routinely attacked on the left and the right by his own party

Even as a teenager in the 90's I remember it well. The same thing is happening to Obama. Dems are usually dysfunctional like you said. At least we are not the following Hitler type like the Rethugs. That seems worse.

[Beacool]

59. The Republicans tend to be far more united.

Although Bush stretched their suspension of disbelief to the extreme.

:7

[spiritual_gunfighter]

75. Of course it is opinion

But NAFTA and welfare reform are facts.

[masuki bance]

82. Is there any proposal to overturn either?

Why not?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

89. I wish I knew n/t

[mkultra]

139. lol, as is criticism of Obama.

[sandnsea]

14. I recommended Dailykos

to someone a few days ago. I used to consider that place the craziest of the crazies and never recommended it to anybody. Times change I guess.

[Larkspur]

16. If you don't like legitamate criticism of Obama, then this is not the forum for you

I'm sure there's an Obama Fanatic web site for those of you who can't stand any dissent from the Obama Admin.

Many of us here voted for Obama in the primary and general election, but we are not infatuated with him. He was the lesser of two evils for many of us and for others a hope that he would not mimic the Clinton Admin. The latter has faded since Obama stocked his Admin with Clintonistas and corporate whores. While Obama is significantly better than any Republican, his rhetoric does not always match his actions and that is when criticism from the Left happens and rightly so.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

39. Great post n/t

[laugle]

165. You hit the

nail on the head. This use to be an objective, productive, and often heated discussion forum.
Unfortunately, some want to turn it into a fan club. If we as good dems don't speak out about the pro's/con's of this administration, we will be left in the dust..............

[HughMoran]

171. lol - yeah your idea of criticism uses a baseball bat

g'bye forever

[HughMoran]

172. Oh, and I love your "cheerleader" cowards

lol @ hypocrites

[treestar]

274. No, it's a forum for immediate reaction by any attempt of the right

wing media to find something that somebody somewhere on the left won't like.

divide and conquer, we let the Republicans do it to us all the time.

that's why this country is so far right as it is.

Some people apparently enjoy being in the minority and like to feel oppressed, that's why they start sabotaging and move even towards the left.

[Joanne98]

17. There's criticism of Obama all over the LW blogs. Including Kos.

It isn't any worse here than anywhere else. In fact, I don't post some liberal articles becuase they're too harsh.

[HamdenRice]

19. At HuffPo and Kos, the criticism refers to "facts". That's a big difference. nt

[tekisui]

20. No.

[Jennicut]

21. DU does seem to be splintering into two groups lately

It could just be that its a normal split between the more pure ideological left and the more moderate leftists on the board. I have always been a more moderate type, though I always detested the DLC too. This is a discussion board so I think discussion of what we like and do not like about Obama is fine here, right? The only problem I have on DU is those who seem to have outright hatred of Obama left over from the primaries. I never liked Daily Kos because the set up here seems to be the most user friendly.

[HamdenRice]

24. You point out something glaring: Kos has a horrible interface!

I still don't get it really. Most of the good stuff gets hidden or overlooked.

How they could have gotten so big and established and never overhauled that interface is one of the great mysteries of life on the internet.

The interface here is one of its main attractions.

[Jennicut]

29. The main reason I come here. Freepers should weep with envy.

DU looks the best of them all.
I go to Kos and HuffPo all the time though, just to see what all the liberal forums are saying. Kos does seem to be very reliant on facts over scare tactics.

[Joe Chi Minh]

80. ... except when naughty presidential election results were coming in.

[Orsino]

34. This is as it should be.

Obama ran as a conservative, and that is more or less how he's governing. Progressives must be content mainly with Obama's policy of Not Being Bush, along with some small gains. Those looking for business as usual will probably be happier.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

41. I loved Obama in the primaries

voted for him and supported him all the way. I am unhappy with a lot of what he is doing now. It isn't so cut and dry, the people complaining about him now aren't just Hillary supporters, many of us are Obama people disappointed with his performance.

[Joanne98]

26. Oh look. The number one recommended diary on Kos. What's up with you mr President?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/22/745409/-Whats-with-you,-Mr.-Presidentupdated

Obama's flip flopping quotes.....No criticism there. Nope

[HamdenRice]

30. Did you notice that as critical as it is, it is based on facts and research?

Did you read my OP? I am not opposed to criticism of the Democrats or Obama. I'm opposed to the amount of blatantly false stuff that gets posted as gospel truth criticism here.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

43. Please give examples

of complaints of Obama on DU that arent based in fact. I can give you plenty of complaints that are.

[bjobotts]

230. See ...no examples. Just one big DU smear. DU bad...bad...bad

[Joanne98]

83. Well. I'm opposed to false stuff too. But bitching is here to stay.

[ScreamingMeemie]

31. No. DU is filled (or used to be filled) with many people who would

like to see many different things from a Democratic President. DU is filled with people who are not afraid of criticizing when the criticism is warranted. Have a great day.

[Forkboy]

33. 17 recs in about 15 minutes. Your answer is "no".

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

35. 18 now, still no. nt

[WI_DEM]

36. It's good, but not as good as the 145 recs given to

"Obama's promise of a new beginning now hollow" on GD page.

[Forkboy]

42. Quite a difference in the amount of time the two have been posted.

[WI_DEM]

45. true, let's see which one gets the most and which one gets locked first.

[Forkboy]

50. Neither should get locked.

And also, the amount of recs will differ on posts between GD-P, where there's more hardcore Obama supporters in general, and GD, where there's more people unhappy with Obama in general.

To be honest, while there's a lot of weak criticisms of Obama, there's also a lot of valid ones. The freedom is there for people to counter anything they disagree with, and if you disagree with something you should just post a counter thread with the facts. Leaving one website for another won't change much of anything, except maybe your blood pressure, I guess. :)

[HughMoran]

178. Well, since it's almost always the same people

that have a "thing" for trashing Obama on a daily basis, there are more effective solutions than having to even be exposed to their idiocy. :D

[HughMoran]

177. Sucks cause I even have that ass-fuck on ignore but it still shows up on GP

That shit pisses me off - this place is infested with hate-filled disruptors.

[Starry Messenger]

37. "No", "I" "don't" "think" "so".

Berry Tart Recipe
Print Options

* Print (no photos)
* Print (with photos)

Ingredients

Tart Crust
1 cup all-purpose flour
1/4 cup ground almonds or almond flour (can substitute regular flour)
1 1/2 teaspoons sugar
1/4 teaspoon salt
1 stick (1/2 cup) unsalted butter, very-cold, cut into 1/2 inch cubes
1/4 teaspoon almond extract
4-6 Tbsp ice cold water

Filling
1 cup (8 oz) mascarpone cheese
1/3 cup cold heavy cream
1/4 cup sugar
1 1/3 cup raspberries
1 1/3 cup blueberries
1 1/3 cup strawberries - stems removed and quartered
2 Tbsp orange marmalade
2 Tbsp berry liqueur such as creme de cassis

[Forkboy]

44. I need glasses.

I read "mascarpone cheese" as "masscarphone cheese", and that can't be good. :scared:

[Starry Messenger]

48. That's just terrifying to think of!

:D

[MarjorieG]

40. Circular bashing always popular, but as real and fictional presidents have said, "we have serious

problems, and need serious people to solve them." I don't like the concessions Obama has to make to the ConservaDems who serve the banks as much or if not more than their constituents, but he is the first president in a long time I feel wants to help us, navigate the waters which are the harshest in a long time. We have to want the bankers to succeed, as much as we want to jail them. That's recovery, unfortunately.

I know that not capping credit card interest rates only gives banks an opportunity to pay for their mistakes, without questioning, but recovery is the argument made, and we have to go back in with regulation later.

And, sorry, as much as activists for GLBT feel now is the time to mobilize, maybe it isn't, and maybe not with the hyperbolic rhetoric. Congress needs to pass laws, and Obama has these concerns in his timeline and on his radar. Calling him a liar doesn't help.

[msongs]

47. yeah, the back of the bus and segregated lunch counters can wait a few more decades eh? nt

[pnorman]

46. Anyone here who admitted voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 (as I did),

was in for some heavy slamming, as well as occasional personal abuse. But for FAR less cogent reasons than disgust with Lieberman & Gore, bum-rapping Obama rarely if ever elicits cries of "TREASON!". Go figure!

pnormn

[pnorman]

345. I've often wondered about how close an overlap there was,

between those who so loudly denounced the 2000 Nader supporters as TRAITORS, and the ones who now sneer at the "lock-step Obama worshippers"! Comments, anyone?

pnorman

[tranche]

49. It's a Kucinich and Nader board.

Always has been. It was fun while we were helpless and bashing Bush, but now that the Democratic party is in the lead it's annoying as hell reading posts by these whiny f'n babies.

[Forkboy]

53. So hide them or ignore them. Then post something positive if you want.

:shrug:

[druidity33]

132. yeah right.

People here refer to those 2 as the WooWoo and the Spoiler. I am a Kucinich supporter and he was my first pick... i cannot tell you how often i was derided for expressing my hope for a Kucinich Presidency.


Think about it. A Department of Peace.

Makes sense to me.

[NorthCarolina]

295. I'm right there with you... nt

[suzie]

252. In other words, it's a board largely for people who desire to whine, but

have little interest in actual governing.

And who adore candidates that love to whine, but have less interest in the complex problem of governing.

[mopinko]

54. even though i have added a lot of people to my ignore list

it is still downright sickening to come here a lot of days. perhaps the "good guys" could do what the poutraged do- have a little posse that will knr a thread that debunks the daily bullshit.

but you know, it isn't just du. i am actually running into this stuff irl. it would be great if du could do now what it did under bush- undermine the propaganda, get out the facts. make no mistake people, "they" are doing everything possible to undermine this president. we need to fight back.

[Undercurrent]

57. Agreed.

Shark feeding frenzies are all the rage.

[redqueen]

60. "It's one thing to criticize. It's another thing to embrace every fake make believe news factoid...

and repeat it over and over."

One would think that would be a very simple, obvious truth. One would be wrong. Failing to buy every twisted half-truth or outright falsehood gets one branded a worshipper or worse.

I'm curious to know whom the uber-liberals at DU will pick for the primary challenger for Obama next year. That ought to be fun.

[Political Tiger]

68. What's worse, is when they are proven wrong, they clam up!

It's about the only time they remain quiet!

They post some lies, gossip and/or half-truths they find on some blog as the truth, and rush to recommend the post.....then, when the post is exposed for the lies it contains, they go MIA!

They don't have the courage to admit they were wrong. Even worse than that, a few days later they turn around and post the same crap over again!

[redqueen]

72. What's worse is when it's something that can't be proven wrong.

Take the idiotic BS about how we can't believe Obama's rhetoric. I mean seriously... could anyone over the age of 13 seriously have expected for him to force employers to maintain everything exactly as it is now? The man himself said there would be changes... but the M$M spins it, and for some reason some people enthusiastically jump right on board, as if it makes any sense at all. I'm embarrassed for them, really.

[HamdenRice]

81. My favorites are the time travelers. The ones who tell us what he won't accomplish...

within the next four years. People who confidently -- inerrantly -- tell us what will and won't happen, and these are treated as "factual" criticism.

[Kaleko]

213. Yes, DU is full of psychics and prophets peddling predictions of all kinds.

Ironically, they are also the ones calling for rational approaches to Obama and more critical thinking on the issues, lol!

It's absurd. This place is hopping with practitioners of witchcraft decrying the woo-woo they see all around.

[Political Tiger]

61. I think the "Greatest Threads" section on the main page

is at times embarrassing. It seems most the time it's the same people with the same complaints over and over again. Same whine, just some slightly different way of wording it. I've come to the point of not even looking at it anymore.

I believe some people come to DU only to whine, day after day. It seems to be their main purpose in life. I mean, for God's sake, how many times can you whine about the same thing over and over over and over again? For some people, there appears to be no end.

I wish these eternal complainers would just form their own anti-Obama website where they can whine till their hearts content! Most Democrats and liberals support Obama, but for some unknown reason it's important to the malcontented minority to let the rest of us know how unhappy they are, every chance they get. Frankly, I couldn't care less!

Now, of course, I'm gonna be called a bunch of names....fan-boy/apologist/cheerleader, etc..

When not complaining about Obama they complain about those of us who don't have the urgent need to constantly complain about Obama!

Around and around it goes!

[LooseWilly]

232. hehehehehehhehe...

Thanks for the laugh.

You whine about others whining, over and over... and then lament that others whine about the same thing over and over?...

:+ thank you... that was funny. (Funny how you think that your own whining isn't whining but 'objective observation'... but the 'observations' of anyone else is whining... the hypocrisy is just sprinkles on the funny...)

[Adelante]

62. I'm not around much anymore, either

I decided I'd rather be fighting Republicans than fighting Democrats.

[Blue_Roses]

63. thank-you

and :kick:

[vaberella]

65. I actually think only Obama and maybe Dems in the House have our back. Dems in the Senate do not.

n/t

[rvablue]

66. Huge K&R!!!

[zulchzulu]

69. James Galloway (writer of article linked in OP) was trashing Obama BEFORE he was President

http://www.caglepost.com/column/Joe+Galloway/101919/Its+Time+For+The+Change+We+Were+Promised.html

One might consider that when reading Galloway's screeds.

[lamp_shade]

70. Sure does look that way, doesn't it? I think most of them are very very young.

[Blue_Roses]

73. I thought the same thing after

reading a few ...they haven't learned that you can't have it "right now" yet. My kids are in the "got to have it now" generation:eyes:

[Fire1]

157. My son is too but he's learned pretty fast that it ain't always so.

He's learned valuable lessons from Bush II through the present. Lessons I think he will remember for the rest of his life.

[LooseWilly]

233. You're absolutely right. Tell your kids to wait until the rest of us have rights and jobs and...

everything else... and maybe, when we die... they can have rights and jobs and healthcare. They don't need anything "right now"... I'm sure you'll support them in every way until the rest of us decide to actually give them anything.

You can trust "us"... in the meantime, screw your kids.... right?

[stubtoe]

292. ...and have an instant gratification entitlement thing going on.

[iamthebandfanman]

71. nobody makes ya read things

so, see ya later i guess?



sorry not everyone agrees or thinks exactly like you do....
bummer eh ?

[Spazito]

74. It certainly is getting harder to find threads that don't contain hyperbole and misinformation...

regarding what Obama is and is not doing. Even when the facts are presented, they are deliberately ignored and the bashing goes on unabated mainly done by those who didn't like him from the beginning of the primaries, imo, but I am SURE that is just 'coincidence', not.

[nomaco-10]

85. I don't even recognize this place anymore...

I found du back in 2000 and signed up in 2001. I had a crappy, second hand, pieced together computer back then and had off and on access til 2002. I signed up again in 2003 and thought I had a home with people with at least some like minded values and ideals.

There are some really good members left here, but unfortunately they are overshadowed and quickly becoming outnumbered by the shock and awe, drive by posters that have nothing to contribute but hyperbole, conspiracy theories and snark.

It's a shame really. It really is.

[Spazito]

93. I, too, am finding it more difficult to navigate around the ever-constant negativity...

fair criticism is one thing and there are threads to be found that contain such criticism but, it seems, even they often become hijacked by the hyperbolic.

DU had to change given it began in opposition to the bush 'selection' and there is now a Democratic President, majority Democratic Senate and House and I still have hope the transition will end in a positive result. Just like the Obama Presidency, I am willing to wait more than a few months to judge the outcome.

[Buzz Clik]

76. It's seem that you've nailed it. And, the mgmt here encourages such behavior.

Reading DU is the most amazing adventure in distortion I've ever seen.

[scrappydo]

147. I really enjoyed coming to DU during the primaries.....

....there was a great deal of bashing on both sides from both the Hillary and Obama's supporters and it was fun jumping into into the mix.I did not post very often but reading the posts was the bright spot in my morning. But now, it seems like DU has become a cesspool of discontent. I find that I spend a great deal more time at HuffPo or other sites because I can have some rational conversations there even though I may not always agree with comments by other bloggers. I keep checking into DU to see if comments here have died down to reasonable assessments of situations but the water just seems to be getting muddier. Democrats do a great job of destroying each other - and DU seems to be the place to come if you want to do nothing but criticize and bash other Democrats. President Obama is ONE person - he will never be able to deliver on all of his promises - but some DUers cannot seem to understand that - there own self-interests are more important than the country's interests as a whole. There are regular posters here who do nothing but whine and complain - and that it supposed to be helpful? You call that constructive - whining and complaining is going to steer President Obama in the right direction? If you want to see government change, then get off your dead butts and work to change it instead of doing nothing but whine, complain, and criticize. Democrats were supposed to have captured the educated voters in the last election. You would never know it by many of the biased, prejudicial, and unthinking posts here. Rational thinking for some belligerent posters at DU have sullied the water for many others.If you want to post a dissenting view, posts the facts - not a distortion of the facts as you want them to be, not personal attacks because someone does not agree with you, not sarcastic rhetoric. That accomplishes nothing but only stirs up more discontent; some really constructive, thoughtful posters have left DU to go to other sites where the conversations actually are conversations and constructive debate without all of the crap you see thrown in here. DU is destroying itself. This was a great place to come...once upon a time....

[rug]

77. If you want to go to Kos, just go. Don't try to lamely blame it on DU posts.

[HamdenRice]

78. You realize, of course, that they are not exclusive. I already read Kos

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I don't have to "leave" DU to read Kos.

Dag, the shit you read on the intertubes!

[Joe Chi Minh]

91. I'm loathe to say a word against Obama now, but I'm pretty certain he

is doing the best that can be done, in the teeth of an outrageous economic, political,and geo-political set-up. Even changing some of it for the better, however haltingly. But for the life of me, I can't imagine Obama's political capital is going to be adversely affected by what you call the "factoids" (none of which you cited, when asked) and general grizzling of the complainers.

Perhaps you'd be a grizzler if your economic circumstances, for example, were more desperate. Or if you had a son or daughter in the military being sent out again to those hideous war-zones, all too precipitately, on a stop-loss basis. Still, I know how it can cheese you off. Personally, the social liberalism of posters to this board gets up my snitch, but I have to accept that it was set up for it, as much as for economic liberalism. I believe that, at least in some cases, Obama wants the public to put pressure on him, to provide impetus and cover for him to push through progressive policies. Thankfully, Obama's shoulders seem broad.

In an earlier post I referred to the bizarre denial of Kos concerning "naughty" presidential results. "Naughty" is perhaps more apt than "fraudulent" or "insane" or any such ostensibly apt description, because, frankly, it has become clear to me that your election system does not rise to the level of maturity that could be in any way described as adult. It would be "par for the course" for a run-of-the-mill banana republic. At best. It doesn't seem as if it's going to change any time soon, either.

[rug]

105. Yeah, the shit you read on the intertubes.

"I won't bother with checking the Greatest Page most days and will head straight to DailyKos"

[Hassin Bin Sober]

131. Or....."then it really isn't worth coming here."

[AtomicKitten]

79. In a word, yes. n/t

[WonderGrunion]

86. I think some posters joined because DU was the opposition force.

I think they continue to oppose whoever is in power even if it's the people DU is supposed to be supporting.

[sam kane]

87. Link? What posts? What false factoids?

This post seems to be based of false factoids so far.

[Cary]

88. I'm feeling stifled here because I'm pro-Obama.

Posts deleted. Threads locked.

WTF?

[vaberella]

145. Ha! n/t

[AntiFascist]

90. Only Rush Limbaugh would try to twist the Obama criticism as something...

associated with right-wing pundits.

As an "underground" forum, Democratic Underground should reflect the true ideals of the party and we should be free to criticize any actions that are deemed to be compromised with the other side. Obama won't be running for office again for 3 1/2 years, but to some it seems that he won't be able to withstand any criticism in the meantime.

[mullard12ax7]

94. "Rush Limbaughs of the left"? That's really insulting

but not surprising, I've seen a lot of people trying to label democrats "far left" as well. Check out the post today that clearly states 85% of Americans want our health care system changed. That's the majority of Americans, not "Rush Limbaughs" of the "far left".

[HamdenRice]

97. "85% of Americans want our health care system changed" -- Yeah

and the majority of them want reform plus a public option. But here on DU because the administration is doing what the majority of the public want, and what most progressive commentators want, but not scrapping the whole system for single payer now, the administration is being called "corporate whores."

So I stand by my description as "Limbaugh leftists" those people who say Obama is a stooge because he isn't doing what they want, in defiance of what the public wants and what most experts think is best.

They have exactly the same rhetorical technique and credibility of Limbaugh.

[mullard12ax7]

112. Here's the link, go call them names, I don't listen to abusive types like you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5897545

[druidity33]

133. huh?

You have some info i don't?

"But here on DU because the administration is doing what the majority of the public want, and what most progressive commentators want, but not scrapping the whole system for single payer now, the administration is being called "corporate whores.""


I've never called them corporate whores, but i certainly don't think he's been pushing for a Public opton or "reform" in any significant way AT ALL. Is that what the public wants?



Unfortunately, Obama and his administration have already done some things that have been fucking shit up. Shit that will eventually screw over a bunch of people. You want cogent analysis of why and how Obama is turning the hearts of progressives to stone? Go to FDL, and read Glenn Greenwald at Salon.

I come to DU mostly for entertainment and quick news... i wouldn't expect it to be more than that.

:shrug:

[HamdenRice]

247. Thanks for proving my point: "i certainly don't think he's been pushing for a Public opton "

Why not just say, "I haven't read a single newspaper account of what the Obama administration is pushing for but I have a strong opinion anyway that whatever he wants is wrong."

I should post mark this to see what you have to say after Obama's town hall meeting about health care reform that will be broadcast on tv.

I suppose even after he publicly discusses the importance of the public option, those resistant to reality checks will still deny it.

[druidity33]

289. i would love it

if during his town hall he voiced STRONG support for a Public Option. I would love it even more if he threatened a VETO if the eventual legislation does not involve a STRONG Public option. We'll just have to see what he says.

I do btw read newspaper and online accounts of Obama's speeches and policy positions. He has expressed support for it in the past... but he has expressed support for other things that he has not been doing, so i don't know that i can trust him to follow through. He mentions it, but doesn't push it. I hope that he will voice unequivocal support, something like "This bill WILL PASS with a Public option. Period. Do it."

I apologize for doubting the rhetoric, but i'm a cynic by nature. I will continue to call my Reps and Sens, but i have my doubts that the public outcry will persuade this Congress and this Administration to do what's right.

I wish i could be full of Optimism like yourself...

:shrug:

[HamdenRice]

328. We'll see at the town hall. Looks to me like he's going over Congress' heads to the people...

And it's a political winner because the vast majority of people want public option. I would be shocked if the meeting doesn't focus on his using the bully pullpit to get the people to force the Congress critters to cave in.

I'll wait until the meeting to assume he won't do it.

And sorry for the snark in the reply. Snark has unfortunately become the default mode these days because of the level of attacks directed at anyone who has a "let's see what happens" approach.

[druidity33]

349. no worries...

I understand about snark and do my best to not let it unsettle me. I have been feeling more serious lately. This is serious business. I go back and forth between wanting to post here at DU to be a member of the community, and then regretting the petty little feuds that begin to evolve when each word gets gutted and twisted and the obvious intent of a post is ignored.

It takes me time to type and as a stay at home dad this summer (got laid off a few weeks ago), i've been valuing my kids company and the abundance of our now well tended garden. It seems like, for me lately, the computer is just here so i can figure out which issue to call my Reps on each week.


Having read the Transcript from Obama's Presser yesterday... i'm not particularly encouraged about the Public plan being solid. He made it sound like if someone could think of something "better", he'd be willing. What bothered me was that he mentioned Medicaid/Medicare twice... at one point hinting that it could be in trouble in 10 years.

I'll hope. I'll call. I'll march with my kid. We can only do what we can do...

:shrug:

[stlsaxman]

241. yeah next time i rec a post- i'll read more that the headline...

when i read that Limbaugh bit it wanted to take back the rec... too late.

Lesson learned.

[Major Hogwash]

95. All the mods used to work at Denny's

So they know what a "Grand Slam Breakfast" can do to your lunch hour.

You can be in there until 1:30 before anything passes, but it will still cause you to miss lunch all the same.

[county worker]

96. Many people have a need to whine about something. Obama is just a convenient outlet.

I think you can disagree with Obama and Congress and express it here but the posts that go on and on just to get a rise out of people are just whining.

There is never a substantive debate in the whining. It goes like this, "I voted for Obama and now I didn't get what I wanted WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!"

[Laurab]

98. In answer to your question - I think so.

And just posted something to that effect under the Galloway thread. I definitely think it's an "anti-Obama" board, and the anti-Obama posters are certainly not discouraged. I, too, believe in legitimite criticism, but the Obama criticism began before he even took office, and has gotten worse and worse.

I've already decided it's usually a waste of time coming here, and thank you for putting how I feel into words.

K&R

[HamdenRice]

99. Btw, you have a great avatar!

And thanks for the comment.

[Laurab]

102. Thanks, I have a real one of those, too!

he's only 7 months old, now, so not quite as filled out - I also have a lab, and a lab-golden mix, but I love those goldens!

And you're welcome for the comment, too - it just gets depressing coming here, so I pop in less and less, and have pretty much cured my addiction to DU. It DID help get me through the bush years, and I'll always be grateful for that. The surprising thing to me was that the tone of the posts didn't change after Obama was elected, and IMO, it's only gotten worse. I really do think a name change is in order!

[Pirate Smile]

100. It sure seems like it.

[LWolf]

101. Perhaps one reason the left is still here is this:

The bolding is mine.

<snip>

"Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards."

As one of those left-wing DUers, I've always been aware of the conflict between this identification with the left, and the fiercely partisan support of the Democratic Party, which is not "left wing." With the end of the Bush administration, there is no longer a unifying force at DU. There are partisans, and there are leftists. The election of a left-leaning president would have brought those groups together. The election of a center-right president has the chasm between issues and party widening by the day.

I suspect that, as the new center-right Democratic administration continues to abandon the left and pander to the corporate center and right, DU will ultimately revert to a partisan Democratic site by purging the left completely. In another 18 months, all discussion of issues and policy will be dropped in favor of the '12 presidential campaign. At which point, I suspect, Obama will have lost the support and votes he gained from the left in '08. DU rules being what they are, the left won't have much to say here at that point.

[Cary]

104. ???

"Center-right Democratic administration?"

Unbelievable.

[LWolf]

107. Not if you've been paying attention.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

http://forums.insidebayarea.com/topic/obamas-center-right-presidency-die-is-cast-by-glen-ford

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/politics/22assess.html

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=10939

[Cary]

108. Bullshit.

And when the real rightists kick our asses we'll all know who to blame.

[LWolf]

109. Typical.

Attack and blame when you can't refute. :eyes:

[Cary]

115. Attack and blame? Refute?

Good grief.

[cali]

110. lol those little chart things are not only arbitrary. they're stupid.

[Cary]

117. Ah, Cali.

Always the voice of reason. Good to see you.

Why are these people so intent upon imploding us?

[Telly Savalas]

160. You only say that because you're a conservative extremist.

I refer you to the Savalas Ideology-ometer:

Cali____________________Obama________________________Kucinich
-50,000_________________-468____0____________________1,000,000


The chart proves it. I dare you to try to refute it.

[Jennicut]

118. That does not work in the United States. You cannot compare the idealogy of say people in France

to here. We have always been more conservative here. Obama is a liberal in the United States.

[LWolf]

120. Sure I can.

The U.S. is part of the world, not a planet unto herself.

And other than the political compass graphic, which I personally find more accurate than others that are generated in the U.S, the links are all from U.S. sources.

You can disagree, but I'm certainly not alone in the U.S. in my assessment.

[Cary]

123. You're not alone in cloaking yourself in martyrdom, either.

So what?

[LWolf]

126. "martyrdom," lol.

:rofl:

I fail to see what Obama's political positions, or the war on DU between the left and the center and partisans, has to do with martyrdom.

If we laid down and gave up, maybe.

Don't count on it.

[Cary]

130. Killing the coalition because you can't have your way. . .

Sounds like martyrdom to me but what do I know?

[LWolf]

169. What coalition are you referring to?

And who is killing it?

I can argue that one both ways.

[Cary]

246. Our political parties are coalition parties.

We elected Barack Obama. He inherited a clusterfuck from our mutual opponents, the other coalition. Barack Obama has a job that even under the best circumstances is the most difficult job in the world, and he comes in in perhaps the worst circumstances with two wars and our economy teetering on the verge of the Republican Great Depression II and debt out the wazoo.

We owe him more than 4 months before we second guess him and undermine the Herculean tasks he's trying to perform.

That's not genuflecting. That's being realistic.

Finally the last thing I want to see is aid and comfort being given to our "conservative" enemies. Right now they're in complete disarray with their own coalition atomized and Rush Limbaugh as their "leader." They are bankrupt as a political force and their only strategy is to throw shit against the wall to see if any of it sticks. Some of you seem to be hell bent to throw shit with them.

I'd say it's about 50 - 50 that we get a health care bill. If we don't get it then those of you who weakened this effort helped pave the way for a "conservative" resurgence. Is that what you want? Do you want to give "conservatives" another chance to fuck us up just because your favorite issues weren't given priority?

We have to get health care and if it can't be a single payer then it absolutely must be a good, effective public option. After that there are a lot of other things that can follow. If we don't get that, forget about it.

[LWolf]

296. I disagree

about political parties being "coalition parties."

If the Democrats were a "coalition party," they wouldn't be racing to build a coalition with the OTHER party; they'd work to unify their base, and to build coalitions with those outside the party with common goals.

Instead, the left has been thrown under the bus, and the common goals exist, not within the party itself, but with the opposition.

Unless you think the only legitimate group to find common ground with is the republican party, and the rest of us don't count. Except on election day.

"My" favorite issues: peace, the economy, health care, public education. I don't think I stand alone in my concern.

It's obvious that single-payer is the best option, and it's too bad that the Democratic president doesn't support it. That puts significant, positive health care reform off for years, while we struggle to achieve a concession from corporatists and their reps in Congress.

I support a public option, if it is well-crafted. I don't support insurance mandates, and I don't support a weak public option, which is worse than none at all.

[Cary]

332. Of course our parties, both of them, are coalition parties.

We have a plurality voting system, as opposed to a majority voting system. When you have a majority voting system you end up with multiple parties having to ultimately form a coalition in order to obtain a majority. When you have a plurality voting system you end up with coalition parties because if you break it down over issues you end up just taking votes away from one party or the other.

Surely you noticed this with Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, and the various and sundry other candidates that never stood a chance to be anything other than a spoiler.

No one says that you stand alone. That was not even close to what I was telling you. What I'm telling you is that you're not being fair or reasonable, IMHO, as in "too bad that the Democratic president doesn't support it." Of course you don't have to be fair and reasonable. However we don't have a dictator and politics is the art of the possible and it is not clear that any plan is possible at this point.

Presidents aren't remembered for what they wanted to do. Presidents are remembered for what they did. I am certain Barack Obama knows this. I imagine his preference would be for a single payer because I imagine he agrees that it is the most sensible approach. Of course I could be wrong and I would love to know what he's thinking. He's clearly too smart to show all of his cards like that.

We'll see. He deserves a chance. He deserves a better chance than a lot of DUers are giving him.

[LWolf]

350. That's reasonable.

The difference between you and I is that I don't see "the art of the possible" in American politics; I see too much control of the possible, not by voters, but by corporations. The only way I see out of that is to elect people who reject, not embrace, corporate participation in the process.

I don't think Obama is betraying anyone; his actions, for the most part, are in line with the policy positions he laid out during the election.
I think people who got caught up in the euphoria produced by outing gwb and electing a person of color to the white house transferred their own hopes for change on to his ambiguous campaign slogan. He's certainly a smart campaigner.

I also think, based on past patterns, that Democrats are unlikely to push anything to the left; they'll rally behind their president and his center-right positions. I think we're going to see the nation move further to the right under an Obama administration, this time legitimizing it under a Democratic president.

Either Obama loses '12 for abandoning the left who helped to elect him, or we have at least 8 years before any real change occurs, and then, since the hopes of the many, under a center-right administration won't have been realized, the Democrats will lose the WH.

That's my assessment, and I think it's fair and reasonable. That doesn't mean I won't support him every time I think he does something good for the nation. I will. I'll also tell him, as often as necessary, when he gets it wrong.

And hope he truly listens, rather than going through the motions.

So far, the indications aren't positive. I'd like to see that change.

[Jennicut]

156. Its still not reflecting that the US is a more conservative country as a whole

and Obama is leaning left in a more conservative country. As much as we would like the US to be like other European countries its not. We elected Bush twice after all.

[create.peace]

314. i don't THINK so......nt

[LWolf]

315. I believe that much of the nation

is quite a bit to the left of Obama. The issue is that the powerholders are conservative corporatists.

Regardless, Obama's center-right positions on issues were plain to the left all along. Continuing the war on terror, allowing private insurance at the health care table, faith-based politics, further privatization of public education...those positions don't "lean left." He's only "left" of the right-wing fascists.

We didn't elect bush twice. He was selected by the supreme court after a corrupt, fraudulent election the first time, and there are still questions about key vote counts on the second round. I haven't forgotten going to bed at 10:30pm to the news that Kerry was projected to win, and waking up to the news on my alarm early the next morning to hear the opposite.

[NorthCarolina]

317. I think you have that exactly backwards. nt

[Cary]

122. He's a left leaning moderate, regardless.

More important, he's pragmatic.

[mkultra]

144. here are some arbitrary fucking charts to refute your arbitrary charts

All equally meaningful:

[LWolf]

309. "Arbitrary" is incorrect.

All of those charts use some kind of data for placement.

Refute the fucking data if you like, lol.

[mkultra]

330. easily done

To start with;

Obama was rated the most liberal senator by the National Journal in 2007
The far more respected ranking produced by UCSD's Keith Poole and UCLA's Jeff Lewis places Obama and Biden as the 11th and 10th most liberal senators (respectively) in the first half of the 110th Senate (2007) and as the 21st and 29th most liberal in the 109th Senate (2005-2006).

To discard this data and accept your assertion would be to assume that there where zero liberal senators in the 2007. If this be your case, i would ask you to define what you consider "Liberal" to mean.

The lifetime liberal scores (maximum 99) for the Democrats:

-Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, 84.3
-Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, 79.4
-Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, 79.2
-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, 78.8
-Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, 76.8


I mean really, if your comparing Obama to Che, your bound to be disappointed.

[mkultra]

337. additionally

I checked out the website your data is from. They provide NO data themselves on their calculations, just a general guide to thier thinking

This chart was constructed on the basis of the speeches, public statements and , crucially, the voting records of each of the candidates.

Essentially arbitrary.

The other articles discuss some of the leanings of Obama's picks but most admit his voting record is one of the most liberal.

[LWolf]

352. You asked the right question:

What do I consider "liberal" to mean?

It's an ambiguous term, frankly. That's why I prefer "leftist." I'll be honest. I'm a pretty mild, moderate leftist, as leftists go. I still prefer that term to "liberal" or "progressive," because it's more clear and specific than the other two. "Progressive" is often used to mean "liberal" and even, in some polls, "very liberal." Yet the DLC's think tank is the "Progressive Policy Institute." Which is legitimate, because, in it's basic form, "progressive" is anything that moves an agenda forward; brings progress. It doesn't have to be a "liberal" or "left" agenda.

The Orwellian twisting of terms in American politics is business as usual.

"Liberal" is just as ambiguous. When you use it to rank different groups, you are going to get different results. It has different connotations to different people, and a lot of definitions. Here's just one list:

<snip>

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

Synonyms:
1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10. See ample.

Antonyms:
1. reactionary. 8. intolerant. 9, 10. niggardly.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal

Okay, so a liberal is someone who is progressive. Also, in some cases, someone who is broad-minded, unprejudiced, open-handed.

In SOME cases. In the "art" of politics, people using the word liberal don't have to distinguish between "progressive" and the rest, but it makes a difference. If you want to use the National Journal's ranking, you ought to provide THEIR definitions of "liberal," "centrist," and "conservative."

If you are going to rank people according to how "liberal" they are, the sample size matters as well as the definition. Obama may seem liberal when compared to US Senators, who, with the exception of a very few, are more centrist and conservative than "liberal."

He's not all that liberal when compared globally. I prefer the larger sample size. We aren't an island unto ourselves. We're a part of the world.

Personally, I don't think that the first 2 years of a new Senator's term is a reliable measure of how "liberal" he may or may not be. The comparisons you offer are all of those who have more years to sample.

[mkultra]

140. Nice how you just left out the next paragraph, let me help

<snip>
Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.
<snip>

[JuniperLea]

155. This bit is being shit on daily...

"... who will work with us to achieve our shared goals."

[bvar22]

185. My goals are:

*Single payer Health Care

*Immediate withdrawal of ALL US Forces from the Middle East (NO "residual" forces or permanent bases)

*Cutting Military Spending by AT LEAST 50%

*Equal Rights and Equal Protections for ALL Americans. NO exceptions.

*Fair Trade, not "Free" Trade.

*Economic Justice... where Mom & Pop and the small farmer can compete with BIG Corpo on a level playing field

*Rule of LAW...No exceptions for elite War Criminals

*A Presidential refutation of the Unitary Executive, and a restoration of The Constitution

*Economic Stimulus directed at Working Class Americans, not Wall Street Bankers

*Protection for American Jobs and Manufacturing

*Enthusiastic support for Organized LABOR, not empty rhetoric. (EFCA)

When Obama moves toward these goals, I will applaud him.
When he moves away from the goals, I will OPPOSE him.


I don't care if the "Centrists" don't like it.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Jakes Progress]

210. There you go.

Now we have the basis for a good political party platform.

I guess being for all those things and hoping to make progress toward them makes you a raging anit-Obamite. Do we really have to think what Paul Wellstone would have had to say about our timidity in moving our agenda?

[Dragonfli]

216. As it should be

"When Obama moves toward these goals, I will applaud him.
When he moves away from the goals, I will OPPOSE him.


I don't care if the "Centrists" don't like it."



:thumbsup:

[Greyhound]

239. I still smile whenever you post that Wellstone quote. Thanks.

Of course, he was a left-wing-extremist too.

Imagine, equal rights, rule of law, individual liberty, the right for working people to organize and bargain collectively. It's communism I tell you!!

I think the poster up thread hit upon the big difference, those that have already been hit feel the importance, the urgency for significant change, while those still comfortable or profiting from it have the luxury of "tolerating" the continuing crime-spree. As Babs said, "It's really working out very well for them".

[LWolf]

311. I didn't leave it out.

I referenced it here:

"the fiercely partisan support of the Democratic Party,"

and here:

"In another 18 months, all discussion of issues and policy will be dropped in favor of the '12 presidential campaign. At which point, I suspect, Obama will have lost the support and votes he gained from the left in '08. DU rules being what they are, the left won't have much to say here at that point."

That's where the conflict begins.

When a sight bills itself as both "left wing" and a support for the Democratic Party, there are obvious, unavoidable, conflicts.

[mkultra]

338. The purpose of the sight was to oppose Bush

You would be lead to conclude that this would also mean the defeat of the next conservative candidate. Since this is done by a democrat(sorry, not a green or other) then this sites purpose is to support the democrat. It even states in the rules that being generally supportive of democratic candidates is required. Left wing can mean either all of those left of center or only those on the very left. Its clear that your definition is different from the one chosen by skinner.


You will notice a complete lack of mention in the about section regarding a pure drive for socialism.

[LWolf]

353. I don't think I ever suggested

a "drive for socialism."

I also don't think I ever narrowed the left to the "far left." I will say that "left of center" has little meaning when the center keeps moving right.

I'm sorry you don't like my answer to the OP. I still stand by it.

[donco6]

148. 18 months? It's already happening.

Even as things become more obvious, the cheerleaders simply get louder.

Good post.

[LWolf]

344. Thanks.

:hi:

[grantcart]

103. There has always been a large group in the 'progressive' community

who are preening and self indulgent to the extent that they prefer a flaming loss than a victory that while substantive does not meet some strict ideological fantasy.

There are lines in the sand. Single payer is the best, but is not achievable in a country that is too frightened to even agree to take federal prisoners from Gitmo that are shackled and put into isolation. So we are left with 'public option' and a crowding out scenario. If we can achieve that it will be a major victory, but some will call it a sell out.

It is fairly easy to see who at DU interacts with people of different opinions and backgrounds and those that segregate themselves and only communicate with people who agree with themselves. Once you have segregated yourself then it is a matter of seeing who can become the most outraged and the most strident, and the greatest critic of the collective effort of the party.

It is ironic that those who shout the loudest about social systems that mandate collectivist economic structures are the most eager to show that they will not be a part of a collectivist political movements, one that is necessary to make the economic changes actual legislation in a real world with competing interests.

[redqueen]

128. "they will not be a part of a collectivist political movements"

:thumbsup:

[Number23]

179. "It is fairly easy to see who at DU interacts with people of different opinions and backgrounds...

...and those that segregate themselves and only communicate with people who agree with themselves."

My head is practically falling off I'm nodding so hard. I've said so many times that so many here need to get out more; see the real suffering in this world. Join the Peace Corps. Teach English in another country. Volunteer at an inner city after school program. Do SOMETHING.

The ignorance, dishonesty and immaturity displayed here by some is nothing short of staggering sometimes.

[HamdenRice]

248. Well said

and the first line is quite sad, but true. Better to go down with Kucinich than get anything done with Obama.

[Zynx]

111. I'm glad you said it. What is called "criticism" is usually nonsense based on lies or fragmentary

and carefully pruned information. Sometimes people get really pissed about a rumor that turns out not to be true and somehow stay mad over it.

[bertman]

113. Get a grip. This post is overblown hyperbole. Most of us do not HATE President Obama,

but neither do we worship him, nor do we think he is immune to the tremendous and never-ending pressure he is receiving daily from his DLC staff, Wall Street beholden financial advisors, and military/industrial/intelligence complex "experts".

You just head right on over to Kos and enjoy it over there. I'll stay here where there is a healthy diversity of opinion and discussion. Not adulation.

[SeattleGirl]

116. Many of the post claiming to be criticising Obama's policies are

overblown hyerbole.

I'm sure most people don't hate him, but speaking for myself, I've seen plenty of posts on DU that really have me wondering what the hell happened here.

Criticizing a policy is one thing, but I've read too many posts where the poster and many responders want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Those are the posts that piss me off, especially when they are filled with nothing but opinion, but are trying to come across as if every word is fact.

[Cary]

119. The problem is not whether you hate Obama.

No one in their right mind cares whether you like him or not.

The problem is what we can and cannot get passed, and if we don't get a good health care bill we're all screwed. For the life of me I don't see how you people can miss something that's so obvious.

[stillrockin]

114. Are you smoking crack? Because exercising critical thinking skills is a *good* thing.

Don't confuse trolls with those of us with legitimate complaints.

[HamdenRice]

135. I have no problems with legitimate complaints. nt

[Zynx]

142. I would say 75% of the criticism is based on some notion or another rather

than an intelligent criticism of policy.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

163. It's usually a knee-jerk reaction to some ill-founded hit piece.

That percentage is about right. The other 25% of the criticism I recognize as honest concern.

[Dr Fate]

121. I hear you-even still, the "we dont have the votes" conservative DEMS are not above criticism.

But we agree- DUers of ALL factions should stick to facts.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HamdenRice]

134. Dag! I miss all the fun in my own thread. What was "deleted" about?

of course without re-hashing it. Just wanna know whether I was attacked by "ignored".

[Number23]

180. Let me know when you find out! lol

Hamden I've kicked and rec'd your post. I'm sure that you let your donor star go for good reasons, but we'd love to have your participation again in AAIG.

[mikelgb]

143. please, don't bother

why even stop in before Kos?

do you think DU is privileged to have you check in?

[earth mom]

149. ROFL! The denial here on DU is hilarious!

:rofl:

Yep, it's hilarious and also pathetic and sad.

FYI- I don't watch the fucking corporate cable news or any of the god damn lying talking heads on t.v.! So you can shit can your "theory". :eyes:

[redqueen]

152. Man... remember when Gore was eviscerated by the left for being a corporate whore?

Good times... good times.

[Symarip]

164. We showed him!

Taught him a thing or two.

[redqueen]

284. He'll know better than to try his hand at politics again, that's for sure!

I can't wait till the 2012 primary. It's gonna be so great, watching the M$M and the far left working together towards a common goal.

[wroberts189]

150. The answer is NO. Keep the faith...

This board ..and I have lurked here since the beginning is very chaotic. There be trolls and paid shills and agitators.

It goes through cycles... You cannot let it get to you. Sanity does ring true here 99.0 percent of the time.

We do not always agree ..but most of us agree on enough to know who the real enemy is.

[ProSense]

151. There are certain people determined to

invent criticisms of Obama.

I've come to the conclusion that the vocal, non-stop and over-the-top criticisms of Obama are designed to create a sustained impression that he is not doing well.

They may end up like the GOP.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

158. And there are those who NEVER criticize our leader.

Even when it is warranted.

[ProSense]

159. And how the hell does that justify making up shit? n/t

[HughMoran]

173. " They may end up like the GOP."

I'm virtually certain that many are GOP - or at least are as unable to have a conversation where they aren't insulting someone's intelligence. Oh, that's right, they're attention whores.

[Dragonfli]

153. I read it more as Pro-Democratic Ideals, Anti-Corporate Capitulation.

But thank you for your concern.
It has been noted.

If you do not get your lockstep Corporate Pony



Then I suggest you look to KOS, it may be there but I doubt it.

Stop the Whining...

[bigwillq]

154. Not at all.

Still tons of cheerleading going on, even when it's not warranted.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

162. When you're gone, check back in and read this:

You and your party are losers.

[MadMaddie]

166. HamdenRice don't leave there are plenty of us here that

are not anti - Obama and have the understanding and patience that is going to take more than 6 months to undo 30 years of Repuglican rule.

He is not perfect and he is making mistakes but the alternative would have us in war in Iran and N. Korea right now.

Nopity I ain't going anywhere!!

[Number23]

181. "I ain't going anywhere!!"

Tell 'em, girl! :fistbump:

[Thickasabrick]

167. Wow....this got 66 recs? Slow news day? Where are the links and

examples of "make believe news factoids"? Not being a daily poster and only checking in every couple of days, I can only give you my perspective. I've never a noticed a post that was anti-Obama, just ones that disagree with certain actions taken by the prez or lack thereof.

Being a good democratic party member means being critical of any democratic politician including our prez who does not stay true to democratic ideals that they promised to work on while campaigning.

I am extremely disappointed in my new senator Kay Hagan and hope she loses next election. Does that make me anti-democratic? I don't think so.

[HughMoran]

175. blinders

try taking them off.

[NorthCarolina]

290. We can thank Sen. Schumer for convincing Kay Hagan to run

(she had originally declined to do so) because the establishment was afraid that Jim Neal would take the nomination. Of course, since Jim Neal was an out gay man and a solid Progressive, that made him an unacceptable candidate that needed to be squelched. He could not compete against Hagan whose campaign was funded by the party, and the rest is history. While I did vote for Hagan in the general election (voted for Neal in the primary), I guarantee that she will not receive my vote a second time.

[HughMoran]

168. I think the people that do the infantile shit you're talking about are just attention whores

They know they are going to piss people off and they ever-so-fucking love it.

[Cha]

176. It's too obvious..there's

disgust all over..

loyalkydem (720 posts) Mon Jun-22-09 07:54 AM
Original message

"Comparing Bush and Obama, why I'm so sick of people bashing Obama
keep seeing threads on Democratic Underground saying that people are unhappy with what the President is doing with his job performance. Many are unhappy with where the economy is right now.

Let me say this, STOP CRITICICING THE DAMN MAN. We didn’t get in this situation over night and we’re not going to get out of this situation over night either. I keep seeing posts from people that say Obama equals Bush.

If you must criticize don’t compare the President to Bush. From what I’ve seen, the man is thirty times better than Bush. Most of the decisions you’ve seen coming from his office are from those people with loyalties to Bush. While I do not like some of the decisions they made, I still support the President in his efforts to clean up what was left of the mess that is George W. Bush.

It seems like people aren’t going to be happy unless they blame the President for something. The man’s doing the best he can with what he has and he’s not going to solve it over night.

Here’s a list of his accomplishments since he took office back in January.

Civil Rights
Jan. 29 2009 – Obama signs the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Reducing discrimination based on gender, age, religion, or race. (source)
Environmental
Feb. 21 2009 – Obama signs a mercury reduction pact with 140 other nations. The policy reverses roles with George Bush and sets mandatory requirements by the United States. (source)
Mar. 30 2009 – Obama signs the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, which serves to protect two million acres of land and creates a new system of land conservation for the Bureau of Land Management. (source)
May 19 2009 – Obama teams up with the auto industry to raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to an average of 35.5 mpg by 2016. The program is reported to save up to 1.8 billion barrels of oil or 900 million tons of greenhouse gases. (source)
Foreign Policy
April 2 2009 – Obama helps form a compromise between Presidents of France (Sarkozy) and China (Jintao) over making tax havens more transparent. The two Presidents were in a “heated” argument previous to Obama’s intervention. (source)
Government Reform
Jan. 27 2009 – Administration tells Citigroup bank it is “unacceptable” to pay for a $42 million dollar luxury jet when they have received $45 billion in bailouts from taxpayers. (source)
Feb. 19 2009 – Bans the exception of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from accounting the deficit. This results in a 2.5 trillion dollar increase in calculated deficit to the United States. (source)
Feb. 23 2009 – Announces Earl Devaney to oversee the oversight of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Mr. Devaney worked as a Secret Service agent who exposed lobbist corruption in the Department of the Interior. (source)
Mar. 9 2009 – Lifts ban on embryonic stem cell research. A major move in changing the politics of research and science in the United States. (source)
May 22, 2009 – Creates a credit card bill of rights. Limits unwarranted spending and gives consumers more options to pay their bills on time. It has been debated if this will negatively affect the industry. (source)
May 22, 2009 – Tries to curb wasteful spending by the Pentagon on the defense budget by signing the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act. Intended to price contracts and budgets lower; may potentially save billions of dollars in defense. (source)
Humanitarian
Jan. 23 2009 – Obama orders the close of Guantanamo Bay facility (source)
PERSONAL DISAGREEMENTS
Policies or agendas of Obama that strongly confront with my personal beliefs, policies, agenda.
Health Care
A younger Barack Obama had once said “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan,” but now that he is in office, Obama is mainstreaming the center aisle. Now he says he has three priorities to health care reform: control costs across the system, provide coverage for all people, and work with the current system. However, as Bill Moyer points out, each time the government threatens to step in, the industry backs off until we forget. A single-payer system is the only REAL solution. For conservatives concerned about the costs of the syystem, listen carefully, a single payer sytem WILL be cheaper. Americans are the highest paying per capita than any other country; more than double of countries with similar systems. Not to mention, we are the ONLY developed nation without a single-payer-esqe system. I stand behind the younger Barack Obama and House Resolution 676 for passage.
Support for my beliefs:
Sicko
Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP): Frequently Asked Questions
Healthcare-NOW! (sign the petition)
Drug Policy
Despite Eric Holder correctly acknowledging that the use of marijuana for medical purposes is a states issue (source), Obama laughed at the idea of legalizing marijuana and the prospects of taxing the product to help the economy (source). Furthermore, he goes on to say at a questions forum “there was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation, and I don’t know what this says about the online audience.” Excuse me, but this online audience was the reason you were able to reach the $500,000,000 mark during your campaign. If that was not enough, a few days later, for the first time, Robert Gibbs makes a fool of himself when he cannot explain the reasoning behind the President’s position (source). Praise should be given to his drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, for stating we need to end the “war on drugs” due to fact that treatment works better than incarceration (source), but only little progress has been made towards fixing the problem.
Source: http://www.knowtheblog.org/blog/archives/59

Curious about Bush’s accomplishments I decided to research his accomplishments

Attacked and took over two countries.
* Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.
* Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.
* Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.
* Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
* First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
* First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
* First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.
* After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.
* Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.
* In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.
*Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.
* Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.
* Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
* Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
* Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any president in US history.
* Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
* Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
* Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.
* Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
* Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
* My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.
* Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice has an Exxon oil tanker named after her).
* First president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.
* Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.
* First president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation.
* Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
* Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.
* First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.
* First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.
* Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.
* Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
* Withdrew from the World Court of Law.
* Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
* First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).
* All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
* My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
* Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
* First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
* First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
* First US president to establish a secret shadow government.
* Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
* With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.
* First US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
* First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
* Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
* Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.
* Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.
* Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capital building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.
* In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.
* Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.
* In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.
* Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Now, you tell me who is doing the better job. Stop freeking complaining about President Obama and give the man the time he needs to pull us out of this shit hole Bush put us in."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5897103

[Usrename]

206. Decided to keep Gitmo open for at least another year...

...while he also hailed this decision in his press briefing by claiming that he was "closing Guantanamo."





I don't see anything there that anyone could compare with Bush. :sarcasm:


Funny that you would leave his fist act as President off your list.

[Cha]

318. Fuck bush and fuck

your comparing Obama to bush as you sit there in your fucking chair not having a fucking clue.

[jgraz]

189. See, you're itching to be not so nice

I've never seen you say anything nice - what up with that?

[HughMoran]

197. I'm a bad person

That's really the issue here :)

[Political Heretic]

183. DU isn't doing anything. However the PEOPLE are standing up and speaking out about

..the failure of our political representatives to effectively represent our interests.

You're post is full of vague accusations and insinuations that seeks to falsely reduce all concern, critcism or discontent into fringe, irrational extremism.

It's a cheap tactic. It's bullshit. And it will fail to silence people who believe its their duty to challenge their representatives and call out politicians on all the ways in which they regularly sell out the public good in the interests of a privileged elite.

[Senator]

207. +1

A bit of dkos-iness seemed appropriate.

--

[w4rma]

191. No. (nt)

[Fearless]

198. Not giving facts explaining how DUers aren't giving facts? How original. Bravo!

:eyes:

[HughMoran]

199. Finding flaw rather than responding to the actual commentary

How original - bravo!

:eyes:

[Lindsey]

200. kick. n/t

[Fearless]

205. Commentary is an opinoin, which is what I gave, factual analysis, which they claim needs facts.

It's just that simple.

[Norrin Radd]

202. Good luck discussing election fraud, or 9/11 over on Kos.

Also, Markos was opposed to the bailout bill, which you defended, here.

I like you, and your diverse opinions are better suited to DU, even the ones I disagree with.

[HamdenRice]

249. It's certainly more straightjacketed over there

and I suppose that's the tradeoff.

Thanks for the encouraging words.

:hi:

[Turborama]

203. Concern trolls

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Troll_rating">"Concern Trolls". Marginally more clever, they pretend at being progressive Democrats, but at every turn seem to suggest the most obviously damaging or boneheaded or offensive thing they can. These are easier to catch than you might imagine: since it hardly matters whether someone is an obvious concern troll or just an unmitigated idiot, sometimes it doesn't pay to think about it too hard.

[sui generis]

319. hey that applies to both sides. Which makes it meaningless.

Better yet, save "trolls" for people who are NOT progressive or democrat - and that would be very very few people on DU.

Seriously - you hear the "concerned" so and so's always associated to conservativism. We should let them keep their prize.

I hate HamdenRice by the way. Not a callout just a statement of fact.

[Usrename]

204. This is unbelievable.

Because it isn't a Republican president who is covering up war crimes, nobody here should complain.

That is EXACTLY what you are saying, isn't it?

Are you completely aware that there are reasonable grounds to believe that torture took place under the previous administration? Can anyone be so uninformed that they don't know that there have been serious accusations of torture by multiple reliable complainants? Is it possible for someone to post here on this board and NOT know that it has already been determined by the International Red Cross that torture did in fact take place under the previous administration?

Is it possible for someone to make a post like yours while remaining completely ignorant about the law regarding torture, or what the history of the Nuremberg Principles is all about?

Are you aware that THIS administration has certain requirements that they have a duty to perform and which they are shirking?

This administration and this congress are making themselves complicit in war crimes.

Is that a difficult concept to grasp? It seems very simple to me, and I am not surprised at all that many of the posters here who believe in human rights are disappointed.

Unbelievable.




What is your BEST rationale for excusing war crimes? Do you have one? Is it to be more appealling to the right-wing or something? Or, is there some other excuse, something like he is avoiding a coup by appeasing the criminals?

[HamdenRice]

251. How long do you think it took the Mandela administration to investigate apartheid era crimes?

And I'm not talking about the secret ones. Fortunately for the Mandela administration, when it came into office, the Goldstone Commission on political violence had been investigating and documenting many of those crimes in the runup to the election and they were reported in South African and international newspapers.

So take a guess. How long did it take for the Mandela administration to begin investigating Botha and de Klerk era war crimes?

Please go ahead -- guess.

If you guessed five months, then you are wrong.

It was almost 2 years before the government even passed the statute that set up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. And Mandela had a parliamentary system and super majority that guaranteed that every law the government proposed could be passed. Parliament had a lot on its plate, as does the current American administration and Congress.

It was almost 3 years before the first hearings of the TRC were held.

It was only in 1998 that the TRC issued its main report.

And it took years and years longer for the Public Prosecutor to actually prosecute those eligible for prosecution under the TRC system.

Oh, I guess Mandela was also a failure as president in your eyes.

Do you have any clue, any concept whatsoever of how a legal or investigative process works? Do you think that Attorney General Holder can just fart indictments out of his ass?

Your post is precisely an illustration of what my OP is complaining about.

[Political Heretic]

257. Comparing the US to South America is a false comparison.

The context difference between the two situations is so dramatic that trying to make such a comparison is really weak. For one thing, South American law and process is different than the United States. For another, there wasn't nearly as much hard evidence already a matter of public record already out there for all to see. In this case, everyone knows a great deal about what was done, how it was done, and who was involved because much of that information has already come out in the public media.

The statute of limitations on many of the crimes committed is running out right now. At this point the only thing we can hope for is a truth and reconciliation commission to at least have official condemnation in the congressional record so that history records these people as criminals despite the fact that they will never see justice in our country.

The main problem that you are completely ignoring is not the speed at which things are happening, it is the direction in which our political leaders are heading.

The problem isn't that "truth commissions take a long time to get in South Africa." The problem is that the President, the administration and congressional representatives are wishy washy on demanding accountability and enforcement of the law when it comes to other political representatives. They're putting their fear that it would interfere with their elections or their political agenda ahead of what many believe to be their constitutional duty - not option - to uphold the law. Upholding the law means enforcement, not just establishment, of legality.

The President for example, could have and should have shown leadership and demanded a truth commission, rather than simply saying we shouldn't rush into anything but maybe some point down the road possibly some sort of investigation might possibly be sort of in order - maybe. Instead, its transparently obvious to everyone, or should be, that the President was more concerned about the possibility that showing leadership on his responsibility to uphold the law and his promise to restore integrity to Washington would potentially derail his places for his political agenda and saddle him with a nasty partisan fight he didn't want.

The problem with that thinking however, is that it presumes that the president has a choice where he actually has no choice. He doesn't get to choose, "do I push my administration and congress for full investigations and support prosecutions where appropriate even though it may create political fallout or stall my plans for my presidency, OR do I 'look forward rather than backward' and try to just move past all this stuff without dealing with it.

That's not a choice the president actually has. I'm sorry that fulfilling his obligation to defend the constitution might mean not having the kind of presidency he wants, but that's just too bad. There is no accountability without enforcement, and there is not value to law or the constitutional framework if, whenever it is discarded, it can be guaranteed that no one will every face actual sanction.

I do in point of fact, have a very good understanding of how a legal or investigative process works. And the Attorney General won't be able to issue indictments at all for many or most of the indictable crimes because washington players have successfully delayed things long enough that the statute of limitations will run out.

(See: http://crooksandliars.com/2007/10/04/john-dean-to-congress-extend-statute-of-limitations-on-torture-crimes)

[Usrename]

346. Obstruction of justice.

It is an ongoing crime.

Witnesses were tortured and KILLED!

These are capital crimes, punishable by death, and so is conspiracy to commit such crimes.

Look it up.


There is no statute of limitations that I am aware of that pertains to murdering witnesses.

[Usrename]

347. Their first black president -- our first black president, I get it.

You cannot simply ignore facts by calling them factoids. What happened in South Africa BEFORE Mandela was not illegal, it was behavior that was ENDORSED by the state and the LAW.

What is wrong with you? During Bush's reign of terror witnesses were murdered, many of them were tortured to DEATH.

When, since the founding of this country, have these acts been considered legal and state-sanctioned official policy?

These are crimes that are punishable by death under U.S. law, and no commission is needed to understand this FACTOID!

I cannot believe that there could be a post in this thread that is more idiotic and obtuse than the OP, but comparing Bush's war crimes to apartheid in South Africa? - you cannot really be serious, can you?

By the way, the Speaker of the House has the authority under our law to start any kind of commission she wants, at will, without asking ANYBODY. What makes you think it should take years? She could do it this minute if she wanted to, without any further delay.

As a matter of fact, by her failure to take action she is becoming a co-conspirator. She should either recuse herself from any war crimes investigations or she should take immediate action. Doing neither can be a separate crime in and of itself.

What makes you think that just because it took South Africa years to try and reconcile generations of apartheid that we should be allowed to take years to begin to prosecute war criminals?

Witnesses were tortured to DEATH. This is a CAPITAL CRIME. Conspiring to kill a witness is a CAPITAL CRIME. It is a CAPITAL CRIME in this country to murder witnesses. Do you think that some reconciliation is necessary on this little FACTOID? Do you think a commission needs to be set up to find out if it is illegal to kill witnesses, or do you dispute the FACTOID that witnesses were murdered?

If a Republican president were looking the other way, turning a blind eye on murder, would you pump yourself up enough to defend him here on DU?

You're a bright person, and I have read many of your writings. Think.

:think:

[HamdenRice]

348. You are ill informed. What was done under apartheid was ILLEGAL even under S. African law

So your premise is entirely wrong. The TRC provided investigation and in limited cases amnesty for ILLEGAL ACTS committed by the apartheid regime -- especially murder, torture, kidnapping and disappearing of dissidents.

It was not primarily investigating discrimination itself, which was legalized.

Many people went to prison for crimes committed in defense of apartheid.

Before we go any further in this discussion, it would be necessary for you to inform yourself of the basic facts. You could google "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" and "South Africa" to get up to speed. In the meantime your suggestion that I'm the ill informed one makes you look a bit silly.

I've read every word of the TRC final report -- all half dozen or so volumes, as well as hundreds of pages of TRC testimony, and it quickly becomes obvious how much that was done was illegal under South African law of the apartheid era.

Btw, it didn't even occur to me that both Mandela and Obama were "first black" presidents -- only that the South African TRC has become the global gold standard for dealing with criminality of regimes, upon which several other countries have based their own TRCs.

[Usrename]

354. You're grasping at straws.

Who the fuck do you want to reconcile?

[HamdenRice]

355. No, I'm not. I've shown 1) You don't know what you're talking about and 2) SA & USA are comparable

In both cases, rogue governments used illegal practices to carry out loathsome policies.

You obviously had zero information about South Africa because you were under the mistaken impression that the acts that were investigated by the TRC were not illegal under South African law. They were. You should try to show a little maturity by admitting your abject ignorance and the preposterousness of your little fit of poutraged to the effect that the acts of the South African government were legal.

By asking who should be reconciled, you demonstrate that you don't understand the basic purpose of the TRC. It was to grant immunity to certain defendants in order to get information about worse wrongdoing -- not that different from Congressional grants of immunity from prosecution during investigation of some of the Republican criminality of the last half century.

The bigger point is how long it takes to investigate rogue, illegal operations in a regime. That's the point I make at the head of this sub-thread.

If you don't want to talk about South Africa, then let's talk about US history.

How long was it between the date that Eugene Hasenfus's plane crashed in Central America, and the initiation of the investigation by Lawrence Walsh's as independent counsel of the Iran Contra scandal?

When were indictments handed down? How much time passed between the disclosure of Iran Contra and the indictment of Caspar Wienberger?

Here's a hint: It wasn't 5 months.

All the details of Iran Contra came out very quickly and yet it took a long time for the Walsh investigation to begin, let alone indictments.

The point is that anyone who thinks that the Obama administration should already be announcing the structure of an investigation of the Bush administration, let alone the results is, frankly, a blathering idiot possessed of breathtakingly impoverished historical ignorance.

[Usrename]

356. Nobody needs immunity for anything. There is evidence.

Huge amounts of evidence.

If you were to explain that you wish to reconcile the Bush war criminals with the Iraqi people, then maybe your arguments would make some sense.

Or, if you were to explain that you wish to reconcile the neo-cons with the rational folks, then that, too, could be an argument.


Do you understand that there are certain requirements that our competent authorities have a duty to perform?

A moral and a legal duty.

I think you want to fixate on South Africa, which has no similarity to Bush's unjust war. There just isn't any. None.

By the way, I think it would be good idea to give folks a year to apply for amnesty for illegal acts they personally committed under the torture regime. That approach makes a lot of sense. But there shouldn't be any guarantees in advance, nor any discussion of immunity, except as might normally be done as part of the process of prosecuting any criminal trial.

[Tarheel_Dem]

208. Yes & Recommended. I hope you read this quick because it'll probably...

be deleted. :rofl: I guess I have stalkers who don't care for my pro-Obama stances. I post, it gets deleted. I start a thread, it gets locked. The management and mods are clearly sending a signal to pro-Obama people.

I had the temerity to question Helen Thomas' motives for her most recent hit piece on the president, by pointing out that she was a very vocal supporter of HRC, and an equally vocal critic of BHO, and it was deleted forthwith. A "liberal" icon like Helen penning a poison piece only 26 days into the president's first term, deserves to be looked at skeptically, I think.

[Forkboy]

215. LOL

[LooseWilly]

209. Shouldn't accusations of others employing "factoids" include some... facts?

I mean... you could stand to provide a concrete example or two... thread titles, links... and then you ought to provide some similar links to Rush... and then you need to show some sort of "similarity/congruence" of trajectories of thought... in order to justify what you're claiming... without being guilty of using "factoids" yourself to criticize others for using... "factoids"... which makes your argument hypocritical and needlessly hysterical.

Please, take a zaanex, and get back to us once you have some analysis to back up your accusations... else... my only reasonable response to a personal attack is to invite you to piss up a rope...

[NYC_SKP]

214. Regarding the absence of "factoids" in the OP and criticsm thereof:

Anyone who reads a few posts in GD and GD-P daily has seen examples of critical articles, usually copied and pasted from other websites, that turn out to be hyperbole, skewed opinion pieces posing as facts, and/or outright lies.

Anyone paying attention, that is.

HamdenRice: :toast:

K and R.

[Political Heretic]

258. You call it hyperbole, you call it skewed opinion, and you call it lies.

But labeling something hyperbole is opinion.

Calling it skewed is opinion.


Which leaves you only with the lies part - which people who say this are never able to prove when pressed.

[NYC_SKP]

283. How about "questionable interpretations".

Lies, skews, hyberbole, facts and opinions. Where is any proof. I get it.

I understand that examples are needed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8476821#8478035

The above is something other than simple reporting.

Examples of lies brought here, I have none as I don't save or bookmark them.

[Political Heretic]

288. That's not an example of a lie. That's an example of an opinion

"Maddow: Prevented. We will incarcerate people preventively. Preventive incarceration. Indefinite detention without trial. That's what this is. That is what Obama proposed today if you strip away the euphimisms. "

She said, that's what this is when you strip way the euphemisms. That means she's giving your opinion on what this really means.

That's what political analysts do by the way. And you're only actual beef is that you don't agree with the analysis.

Well I do agree with her analysis on this, and find it mind boggling the amount of mental gymnastics people go through to try and spin something else out of it.

I believe her comments were approrpriate in response to this:

"Clip from Obama's speech: Al Queda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States and those that we capture like other prisoners of war must be prevented from attacking us again."

You're fixation on the use of the the world "prolonged" by Obama does not get you anywahere. Maddows analysis is that the purpose of prolonged detention is for prevention of future crimes, given the Presidents statement that "There may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes."

She calls it preventative detention because its her analysis that this is what it is. Prolonged detention for the purpose of preventing future bad things, even though we can't charge the people with any past crimes.

That's pretty accurate.

[redqueen]

285. "Anyone paying attention, that is."

Funny how few seem to be doing that, preferring instead to just move on to some new outrage to wail about. Hmmmm.

[chill_wind]

217. No. Virtually every day

there are plenty of picture threads, puppy threads, thank you President Obama threads, I love My President threads, why isn't this place more Pro-Obama enough theads, Stop Criticizing Obama! threads started by those who need the simple daily affirmations from each other. This thread is just one more exercise in that.

Just the other day there was a plain old roll call thread-- "K & R if you are Pro-Obama". That was it-- nothing more substantive. Nothing in the body of the OP. No issues. Just an anxious shout-out for unqualified "support". Out of 141,909 registered users, it got 343 recs. I don't know if that makes you feel better or worse. Maybe all it shows is that except for those 300+ DUers, demands of blind fealty oaths for any politician went out with George Bush.

[Douglas Carpenter]

218. Criticism of the Administration and the party could actually be quite constructive, if kept within

within the boundaries of reality and done in the spirit of goodwill.

Unfortunately what I frequently see are reflexive, anti-Obama postings - all too frequently from people who never liked Obama in the first place and seem bound and determined to keep it that way.

When one does truly and strongly disagree with something said or done by the Obama Administrations, they would have a lot more credibility from Democrats if they would avoid hyperbole and would be sparing enough in their criticism to not sound like they are just cooking up excuses to attack.

[LatteLibertine]

229. I'll admit some people may be over reacting

to certain issues. I am thankful for Democrats and Liberals who aren't cheerleaders and attempt to be intellectually honest though.

[rhymeandreason]

234. Blatantly false factoids?

Is there any chance that you could provide us with some examples of the blatantly false factoids to help facilitate a more informed discussion?

[slackmaster]

235. No, but my cats have positioned themselves as anti-rodent

That's for sure.

[madrchsod]

237. obama worships baal? i did`t know that.

"Rush Limbaughs of the left".......:rofl:

[blitzburgh55]

238. Coming here these days is similar to visiting

Freeperville.

Sigh........

[stlsaxman]

240. The "high post trolls" have decided now is the time to strike. DU'rs havent changed, really.

[tomp]

242. you're full of it. go where you like. nt

[billyoc]

244. Insha'Allah

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

245. -Please post examples of Greatest Page threads based on "blatantly false factoids" you refer to

How can there be a meaningful discussion of your OP if we don't know what you are specifically talking about?

[harmonicon]

253. did you just now notice that a lot of stupid shit is posted here?

That's always been the case. Now that there is a Democratic president, a lot of stupid shit will be posted about that. No change has taken place.

[loyalkydem]

254. This

is also my main frustration with DU lately. To see so many people from our party be so critical of President Obama because he's not moving fast enough on the issues. I joined a year ago because I enjoyed the people here.

I enjoy the anti republican atmosphere here. Now, with every passing day, I'm starting to see a less Bash Obama theme going on here on DU. I'm also heavily considering leaving this site because of all the negative attacks against the President and his agenda. If you don't see what's going on, your blind or just being plain ignorant. Going to look into getting an account on daily kos myself.

[lamp_shade]

255. Pretty sad, eh? Limbaugh, Kucinich, Nader and Robinson must be so proud. Great post. n/t

[bos1]

256. I agree. DU is becoming stupid. The very top "greatest" threads are filled with childish bashing

Examples:

What's with you, Mr. President?
59 recommendations : By FourScore

Obama needs to change his campaign slogan from "Yes We Can"
42 recommendations : By Democrat 4 Ever

I'm tired of the wishy washy, mamby pamby way of Obama's administration.

[rhymeandreason]

259. You really need to acquaint us with those cases where DUers have embraced

"... every fake make believe news factoid and repeat it over and over."

otherwise your assertions are baseless.

[lamp_shade]

265. Are you kidding? Read 7-10 pages of posts and you'll see what OP is talking about.

It's almost comical the articles people find and believe as true.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

269. Well, please post links to them. nt

[lamp_shade]

270. No. I don't have time, but if you do I suggest you do some reading.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

272. What would you like me to read? nt

[scubadude]

261. Sorry Pal, the original post is one of those "Blatantly False Factoids".

Question: Who writes the posts you claim are bringing down this board?

Answer: Democrats. Get it? This board is about Democratic thought, and driven largely by Democrats. The very subject you complain about is evidence of it's health and vitality. Yes, there is disagreement, but this just shows evidence of what is going on in Washington, nothing else.

Of course what this suggests is that the Democrats in Washington are not living up to what we believe they should, at least in some cases. Is this possible? Yes it is, and if you have one shred of honesty in your bones you must admit you feel it too! If you have been studying this as long as I have you must agree that like Bill Maher and many others have been saying for decades, the political discourse has been moved to the right by the Republicans. If you are feeling hunky dory about what is going on in Washington, you are one of the ones who they moved!

Your original post is just one more in a long list of whines complaining about unity. The fact that people are suggesting complaint to "The owners of this board" is remarkable. I already see the march towards control in the way certain subject are handled he, and have tried to point this out. If any changes are made requiring unanimity of thought, the board will be dead.

Scuba

[LynneSin]

262. Not me!!! Pro-democrat, Pro-Obama all the way

Yes, I will express disappointment but Obama and the Democrats are like my Philadelphia Eagles. Even when the suck the big one I still love them over every other team out there!

[arcadian]

326. I hate to tell you this LynneSin, but this is not a football game.

People's lives are at stake. That is the problem with the way that most Americans participate in the political process, they treat it as if it were a football game.

[LynneSin]

334. What are you dense? You don't think I know that

Clearly you're the one without a clue in comprehending what I've said.

You do know what analogies are? I mean if I say my skin is soft as a baby's bottom that doesn't mean my skin is made of the bottom of a baby. Just checking. Some folks perhaps don't get analogies and wanted to make sure you were understanding of them.

I'm not a bandwagoner - someone who cheers on the team when they win and then abandoned when they start to suck. I'm a democrat, I've been a democrat since I was 10 years old and I can assure you there have been PLENTY of times I'm pissed at the democrats.

But I recognize that there are good times along with the bad. But for some DUers they are just total haters. They fail to recognize just how much of a mess that Obama was left and assumed he would solve all of our problems within 100 days. To me, they are fools and probably never true democrats to begin with. And honestly they are DUers I have little respect for since clearly they see the glass as half empty instead of recognizing that it's half full but if we work hard, make the calls, pressure the democrats we could fill that glass up even fuller.

[Alcibiades]

268. It started during the primary

And then there was a name amnesty so that the worst offenders could change their identities.

[OhioBlue]

271. It does seem that way

I find myself going to Huffpo more often and have been checking out DailyKos more too.

I agree completely - I often don't like coming here b/c of all the anti-Obama posts. And... they are NOT just constructive criticism. It is often snark filled, knee-jerk reactions. Some posters cannot wait to jump on a negative headline or thread about Obama.

[McCamy Taylor]

273. I see both sides represented here. Of course, I am neutral. If you are on one side you probably

notice posts that represent the other.

Free discussion is important for a Democracy.

[Ganja Ninja]

275. I thought the Democratic Party was supposed to represent us not the other way around..

[Redneck Socialist]

276. LOL!

I can only assume that most of 96 recommendations of this thread are intended ironically.

DU isn't positioning itself as anything. It is and always has been a bunch of people arguing about stuff. Nothing less and nothing more.

Oh, and it's kittens, kittens he's sacrificing. Man, talk about repeating rightwing talking points. That whole cannibal thing was debunked long ago. It was floated by the Clinton campaign and picked up by the republicans. Pay attention would ya?

[man4allcats]

277. One would hope DU's loyalties would be less with a party than

an ideal. Voters who call themselves Democrats and Republicans constantly exchange fire while our elected representatives who go by the same party names know full well those designations are now meaningless and serve only as rallying points for the masses. There is presently only one party in this country, and it goes by the name of Corporate America. I say "presently" because I hope, however unlikely the realization of that hope may be, that there are yet enough true Americans left to return this nation to the principles of transparency, accountability, the rule of law and respect for and government based on the Constitution.

[The Green Manalishi]

278. Enjoy your kool aid

I voted for, and supported him, you have *NOTHING* on me or any other progressive so get the fuck off your high horse.

There *ARE* some absolutes. Some things that simply must stop now; any person allowing them to continue is fucking evil:

-discrimination in marriage and *ALL* other legal arrangements against GLBT people, particularly DADT.
-Environmental degradation, including mountaintop removal and the filling of valleys with mining trailings.
-federal harassment of medical marijuana growers and users.

We can debate about some of the things the Commander in Chief must do in war to keep this country safe; while I think we lose far more in moral credibility than we gain by some of the secrecy, interrogation and strategic actions we engage in reasonable people can disagree. But DADT? Allowing the Army Corps of Engineers to massively fuck up streams and lakes?

What part of "This shit has to stop NOW and don't give me any bullshit that the President of the United States couldn't do so with the wave of his pen" don't you understand?

Go ahead, tell me those are 'fake', tell me I listen to Limp balls, tell me I'm the tool of Faux news, and I'll laugh in your face.

Just because he's better than McLame would have been doesn't mean he isn't fucking up.
There is simply no excuse (that I and any number of real progressives) will accept, there is no room, time or reason for compromise on those things the president can damn well do, and do before the next time he goes to the bathroom.

[Name removed]

305. Deleted message

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

[HamdenRice]

325. "federal harassment of medical marijuana growers and users"-Yeah, that's at the very top

of urgent things that need to get done and that he needs to spend political capital on!

:sarcasm:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Enjoy your bong hit!

[AngryOldDem]

286. Proud to K&R

I could not agree more.

I am amazed at the number of politically astute people here who seem to want eight years (and more) of inept and dangerous policies and decisions rectified in a matter of months. I don't think it would make a whit of difference who won. I've noticed that this place turns on and eats its own constantly. The same would probably be said if HRC were in the White House.

Furthermore -- and I've said this before as well -- I think it is a good thing that Obama has reconsidered some of his campaign positions in apparent light of facts that only come to light once one is ass-deep in the shit. Haven't we all had enough of tunnel-vision, stay-the-course, the-Lord-is-on-my-side leadership that only makes things worse? Have we learned absolutely NOTHING from the Bush debacle?

We didn't get to this sorry pass as a country and a society overnight, or in six and a half months. To think that one man can rectify it overnight or wihtin six and a half months is the epitome of naivete and foolishness.

[gemdem]

316. K&R

with an Amen!

[These Eyes]

287. K&R!

I don't post much, but I do come here to read throughout the day. This place is getting depressing.

[TheWraith]

291. Kicked and recommended.

I, for one, am getting tired of this bullshit.

[katandmoon]

293. Read Glenn Greenwald's column today

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/23/herbert/

Tell us what YOU know for a fact is false about it.

[rhymeandreason]

294. Still waiting for someone to post some of the "blatantly false factoids"

that are so objectionable. Condemning DUers generally for posting false information is a rather bold accusation. Surely the author of the OP or someone can provide some specific evidence of this.

[skygazer]

297. The usual circular firing squad

I wondered what would happen to this place if we won the election and it has met my expectations brilliantly. Democrats - we're always our own worst enemy.

[ellie]

299. The level of hysteria

seems to be on the rise on DU at times.

[sui generis]

300. Yes, and we're all racists and homophobes.

Jesus Christ. Criticism is allowed. It's not all black or white. Oooops. Guess using that phrase makes me racist. :eyes:

[wndycty]

301. K&R

:kick:

[MoJoWorkin]

303. I am quite sick of this place and in 100% agreement with you Hamden..

I plan not to donate anymore to DU.

I support MY President, and I think he is doing one hell of a good job overall. If anyone thinks this teetotal mess he inherited can be cleaned up with a snap of his fingers, or that he will be able to address every last one of every single person's pet issue right here and now, then they need to go to utopia(the place that exists only in their own mind.)

I have been disappointed by many past Democratic Presidents, but they have all been so much better than Repugs, it isn't even funny. I think Obama may end up being better than any President in my lifetime.

This has gone WELL BEYOND constructive criticism. I am 64 years young and I know what constructive means. DU has become bash Obama all day all the time. I can no longer read such garbage.

[Name removed]

306. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kegler14]

304. I'd say you're right.

[cartach]

307. Most of the criticism on DU prior to

Jan./09 was directed at the Republican party and the Bush admninistration, and deservedly so. After Obama took office DU posters seemed to slowly take on a different tone and became increasingly critical of the new President. No matter that he inherited a horrendous state of affairs including a near bankrupt country and hardly has had the time to even begin to turn things around. Any honest Democrat recognizes this and would hold off criticism for some time to come. What we have here now on DU in part is a few disgruntled Democrats who haven't the brains to realize that Obama is'nt Jesus Christ and can't perform miracles and just want to whine and complain. They're of the same variety as the large Republican majority of unwashed redneck and/or religious right fanatics we used to hear from ad nauseum. But Republicans of all varieties are taking advantage of the usual complacency that comes about when people are on the winning team, and I believe there's a concerted effort to bombard sites such as DU with destructive criticism that consists of outright lies and the usual right wing propaganda. At the same time these people have'nt the guts to come out and say what party they support This is what the previous administration under the guidance of Rove did for eight years and you're seeing it happen here. But unless bonafide DU'ers fight back and those managing the site start doing their job of policing and editing out the garbage, DU will cease to be a forum for legitimate discussion and soon go out of existence. To hell with the BS that you have to take a fair and balanced approach,it's time to kick ass.

[Justyce]

308. I would bet that in real life, most people here do like I do.

When anyone says anything negative about Obama or the Dems, I go into major defensive mode. Here on a Dem site, however, I feel more free to express those things which I'm not happy about. I would certainly hope we don't turn into a FR type site where we aren't allowed to express complaints about our president's & our Dems' actions. It's part of our responsibility as voters to make sure they know what we want from them & what we aren't happy about.


(Edited for typo)

[Autonomy]

312. A lot of us feel this way

We each have our own process of coming to terms with it. I knew it was coming since we won Congress in 2006. Liberals ALWAYS fracture upon winning anything. There's something in the collective psyche that desires failure and skews towards self-hate. Those of us who reject that tendency are vilified.

My suggestion: disregard the negativity. It's inherent and cannot be argued away or dealt with rationally. Be self-defining, and do not post with any concern for kicks or recs or agreeable replies...

That said, thanks for posting this.

[depakid]

313. How about just dealing with the issues rationally and calling a spade a spade

You seemed to do that well enough during the financial meltdown.

Look, Obama's justice Department is what it is- and yes, I understand the whole civil servant protection and continuity of government arguments.

If they want to go that route- which, by the way, involves breaking oaths they all swore when they became members of the their respective bars (or took public office) alright then. They'll end up taking some heat.

Me, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

So chill Hamden- let's see how it plays out and- try to remain positive and do what we can to get all our fellow citizens a reasonable deal on health care. That's the major deal we have to play right now.

[Name removed]

320. Deleted message

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

[HamdenRice]

324. Is that you, "name removed"?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[sui generis]

340. no idea what you're talking about, as usual.

read that however you like.

Oh, and move along now already. You're going away party is past its born on date. DailyKOS is really sad without you there and you're just wasting your stunning intellect and wisdom on DU.

[HamdenRice]

343. Well

You must be getting quite lonely to come to this thread and post multiple responses.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

321. I called Daily Kos. The room is ready, the chocolates are under the pillow

They have a welcome basket, complimentary champagne, and people are gathering in the lobby to catch a glimpse of you checking in. Keep us updated on Twitter, ok?

[Pale Blue Dot]

322. Note that you present not one fact of your own.

In fact, in every thread I've seen you in today, you have done nothing but name call - you have not offered a single fact-laden argument in refutation.

How about living the change you seek?

[leftofthedial]

323. whenever Obama and worse, the congressional "democrats,"

behave undemocratically,

I hope so.

[Political Tiger]

329. With 108 recommendations why isn't this thread on the Greatest Threads page

on the main page?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

331. It's a conspiracy to suppress those who will not acknowledge that Obama is Baal's tool. Bwahaha!

Actually, it's because more than 24 hours have elapsed since it was originally posted.

[Political Heretic]

333. It was. It's over a day old, and thus gets dropped from the greatest threads page.

It was the top thread for a while yesterday.

[sui generis]

342. greatest and busiest are not the same thing

:eyes:

I really wish all you DU haters who want to worship Obama in solitude and peace would just leave already, instead of bitching about how much you hate it here.

Buh bye, and believe me I am trying to nail your ass with the door on the way out.

[alcibiades_mystery]

339. Looks like it

You'll notice my donor star has expired, and not been re-upped.

Of course, the main reason is because this board accepts prison rape jokes, but the trash Obama 24-7 crew isn't helping.

[Divine Discontent]

341. oh geesh - you slop all the intellectual discourse about their decisions in with the few WORST

examples and lay a blanket claim that DU is the "anti-Democratic Party" website - you are free to visit where you wish - enjoy dailykos as you like. I think DU is pretty good overall and for the most extreme factless commenters, I just put them on ignore... and those that curse and swear at us saying how great and without blame President Obama is, them too... ha

[olegramps]

351. In one word to your question: NO!