Presidents should be questioned and confronted, not idolized

[DerekG]

Folks, they're not running women's shelters or abused animal havens. They're presidents.

And what sort of person is allowed to be president?

The sort who, at some point in their lives, decided that it'd be groovy to be top dog in what is currently the world's only empire. Sure, some are less hideous than others, but all of them possess the peculiar quality of being able to order people to be murdered, even entire cities and/or nations bombarded, before shuffling off to bed. As commander-in-chief, they wield the power of life and death. And they like it.

From my perspective, there's something a bit off-kilter about these individuals (recall that even "saintly" Jimmy Carter wasn't above throwing a bit of money to a right-wing Latin American outfit, or stirring up trouble in Afghanistan). On occasion, we might get a Lincoln or FDR, but even those titans had to be pushed into doing the right thing.

Let's not confuse the Caesars with the Christs. Certainly, let us not hesitate to give our emperors holy hell when the occasion calls for it. After all, how protective should we be towards those who control a nuclear arsenal?

[KittyWampus]

1. There's a huge space between seeing a POTUS as a respectable figure who can be criticized >

calling him a piece of shit car salesman > IDOLIZING them.

[whatchamacallit]

4. Of course your "respect for the office" argument falls apart with a republican president

Just sayin'

[KittyWampus]

9. I didn't say "respect for the office". I intentionally said respect for a President of the USA who

deserves criticism.

Part of the issue, for me at least, is I went to University where one of my majors was Art History/Criticism.

Critiquing anyone or anything is more than just throwing out epithets, voicing disapproval or heaping abuse.

A good critique will not just point out a flaw, it includes viable alternatives in line with the situation in question.

[whatchamacallit]

12. So you always followed that criteria with Bush?

[KittyWampus]

14. Nope, I admit to be hypocritical at times. That's pretty human isn't it?

And lately on DU especially I am honestly trying to be less obnoxious.

[whatchamacallit]

17. Thanks for a good (honest) answer!

[jazzimov]

21. So you're saying that Obama = Bush? nt

[whatchamacallit]

23. Nice try lol

[LWolf]

116. That's got to be the one of the weakest, most pathetic, and,

unfortunately, one of the most overused comebacks ever: "So you're saying that <insert something that was NOT said or inferred in order to spin an opportunity to attack>?"

[Katashi_itto]

194. Pathetic.

[Phlem]

248. ...

-p

[1StrongBlackMan]

79. Why should we care ...

About how Democrats/liberals/progressives treat non - Democrats, relative to republicans? Particularly in a discussion of how Democrats/liberals/progressives treat this President, or any other Democrat.

[greatauntoftriplets]

81. That's an excellent question...

and one wonders why it's necessary to address that issue on Democratic Underground. This website was founded out of disgust for the selection of George W. Bush as president. In fact, I usually referred to him as "craphead".

The bottom line is that we have mid-term elections coming up a little more than seven months from now. The focus needs to be on that!

[Number23]

99. Folks keep asking and nobody keeps answering

[ZombieHorde]

158. I soooooo

wish my user name was "Nobody."

[Number23]

181. Are you going to go all Odyssey on me??

"Nobody is hitting me!"

[ZombieHorde]

226. Ha! nt

[ZombieHorde]

160. There is no objective reason to care about anything.

However, some have said that there should be respect for the office. If that is a value they want to persuade people to hold, then consistency would be more persuasive than inconsistency.

[sheshe2]

162. We shouldn't and I don't.

This is a site for Democrats.

What we are seeing here, it is racial, prejudicial and an unprecedented abundance of hate, and yes it is hate of our first African American President. I expect that from the GOP and Baggers not from members of DU.

The resent attacks are juvenile at best. Name calling, make that malicious name calling from a man that is held in awe by many. Some keep trying to tell me that he is a well known author. Who the hell cares. His attacks are disrespectful and childish.

Sorry, done with my rant. I tried taking him on last night. Would love to see him lose his cool.

[whatchamacallit]

166. What fucking crap

I'll wait here while you try to dig up examples of my racist hate for the president. Take your time, I'll be right here.

[sheshe2]

168. I was referring to a hit and run poster.

That throws a bomb in DU and then runs away.

[whatchamacallit]

170. Ah... sorry then n/t

[Marr]

216. Wait-- you're still insisting that "used car salesman" is a racist term? /nt

[sabrina 1]

165. We should care about the level of political discourse, which apparently is the topic here. Or is it

the theory that half the country should not care about the president when s/he's not from THEIR team, and the other half should not care when it's not their team? Let's keep the level of political discourse in the country in the gutter! Let's keep on doing what we rail against. That makes perfect sense, NOT!

Just telling the truth about politicians and their actions is enough, imo. No need to call names at all. But you're suggesting we act like the other side, yet you condemn that kind of political discourse? What is it you are proposing?

You are advocating what you are objecting to. Fine, then don't complain when you see it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

211. I'm talking about those here ...

on DU ... You know, those posting to a site called DemocraticUnderground ... that is (supposedly) for those seeking to elect more Democrats and fewer republicans. This should produced a, hardly, noin-non-partisan population, that should support (not "cheer-lead", not "idolize", not be a "fan-club" for) Democrats, in general, and this President, in particular.

So I'll ask again: Why should we care about how Democrats/liberals/progressives treat non - Democrats? Particularly in a discussion of how Democrats/liberals/progressives treat this President, or any other Democrat.

[JI7]

95. who gives a shit about Bush , this is a Dem site

[sabrina 1]

247. Maybe the millions of innocent victims he created many of whom are still trying to get

some justice. And the crimes he committed were committed in the name of the American people, not giving a shit isn't an option.

Would you like to see some photos of a few of those victims?

Apparently the world cares, just as the Left warned they would. In the UK eg they are still working on getting Blair prosecuted, the latest news is that after a years long investigation, a complaint has finally been sent to the ICC.

And the Bush Six Torture case in Spain, is stalled, but still open.

Not to mention the cases filed by victims of torture, or murder. And they won't stop because victims of war crimes will never forget.

Yes, this IS a Dem site where one doesn't expect a dismissal of massive war crimes, or an exoneration or defense of the War Criminals Dems took and still do, very seriously.

[sabrina 1]

26. Well, I've pretty much followed your advice when criticizing policies of not just this president but

Bush also, never resorting to name calling when pointing out bad policies is more than enough.

Yet, I have been ACCUSED of 'bashing the 'president' anyhow.

So it really wouldn't matter how civilly one criticizes a president. For some it's all about the 'person' they support, in many cases blindly.

And so long as we enough blindly loyal protectors of our leaders, nothing is going to change. It would be great if EVERYONE looked at their policies, but that is exactly what the personal attacks on those who do, are all about, to DISTRACT the people from doing just that.

Some day we will grow up as a nation hopefully, but by then it may be too late, thanks to the successful tactics of those who do not want to see the people united on policies.

[KittyWampus]

32. Generally, I respect you and your posts. Have a good weekend Sabrina!

[sabrina 1]

36. Thank you KittyWampus, you too!

[totodeinhere]

215. It's nice to see some civility. It's too bad that everyone with policy disagreements could not get

along like this.

[me b zola]

265. Plus un brazilion. n/t

[Doctor_J]

120. The fan club tend to lash out against the thoughtful critiques

at some point many of you crossed from respect to idolatry. That is one reason why a 2008 mandate for sea change became pretty much of 8 years of appeasement and right wing initiatives.

[POsphere]

201. went to University?

Are you Canadian or British?

[tomp]

196. i have no "respect for the office."

that "office" has proved it self time and again to be a seat of corruption. the president is ceo of the "protect the rich foundation." every human being gets basic human respect from me. everything else is earned. and, in the elephant-in-the-room example, obama has not earned my respect. his policies are decidedly counter to my ideas, and i do not believe he will have left the country significantly better than he found it, which was in a horrible state.

[randome]

197. Then you have given more weight to the negatives, which shows bias.

Pushing for gay rights.
Pushing for gun control.
Covering pre-existing medical conditions.
Covering contraception.
ACA and expanded Medicaid coverage.
Pushing for equitable taxation.
Pushing for immigration reform.
Violence Against Women Act.
Lily Ledbetter Act.

Show at least a modicum of objectivity and tell us how you view the above accomplishments.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[tomp]

198. it's not as simple as that.

there are some obvious plusses in that group. i view these things generally as the bones that the democratic party MUST throw to the people in order to obtain any credibility whatsoever. the fundamental malfunctioning of our government has been left unaltered.

[totodeinhere]

218. Part of the problem is that Bush left such a rancid stench on the office that

now it's hard to wash it all off. Jesus Christ incarnate could probably have been elected Bush's successor and that would not have been enough to entirely rescue the institution of the presidency from what that pathetic caricature of a man did to it.

That's one reason why I strongly favored indictments of Bush, Cheney, Rummy and others not only for the sake of justice but as a means of President Obama's separating himself from the crimes of the Bush years altogether. Of course Obama in his best judgement decided that it was not the best course of action. I disagree with him on that.

[randome]

228. Your point is well made.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Marr]

219. I'm with you on that. And I fail to see how the phrase is any different from "respect the badge"...

...which is just a servile sentiment. I'll show everyone a degree of a basic, human respect-- but demanding anything more than that simply because someone occupies a certain station seems awfully authoritarian to me. If anything, people who occupy positions of authority should be more sharply watched. It's not as if they were drafted into these spots-- they sought them out.

Also, my personal experience is that the "respect for the office" line is almost always hypocritical. The people who say it tend to be simply partisans who show no respect for the office when the other party occupies it, and really just want you to shut-up about their guy.

[whatchamacallit]

224. Exactly

Well put.

[DerekG]

10. But they are salesmen

The job requires distortions, exaggerations and even outright lying on a daily basis.

[KittyWampus]

16. They are executives. Marketing is done by subordinates. Can they do much to rally people

to an end? Absolutely. But I wouldn't reduce that to an epithet that is intended as a slur… at least not when it comes to someone I respect.

[MrMickeysMom]

87. How can you respect an executive that carries the wrong message, shaped by his marketeers?

As long as we are talking about used car salesmen, the Brussels message presented in the way it was about the Iraq war, and how we left those resources in that war intact was so untrue. It totally negates the fact that huge resources of the oil were no longer nationalized and big firms (run previously by Dick Cheney) took over that national resource. We were told by Rumsfeld that the oil was supposed to be funding the war. The off-budget war of aggression we all marched against.

Untrue statements may have been a strategy shaped by his advisors, but the president is the face of the nation, the executive of the board and regardless of who marketed this, it did us all wrong.

I cannot respect that.

[lumpy]

43. That statement is could be a disortion , exaggeration and a lie, Derek.

[Cha]

44. "salesman"? really? Now the Piece of shit used car salesman is reduced to "salesman"? I don't

think you have a clue what President Obama does on a daily basis.

[Scootaloo]

59. Well, yes Cha - salesman

I don't share that "piece of shit used car salesman" line myself but just as far as the salesman part goes? yeah. That's what a politician does in a democracy. They are trying to sell you policy. You purchase it with votes, so to speak.

Every time Obama takes the podium and says stuff, he is trying to sell you, and me, and the rest of the country, on policies he favors or wishes to enact.

[Cha]

63. No.. don't see this president that way. bush was the fucking decider and

President Obama is on the front lines against the Koch Industry/the Extreme 5 Court.

Go ahead with your "salesman" talk and even the "great duer" and his viciously insulting "piece of shit" rw fodder.. the President is who he is and your labels aren't going to change that.

[Ed Suspicious]

69. Richard Neustadt argued that the power of

the president is the power to persuade. The president is always the salesman-in-chief.

[Scootaloo]

85. Sorry Cha, that's just how it works

Welcome to politics. Maybe you'll learn how it works, ifyou hush up and start paying attention

[Cha]

90. I know how it works.. you really don't need to welcome me to politics.

[Scootaloo]

246. You sure? Because it looks like you're taking offense at reality

[Marr]

221. Are you as amazed as I am

that someone who so eagerly engages on the subject of presidential politics is completely oblivious to the idea that the president 'sells' policy, and that his public addresses are not just randomly-timed, inspirational pep talks?

[MADem]

179. Gee, when FDR referred to a "Day that will live in infamy," no one called him a "piece of shit used

car salesman."

They called him a leader.

When Eisenhower was motivating Americans to eschew the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex, no one called him a "piece of shit used car salesman."

They called him a leader.

When Kennedy said "We're going to the moon," no one called him a piece of shit used car salesman. They called him a leader.

When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, some assholes called him all sorts of names, including ones that began with the letter N. But people with intelligence, guts, class and a place firmly on the right side of history called him a leader.

The nation has, in one way or another, been trying to improve the health care delivery system for all Americans. The POTUS has started us down that path, a difficult path, one that will have plenty of twists and turns, but it's headed in the right direction. For his trouble, he's catching all kinds of hell from wingnuts, racists, clueless jerks, vicious shitstirrers and not-so-clever "wordsmiths" who think that calling ANYONE a "piece of shit used car salesman" is a "finest hour" for them. Pro Tip--it's not.

In time, people will realize that what Obama has done in starting us down the road to improved health care for all Americans will be viewed as one of the greatest acts of leadership in the last thirty or forty years.

And the ones who high-fived and cheered and "right on'd" that disgusting "piece of shit" comment will DENY that they ever opposed him. "Oh, I was with him from the beginning....it was hard, but I BELIEVED!!!"

Yeah, sure ya did...

[freshwest]

267. Thank you for the history. n/t

[840high]

145. I would think he does

what every Pres. before him has done.

[LWolf]

117. Of course,

Pitt did not call him a "piece of shit car salesman."

I believe he said "used car salesman," sans your "piece of shit."

Why not quote accurately?

[randome]

118. He made two posts. The first one did call the President a 'piece of shit' and a 'used car salesman'.

In the second post, he simply said 'used car salesman'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[LWolf]

122. I probably shouldn't have assumed

that the one I saw was the only one.

[randome]

124. What, you can't follow every post in GD? Slacker!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]

[bvar22]

242. Randome is NOT being honest about that. (surprised?)

the original phrase was "piece of shit used car salesman".

as in piece of shit used car....salesman.
The piece of shit used car was the ACA Insurance Plan that didn't cover the vital meds for his wife,
and the salesman was President Obama.


Makes a BIG difference when you read it how it was written,
and NOT what the hysterics are peddling...that Will called the President a piece of shit.
THAT never happened, as much a some here would LOVE for that to be true.


Has President Obama sold us a POS Used Car?
(BTW: "Piece of Shit" has been used so often in the Automotive Industry to refer to a lemon that the POS is a commonly used designation for anybody familiar with automobiles.)


So, has President Obama sold us a POS Used Car (The ACA)?
We don't know yet.
It will be a couple of years before that evaluation can be made on an honest basis.
More people are going to have "Insurance",
but converting "insurance" into Health Care can sometimes be a difficult process.
I suspect that THAT isn't going to change as long as the same vultures remain in charge,
and they ARE still in charge.

Health Insurance =/= Health Care.

We will see,
but the above poster was being purposely misleading for partisan gain.

[randome]

245. The bias is yours, bvar22.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024685964

Fuck you, Mr. President, you piece of shit used-car salesman.

I refuse to care about being right or wrong, which is why I'm usually right.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[bvar22]

249. I've driven POS Used Cars most of my life.

POS Used Car has been in the vernacular a LONG time,
so long that it is a recognized abbreviation among those who deal in used cars.

Despite the wailing and rending of flesh from the peanut gallery,
nobody called the President a "Piece of Shit".

[MADem]

263. So, in the term "Millionaire Used Car Salesman" the "Millionaire" bit refers to the CAR, not the

salesman?

Yeah.

Riiiiiiight.

Not buying it....not from you, not from a used car salesman, either.

[randome]

2. Criticism does no good unless you have an endgame in mind.

If not, then you're just tilting at windmills and all that does is...well, nothing productive.

The person we elected to be President deserves the benefit of a doubt. That is not the same as saying he can't be criticized.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Scuba]

25. No, no President deserves the benefit of the doubt. On the contrary, the People deserve the truth.

[840high]

146. Absolutely.

[sabrina 1]

30. When any elected official is pushing bad policies they do NOT deserve the 'benefit of the doubt'.

They deserve to hear from the people they supposedly represent. They WORK FOR US. Somewhere along the way, some people seem to have diefied elected officials on both sides of the political spectrum, forgetting who placed them in the positions they hold and WHY.

We still CLAIM to be a democracy and so long as we keep pretending that is what we are, the people have the obligation to make sure they do not become apathetic about what their elected officials are doing on their behalf.

Otoh, if we are no longer a democracy, then stop pretending we are so we can all stop acting like citizens who are equal in every way to those we elect. Let's just bow down to our 'leaders' and go on with our lives, giving them the benefit of the doubt, hoping they really will do what is best for us.

It worked for centuries, not very well for the people, but certainly for the 'ruling class'. We are not supposed to have a 'ruling class'. We are supposed to have a democratically elected government. There IS a huge difference.

[randome]

41. I would show you the same benefit of a doubt, Sabrina.

The same benefit of a doubt for someone I have never personally met. You seem like a good person. If someone made accusations about you, I would take that in measure with who I think you are.

You make it sound like 'bad policies' is something you can point to in a museum or something. There are shades of gray surrounding everyone.

Not having met President Obama, but having an overall good opinion of him, yes, he deserves the benefit of a doubt.

Again, that is not the same as a 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

98. we give a president the "benefit of the doubt" when we elect him or her.

How many benefits of the doubt does an elected politician get?

And if that politician proceeds to break promises, or change courses, or fail to deliver.....is the benefit of the doubt ongoing and immutable?

[randome]

104. Of course it's not immutable. But keep the bigger picture in view.

My daughters, people I know, none of them are perfect. In fact, each of them lies or breaks promises at one time or another. I don't hold back on telling them if they've disappointed me. But I don't stomp my feet, call them names and disown them, either.

Obama is, in general, a decent individual. Hold his feet to the fire. Make our complaints known, but choose a subject we can do something about.

Complaining that no one was prosecuted for the Bush Administration crimes means nothing because there is no following to push for that. So it will never happen.

Single payer instead of ACA? All well and good but none of us were in the trenches when this was negotiated and millions have benefited from ACA. Now's the time to push for single payer but stop telling Obama and Co. they are turncoats and weaklings. That does nothing to advance our objective.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

106. what DO you do when your daughters deceive or dismay you? nt

[randome]

112. Make them aware that I know it.

In subtle ways, my disappointment can work wonders on them. Of course a family situation is different from the political arena, I admit that. Obama has no personal stake in any of us so our relationship is tenuous at best.

Maybe it's that lack of direct communication that's involved here. The principle cause of road rage is that same lack of communication. Is our perceived helplessness a root cause of the vitriol directed at the President?

I don't mean to open up another front in this debate but did Occupy's failure (my opinion, don't shoot me!) sound the death knell of organized protest? Why can't we get large numbers of people to rally around one subject on which we can all agree and put real pressure on our reps to make real changes?

What one topic would that be, I wonder?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

119. the Internet actually interferes with any significant protest.

We all sit here and bitch. Few actually protest IRL, or even write paper letters (emails and petitions are useless), or make phone calls.

Back to the comparison with your treatment of your daughters. Obama truly has no compelling interest in a "relationship" with Democrats/progressives at this point. What power have we over him to urge him to honor the values and principles of the Democratic party?

[randome]

123. You're probably right about the Internet.

I don't know about your second paragraph. Secede? No, that's not it. Move to a smaller country? No, that's still giving up. This is harder than I thought.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]

[snappyturtle]

68. Great reply! nt

[rhett o rick]

157. Do you think that opposing the TPP is tilting at windmills? Do you think we should just

sit down and shut up? We are trying to express our opinions to prevent a disaster. Seems to me like if you were on the Titanic, you'd be saying "dont worry we havent sunk yet"

[randome]

193. I have never called anyone out for posting about the TPP. Yes, I think it's a legitimate issue.

Last edited Sun Mar 30, 2014, 08:18 AM - Edit history (1)

As is Keystone and Social Security and other topics.

No, I do not think you should sit down and shut up. If you want people to pay attention to you, at least show some class when you post. (No diss intended to you.)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]

[reddread]

241. accountability and broken promises DEMAND IT. n/t

[JNelson6563]

3. No in-between? Wow.

And everyone who has been President did it so they could exercise power of life or death over others "before shuffling off to bed"?

Damn.

Julie

[DerekG]

6. Could you give the order?

Could you point to a country on a map, tell your generals to "bomb that" and be able to sleep at night? Wondering how many civilians die alongside perpetrators?

I sure as heck couldn't. Most of the folks on this website couldn't either.

It takes a certain type.

[KittyWampus]

11. I believe leadership at that level has to foster some semblance of Stoicism.

By that I mean, capability to harness/control ones emotions and see the big picture.

[DerekG]

18. That may be true, in times of genuine crisis

But let's be careful in venerating those who possess that sort of detachment. They're aberrations, who occasionally serve as catalysts for progress, but more often than not, prove to be carriers of a decidedly darker impulse.

[Spider Jerusalem]

84. Certain qualities of "leadership" correlate strongly with psychopathic traits.

See here for instance: http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0029392

[snappyturtle]

72. What I want to see is Presidential candidates injected with truth serum

during debates/forums and asked why they want to be President. Frankly, I think one has to be a bit nuts to want the position. I think it's about power. imho

[randome]

114. Or be forced to wear Google Glasses for the duration of their term.

Same for Congress-critters. Record everything.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[snappyturtle]

115. Ha! good idea! nt

[JNelson6563]

19. Probably not.

Have you seen the President lately? Every time I do these days I am struck by how very tired he looks. Most of them age incredibly fast as President (though Little Boots seemed much less affected by it, naturally) so I think the whole bomb and country and sleep soundly may be a bit of unfair hyperbole.

If I were in charge of protecting a nation and was in a position where there was no other choice, all other avenues exhausted, an us or them situation, we would drop bombs. I doubt I'd ever sleep well again.

Julie

[DerekG]

27. For what it's worth, I don't think Obama is malignant like Bush

Unlike that cackling monstrosity, Obama undoubtedly has some semblance of a conscience. I would only argue that this is offset by a certain ambition and detachment endemic to power players.

[lumpy]

46. Well stated, thanks

[cherokeeprogressive]

39. Every person who SEEKS the office knows the awful power that comes with it...

KNOWS they will hold the power of life and death in their very own hands.

I think the point is pretty much this: Every person who seeks the office KNOWS they MIGHT have to exercise the power of life and death "before shuffling to bed". No person is so naïve as not to know that, and if they ARE, they surely shouldn't be seeking the office in the first place.

[BlueCaliDem]

5. Presidents shouldn't be DEMONIZED, either.

And I've seen entirely too many posts on this DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORTING site to safely conclude that this president in particular is being thoroughly thrashed, even for things beyond his control, even for the calamity the Teapublicans are causing the people of this country. Nary a word against Republicans from these same posters even when confronted with the truth and their own ignorance.

Sorry. But to defend this president when he's being unfairly attacked by posters who are here on a Democratic Party supporting site, especially in an election year, because he doesn't possess a magic wand that can make all their pain go away, isn't the same as idolizing him. It's common sense.

First and foremost, people need to learn about how their government works. Too many who can't wait to excoriate this president every chance they get, don't appear to understand the separation of powers, the three co-equal branches of gov't -which one is the most powerful when it comes to domestic policy -, and democracy in general. Maybe they should start there.

[lumpy]

48. Excellent post, Blue. Appreciated.

[Whisp]

56. +++''Nary a word against Republicans from these same posters...''

Exactly.


----- ------- ----- --- --- ---- -- --- -----. --- ----, --- -------, --- ------- ------ -------.
I could go on and on but I think you get the gist.

[freshwest]

269. Strange, that... n/t

[OKNancy]

60. +1 Excellent post

[Kahuna]

71. Psst. Everybody on DU isn't a Democrat. It's not even required. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

135. I know. But it *is* required to support Democrats - especially in an election year.

If that's too difficult, there are plenty of anti-Democratic Party sites out there to choose from.

[Cha]

74. Especially a President who's standing on the front lines between us and

fucking Koch Industries and the 5 Extreme Court.

Criticize your head off but don't Demonize to the point you grind yourself into fodder for rw hate sites. And, don't contribute to making DU a freaking Hate Site.

".. learning how government works"?! Pesky details when the keyboard is right there itching to throw out cheap pot shots at the President. Who btw shows respect to his enemies but is not accorded the same by assholes teabaggers and some who are more interested in their clicks.

Thanks BlueCali

[freshwest]

270. Righteous post. n/t

[berni_mccoy]

75. Exactly. People here hide their demonization as fair criticism. That's the problem.

[greatauntoftriplets]

82. And "fair criticism" isn't juvenile name calling!

That's the problem in a nutshell.

[BlueCaliDem]

136. Exactly. eom

[treestar]

230. Exactly and there are some with nothing but criticism

which is rather odd for someone on the left.

The idea that to be elected you have to be dishonest is one I've seen too. That maybe is on the kook fringe that is against the TOS.

[Doctor_J]

121. Whoops

Nary a word against Republicans from these same posters even when confronted with the truth and their own ignorance.

Big, fat lie right there

[baldguy]

132. Bullshit. Obama gets criticized every day by people using lies lovingly crafted by Republicans.

[Doctor_J]

147. Whoops again

Let me pare it down so you can read it.

Nary a word against Republicans from these same posters

Lie

[baldguy]

190. Again, I say BULLSHIT.

Republicans are PRAISED on these pages by some posters, while they find the time & energy to trash Obama & other Democrats.

[Jamaal510]

163. +1

[rusty fender]

176. So, you never demonized Bush?

And you always gave Bush the benefit of the doubt?

I always questioned everything Bush did. I didn't trust Bush. I don't trust politicians.

[BlueCaliDem]

256. Don't be silly.

Never made that claim.

I have always questioned the choices made by presidents especially when the majority of Americans (being that this is a democracy) were either for or against something and those presidents and their political party ran in opposition of that majority, as was the case with the planned invasion of Iraq.

Just an F.Y.I., Cheney/Bush weren't presidents. They were dictators and I don't trust dictators, but I do have a modicum of healthy trust for politicians until they no longer work for the good of the majority of Americans. I don't start off giving politicians of my Party an "F" after which they have to earn the "A", like you appear to do.

HOWEVER ... on this site, this DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORTING SITE in a vital ELECTION YEAR and in conformance with the DemocraticUnderground ToS, I refuse to criticize and demoralize supporters of this president and his Party. There are plenty of sites out there where you can do that; plenty of broadcast shows, radio shows, talk shows, cable "news" network shows, etc., that are busy ramping up the criticism of this Democratic President and his Party without giving the opposition Party the same "deference", that it really isn't necessary to rehash it here - unless, there's an agenda.

[rusty fender]

266. That sure is a high horse

You are on. You are so high, in fact, that you redefined the word "president". You made GWB a dictator so you can justify demonizing him, thereby avoiding contradicting yourself when you declared that we should not demonize presidents.

You do realize that we can criticize Dems on this site. We just can't advocate voting against Dems. The Potus can take criticism. Ever since he ran for public office he has been criticized. He can take it, but you can't. Why is that?

[BlueCaliDem]

281. Talk about a high horse. Yours is *staggering*.

You believe you can read my mind or something?

First off, friend, my calling President Cheney/Bush out is justified and backed by his actions while in the WH (anybody who believes that Cheney was "only" the VP needs to have their head examined for memory loss).

If you don't believe President Cheney/Bush (Cheney more than Bush) were wannabe dictators and working toward that end, then you haven't been paying attention. Unitary Executive ring a bell with you, friend?

Yes, President Obama can take criticism, but he's not what matters. VOTERS are. And I'm sick and tired of self-proclaimed Democratic Party supporters coming to a DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORTING message board and do nothing BUT criticize this president while being so ignorant that they can't understand and see that their constant kvetching without a single post praising this president's work smacks of ODS and is working hand-in-hand with the likes of Rove and the Koch Bros. Teabaggers and Rightwingers don't need help, friend. Democrats do. And may I remind you that this is a vital election year?

[rusty fender]

282. I agree with you about Bush/Cheney

that is why I demonized them, but I am not going to say, "presidents should not be demonized" and then demonize a president all the while claiming that I didn't demonize a president. If you don't think that your hypocrisy is showing...(it is).

Any voter reading this site isn't going to not vote based on what you or I write about the POTUS or other Dems.

I have praised this POTUS, and I have never demonized him. Personally, I like him, but I hate the droning. I deplore violence.

[BlueCaliDem]

283. Then you misunderstood my post, and you don't understand the concept of

"the devil is in the details". So no. You're wrong. No hypocrisy on my part. But if it helps you sleep better at night, go for it.

[rusty fender]

284. LOLOLOL!

[BlueCaliDem]

285. That's the reaction I had when I read the kumbaya part of your post.

Your naivete of the world is adorable.

[rusty fender]

286. We take ourselves too seriously, sometimes...

[Vashta Nerada]

233. Did you demonize Bush at all?

[freshwest]

268. Well said and thank you. More education, less emoting. n/t

[Rex]

7. Goodluck with that, you just missed the liberal witchhunt.

No doubt the crew will be all over you for such blasphemy!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

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

[lumpy]

52. Lord Acton was somewhat of an ass.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. So, you think that presidents should be sanctified when they take office?

Or, were you commenting on his taste in fashion?

[lumpy]

61. His reputation

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. Which has what to do with his comment?

[lumpy]

64. Just an observation that some times an ass can say something a lot of humans can agree upon.

[frazzled]

13. Everyone welcomes constructive criticism

But you're wrong to think that that when people here respond in factual ways to what sometimes amounts to gang-banging that that is in any way "idolatry."

Your post suggests that any kind of criticism or confrontation is legitimate but no counter-arguments to such criticisms are ever valid (they're just "idolatry&quot .

That's a very authoritarian position to take. And I vigorously question and criticize that particular viewpoint—after all, you're not the emperor of DU. And I don't even believe in Christ.

[treestar]

54. +1

Well said.

[one_voice]

97. +1

[Number23]

100. Perfect post. It has always tickled me to no end that the ones throwing "lockstepper" and

"authoritarian" at everyone here are the ones that engage in that behavior the most frequently.

History has proven that people that believe that they and only they know the truth and that everyone else are "propagandists" working to deceive everyone else are the textbook definition of an extremist. Or a paranoid, conspiracy laden kook, either way. And you're absolutely right, the belief that only criticism is valid and support isn't is a very authoritarian position, not to mention incredibly close-minded, stupid and dangerous.

[MADem]

264. +1 nt

[Avalux]

15. So you're saying all presidents are psychopaths.

Do you go about your daily life assuming the worst from everyone around you?

[DerekG]

24. They possess qualities common to psychopaths, though not necessarily as acute

Psychopaths exhibit a propensity for lying, a bolstered sense of self, and a complete lack of empathy. I would imagine very few of our presidents have been outright psychopaths, but the aforementioned character defects would prove useful in high office.

And actually, I believe most human beings are decent. Which is why most could never be president.

[JaneyVee]

29. And the current Prez doesn't exhibit any of those qualities.

[BeyondGeography]

31. I find the current President infinitely more admirable than his most unfair critics here

Which is good, because he is President after all.

Nice guilty until proven innocent mindset you have there, btw.

I think we can agree that high amounts of ambition and self-regard are required for the job, and there's an untidiness to all of that, but psychopathy, a propensity for lying and a complete lack of empathy...that's OTT, like much of the criticism we see here.

[lumpy]

57. Most people possess & exhibit a propensity for lying, and a bolstered sense of self and, certainly,

many exhibit a lack of empathy. Those are qualities that are exhibited by most of us in one way or another. The saving grace is that many many people try to be 'decent'.

[treestar]

231. That's borderline insane

What an idea. Then we naturally can't pick good leaders, even voting. I'm not that down on human nature. It must be depressing.

[DeSwiss]

188. Pretty much, yeah.

- Politics and politicians aren't about ''altruism,'' nor the ''good of the people.'' It's about POWER. And nothing but POWER.

Political Ponerology

[whistler162]

20. and you should always beat animals and children

to get them to do right!

EPIC FAIL1

[yardwork]

206. Wait. What. Did somebody say we should beat the president?

[oldandhappy]

22. The candidates need to be confronted and questioned and challenged.

They all want to be adored and swept into office by acclimation and then allowed to be little dictators. So many do not govern for the people but rather for themselves. I am urging all of us to question and challenge those running for office, before they are in office.

[JaneyVee]

28. Are those the only 2 options you're giving us?

[woo me with science]

33. Reccing for the subject line.

They are public *servants* who need to be held accountable.

[Andy823]

34. There is a big difference

Being questioned and confronted is one thing and many here can, and should, questing things that the don't like, but they also have posted positive things and admit that the president has accomplished a lot of things also. Others here only do one thing, bash the president on a daily basis and ignore any of his accomplishments. As for the "idolized" meme, I see nobody here that does that. I have heard some say those who support the president think he is "the one", their idol, etc. and yet many who say this are the same ones that never recognize his accomplishments, they only dwell on the negative.

If you can't see both the good and the bad in someone, you aren't really dealing in reality in my opinion.

[GiveMeMorePIE]

35. I think there should be a bipartisan effort to strengthen the legitimacy of the office myself.

The disrespect shown to this president on the airwaves and by members of the other party has weakened the office and hurt the legitimacy of its power.

It's the most important position in the world and I wouldn't want to live in a world in which everyone scoffed at everything coming from its holder.

Americans need to be united in something once again. These divisions will lead to our failure as a nation far more quickly than any other issue we face today.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. It was Bush that destroyed the legitimacy of the office and the absolution of Bush

cemented that weakening. It was more important to 'look forward not back' than to protect the nation, the office or our futures.

[Spazito]

37. Presidents' actions or lack thereof are certainly open for either criticism or praise, imo...

all too often the 'criticism' consists of rants blaming the President for something he had nothing to do with. The lack of acknowledgment of the role of the Senate, the House, the Republicans play in whether something is done or not is all too common in the so called 'criticism' of the President, imo.

[1000words]

38. Many folks require a cult of personality to believe in

A majority of the world are instinctual followers.

[bvar22]

42. DURec.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.

Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right.

Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. [font size=3]To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.[/font]"

T. Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star,
May 7, 1918

No one should EVER idolize a Public Servant
or say things like "MY President...Right or Wrong!"
THAT is just plain scary.

[lumpy]

65. No one here has announced there should be no criticism of the Prez or stand by him right or wrong.

If so, give us an example.

[bvar22]

78. Many here believe that "they" and ONLY "they" can draw the line between...

...what "they" consider legitimate criticism and what "they" call bashing.
Those people scare me.

HOW do YOU distinguish between what YOU consider criticism, and what YOU consider bashing?
Let me guess: If you are like most people,
the Litmus Test will be what YOU like, and what YOU don't like.

The problem becomes very much like the ongoing debate between Pornography and Art.
I don't believe ANYBODY or any GROUP at DU has the authority, intelligence, education, or insight
to tell ME what is pornography and what is art.

So too, nobody or no group at DU should have the authority to tell ME or ANYBODY else what is "Criticism" and what is "Bashing".
The difference WILL depend on the individual,
and not all of us live in Salt Lake City.

So the entire argument you and the rest of the Purity League are putting forth is BOGUS from the very start.

NOBODY can determine the line between Criticism and Bashing.
That will vary between groups,
and vary between individuals.

The Democratic position should be:
We will make no rules establishing a line between bashing and criticism.
YOU will have to be your own censor.

[lumpy]

111. It doesn't take much brain power to figure out what is criticism and what is bashing.

[bvar22]

130. for YOURSELF...

..but you do NOT have the superhuman powers to divine what is criticism and what is bashing for ANYONE ELSE!

Set your OWN limits,
but do NOT pretend to be able to set limits for ANYONE else.
WHO do you think you are?

[ucrdem]

133. Skinner has made it simple for you

in post #80, below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4750707

Because my impression is that DU hasn't been discussing "questioning" vs "idolizing." We're been discussing "insulting" vs "not insulting". So I ask: Is it obligatory that the president be rhetorically shat upon?

[bvar22]

142. But YOU are the one WHINING,

so I guess YOU have decided that Skinner is not Up-to-the-Task of deciding who are REAL Democrats and who are just the screamers from the Peanut gallery,
and he needs YOUR help,
otherwise you wouldn't be so upset about HIS decisions about what stands here at DU,
and making hysterical demands that he let YOU decide for him.

QED

[ucrdem]

143. I'm afraid you're very mistaken.

Read this OP carefully and tell me where you're getting any of that:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4746828

[bvar22]

150. YOU have made it an issue in THIS thread,

so it is obvious YOU believe Skinner is not Up-to-the-Task of policing DU,
and needs YOUR help.
Otherwise, you have NO reason to be posting anything at all.


I have been here a LONG time,
and believe Skinner is everything we need to decide what is "Criticism" and what is "Bashing".
He REALLY doesn't need YOUR help, or YOUR values,
as much as you would like to impose THOSE on the whole of DU.
WHO do you think YOU are?

Thank Gawd the Owners can recognize a passionate Democrat who lashes out in a moment of crises,
And SHAME on the Puritan Committee for condemning a solid Democrat who has been in the trenches helping DEMOCRATS get elected for WAY longer the YOU have been here.

You can keep what YOU consider "pornography" to yourself in YOUR closet.
DU is doing JUST FINE without YOUR Seal of Purity Approval.

[ucrdem]

151. What on earth. Pornography? You friend are confused. nt

[bvar22]

154. You really have to pay closer attention.

Go reread the sub-thread,
and PAY ATTENTION this time,
THEN you will understand (hopefully).

If you need even MORE help,
ask someone else to help you.

I firmly believe that is OK to let some people go ahead and drown
if they are determined to do so.

[ucrdem]

155. Off the rails. Buh bye. nt

[bvar22]

272. Alert FAIL!

On Sat Mar 29, 2014, 11:36 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

YOU have made it an issue in THIS thread,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4751981

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Poster writes, 'You can keep what YOU consider "pornography" to yourself in YOUR closet.
DU is doing JUST FINE without YOUR Seal of Purity Approval.' I have no idea what he's going on about but the pornography reference is completely inappropriate. Please hide, thank you.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 29, 2014, 11:44 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Is this alert a joke? What part of "The problem becomes very much like the ongoing debate between Pornography and Art" did the alerter not understand? This is either a joke or a bad faith alert. In either case it's an abuse of the jury system. Leave it.

Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The post was off the rails long before the porn reference.

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Awwww.

[lumpy]

134. It doesn't take superhuman powers to divine what is criticism and what is bashing.

Of course it isn't easy to determine what dwells in the minds of people who used criticism or bashing regarding issues. The thing that probably would determine the difference between the two is the acceptable standards put forth by humanity for rational discourse. I am not advocating setting limits for anyone. If anyone wants to throw shitty stones that is their problem, but don't think stones will not thrown back. That's who I think I am.

[Cha]

45. Nobody's fucking "idolizing".. and this is where the communication breaks down. You cover up the

stupid vile language flung at him by those who are fodder for rw hate sites.

[bvar22]

125. Mea Culpa.

Wrong Place,
and I'm on DU on a Saturday night.
THAT should tell you something.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. People would like to think that politicians are "leaders" rather than public servants.

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

[mrchips]

49. Wrong on Carter

The Afghans got stingers from Raygun, not Carter. And it was Iran Contra under Raygun, not Carter. Carter boycotted the Olympics because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. He wasn't a saint but he sure as hell wasn't Raygun.

I also don't believe ALL presidents run for that office so they can blow up children. Bush/Cheney? Hell yeah, but not most presidents.

[truebluegreen]

186. Ahem. Carter initiated the policy of arming Afghanis,

which was continued and expanded by Ronnie. Arms are not limited to Stingers.

[mrchips]

207. Lovely revisionism but...

....The truth is we gave the mujahideen nothing until Raygun shipped stingers at the behest of Charlie Wilson to them to knock out soviet gunships.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/russia_invasion_afghanistan.htm

[truebluegreen]

210. This will be news to Brzezinski.

http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/

And http://www.us-foreign-policy-perspective.org/index.php?id=322

"From the U.S. perspective, the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan began in 1978, when a coup d'état brought a communist regime to power in Kabul. Over the next year, armed resistance grew, a trend which triggered approaches to the CIA by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Plans began to be drawn up for reversing “the current Soviet trend and presence in Afghanistan,” and in the summer of 1979, Carter approved covert aid to mujahedin guerrillas. Although this aid did not include arms, it provided nonmilitary supplies and cash with which weapons could be purchased. Six months later, the Soviets sent troops into Afghanistan, a move which immediately led Carter's National Security Adviser to advocate “more money as well as arms shipments to the rebels,” both directly and via Pakistan, China, and Islamic countries. For the next decade, the CIA aided the guerrillas, at first with weapons purchased from China, Egypt, and Pakistan, then with increasingly sophisticated U.S. arms (including Stinger missiles, shipped to the mujahedin at the same time as to UNITA)."



My bold. Revisionism my ass.

[mrchips]

213. Carter Boycotted Olympics

His initial response was non military aid. The mujahideen used old weapons against a heavily armed Soviet aggression. By January 1981, Carter was out. It was not until the stingers and more sophisticated weaponry was sent in under Raygun that the tide turned. If Carter had acted more decisively, he would have been accused of distracting from the hostage crisis in Iran. As it was, he was blasted by republicans for the boycott. This thread began as an attack against Carter for being a military adventurist. He was not. When he did make an attempt to use military force to get the hostages out, tragedy occurred and republicans who were making secret deals with the ayatollah, just eviscerated him. Nice to see democrats on this site join the rethuglicans in bashing yet another democratic president. You must be so proud.

[truebluegreen]

217. My point was exactly what I said:

"Carter initiated the policy of arming Afghanis." Which he did. Period. Full stop.

You claimed this was revisionism, which it isn't.

We can argue that this was a good or bad idea; that he was a good, better, bad, worse president because of it; or that I am a good, bad, shameful, whatever Democrat for being aware of it but the facts remain: Carter started the policy of arming the Afghanis. Period. Full stop.

[mrchips]

222. Feel Better?

He only began to arm the mujahideen. He was not gung-ho. He approved arms after initially declining to send arms. The article I posted characterized the U.S. As doing nothing. Carter's response of sending small arms and doing nothing is a distinction without a difference. Carter gets grief no matter what he did. You fit in nicely with the rest of his pike on critics. This is how the right wing controls the agenda,making democrats out to be incompetent or evil.

[truebluegreen]

238. Uh-huh.

I corrected a factually-incorrect statement you made, I attached "zero" value judgments to Carter's actions, and now I are a subversive, revisionist Democrat allied with a bunch of thugs. Oh, and apparently anything short of Carter passing over a Stinger missile with his own hands doesn't count because what? Effectiveness?*

Got it. Ciao, baby.






*By that implied standard, St Ronnie of Raygun was a better president because his actions were effective.

[mrchips]

243. You began

By responding to my post that it was Raygun who sent stingers into Afghanistan. You had a purpose to insist that Carter was just as militant by saying he "initiated" the arming. The mujahideen got nowhere until they were able to knock helicopter gunships out of the sky. Sending small arms to Afghanistan was nothing like George Bush launching in invasion of Iraq which is what this is all about. False equivalencies are a very convenient way of blurring the truth. Democrats are consistently more reluctant to use military force. Rethuglicans are eager to show their machismo. You want to pretend you had no motive other than to correct what you thought was an inaccurate post, fine. I don't believe you. I believe your purpose was to say Carter was a les than clean president. I see all too often on this board a determined effort to criticize democrats when the real enemy of democracy is the right wing.

[freshwest]

271. Thanks for correcting that. I have gotten to the point I don't bother. Google would prove most

Democratic Party bashing here to be incorrect. These posts remind me of the fact-free Fox Network. who 'don't need no stinking facts!' just volume and repetition.

[rrneck]

50. Sometimes I think there is a strong corrolation between partisanship and authoritarianism. nt

[bemildred]

55. It is always necessary to be civil if you want to be heard. nt

[randome]

91. Oh, shut the #@!$ up, you Obama-worshiping cretin!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[OKNancy]

58. Questioned and Confronted by whom? Not in person

from DUers. No, the Republicans and the right wingers are doing a pretty good job of that.

DUers just sit on their computers and sound off, or praise or whatever, but really have minimal influence on the President.
They DO have influence on other DUers though and the quickest way to turn people off to ones point of view is to act like an ass, to be confrontational and substitute profanity as real criticism.

[lumpy]

70. Hear hear

[JI7]

96. yeah, but i think the intent is to turn off people to OBama and other Dems

and partly attention whoring and playing to right wingers on other sites and wanting to be popular among them .

years ago i use to go to some chat rooms and noticed this among some so called "dems". how they looked for approval from some wingnuts because they wanted approval from them.

[grasswire]

129. this new and oft-mentioned suspicion among Obama supporters...

.....is without substantiation. I used to monitor freerepublic during the Bush years. I never saw any "so-called dems" currying favor."

Why would Democrats do that? There is no reason to do so.

[JustAnotherGen]

66. ITA

But I regard President Obama no different than I did Bush. He's still a human being. He has a woman in his life he loves, and two daughters that adore him.

He's still a human being who deserves the same respect - human to human - that some here only reserve for Ms. Manning, Snowden, and Greenwald.

I'm a Unitarian who arrived there from a Judeo Christian religious belief system - the Christ argument is lost on me.

IF he existed - he was a fallible human being, born of two human beings, most likely married (rabbi after the wedding), and most likely had a child. He made mistakes, was not perfect by any means - but a few hundred years later caused a few people to be defiant and state - this trinity shit is for the birds. There is nothing supernatural in ths world.

It didn't cause those people (some of us 1600 years later that congregate in Unitarian fellowships around the world) who said the supernatural stuff is rejected - to lose sight of what good he did.

My point - in the rush to defy President Obama for his faults - lets make sure we don't DEhumanize him as many on the "Right" do. We are better than that. He's not a "lyin African". He's a human being.

And the really funny part about the stereotypes about Used Car Salesman and Witch Doctors and images of him as an Ape? He's not even paying attention. He's not that much older than me and he most likely spent time on the same playground I did - hearing the same things about his mother that I did. That's the beauty of being born bi-racial prior to 1980 - you get a really thick skin and dismiss those who dismiss you as beneath you. Self defense? Survival? Doesn't matter.

Throw the temper tantrum you want. He's not paying attention to it if it is coated in juvenile and childish name calling. I'd bet he stopped paying attention to that as long as its not directed to someone he loves by the time he got to middle school.

[LostOne4Ever]

67. Questioned and confronted

Is not the same thing as insulted and accused of baseless accusations.

[Iggo]

73. Presidents should be questioned and confronted.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

76. In my very humble opinion...

No matter who runs for President, I feel that their best intentions are left by the wayside after they are elected. Then the paybacks begin.
It takes way too much money to run for office in these days. Those contributors need to be satisfied.

This is where the problems begin. Promises are not kept or changed ever so slightly. Voters then get on the defensive about whom they supported.

We need to change the way money dictates our elections. Getting rid of Citizens United would be a great start. There are probably more and better ideas out there but I have no solutions. Wish I did.

So yes, they should be critiqued by us. Never idolized.

The office of the President should have our respect, the man/woman should earn it. Same as with any person.

[stg81]

77. we can all see who the POS is, come on now

[Skinner]

80. Should presidents be rhetorically shat upon?

I get that they are supposed to be questioned and confronted. What I'm trying to figure out is whether it is required that presidents be crudely insulted.

Because my impression is that DU hasn't been discussing "questioning" vs "idolizing." We're been discussing "insulting" vs "not insulting". So I ask: Is it obligatory that the president be rhetorically shat upon?

[Spider Jerusalem]

86. If he's a Republican, apparently.

The sort of commentary being debated here re Obama would have passed in these forums without notice if it were directed at Bush. Most people said worse, in fact (I know I did). A more cogent question would be whether partisanship should trump legitimate frustration (in the case of the poster who made the comments that triggered this recent frenzy of outrage? I'd say his frustration and, yes, anger, were legitimate, if perhaps misdirected).

[ProSense]

89. But

"If he's a Republican, apparently. The sort of commentary being debated here re Obama would have passed in these forums without notice if it were directed at Bush."

...this isn't Republican Underground or Non-Partisan Underground. The problem with this comparison is that it presumes it would be acceptable to launch a "misdirected" and vile attack if we here to support Republicans.

[Jamaal510]

169. I like that:

"Non-partisan Underground"

[sheshe2]

175. No!

It is Democratic Underground.

Why the hell are some so upset about what is said about the GOP? I don't get that! Our mission statement here is clear. We support Democrats. Damn it! Did I just take a right turn and land in freeperville!

[Cha]

184. Must protect bush-cheney's sensibilities..

Not. We didn't. Next? Easy Peasy, she

"We support Democrats." Good point.

[JI7]

94. who gives a shit how Republicans are treated, this is not a republican site

it's amazing seeing people go to DEMOCRATICUNDERGROUND and are angry that OBama and other Dems can't be attacked in the same way as republicans are.

[Spider Jerusalem]

141. Skinner does apparently

either that or he's really shitty at writing what he means. "Should presidents" includes Republicans unless stated otherwise.

[JI7]

159. he has never criticized anyone for going after Bush and other Republicans

it's pretty clear what his objection is and the reason for it because this is DEMOCRATICUNDERGROUND .

[Spider Jerusalem]

164. Direct quote:

"I get that they are supposed to be questioned and confronted. What I'm trying to figure out is whether it is required that presidents be crudely insulted."

And no, in fact, it's not "pretty clear". Nothing in there about "Republican". He doesn't at any point say "Democratic presidents". So you know, if it's okay to express vehement disagreement with the policies of a Republican then it should be okay to express similar disagreement and indeed disgust with the policies of a Democrat if one disagrees with them. And if one should confine oneself to criticising the policy alone and not the man, that goes just as much for Republicans. What really bothers me here is the hypocrisy.

[JI7]

167. it's very clear based on him never objecting to attacks on republicans and this being DEMOCRATIC

UNDERGROUND.

[Spider Jerusalem]

171. Except he just did object to attacks on Republicans, by implication.

if he means "Democratic presidents" he should say so. Otherwise it's a hypocritical statement. (I say this as someone who voted for Obama twice and has never voted for any Republican for any office.)

[JI7]

172. no it's not , look at the board DEMOCRATICUNDERGROUND , you have to consider the context of where

the discussion is taking place.

[Cha]

189. It's very CLEAR and anyone who doesn't see that is trying to

deflect from the question just like the OP is doing with the "idolize" attack. Classic greenwald.. want to shut down discussion? Attack and deflect. Double down and never admit you're wrong.. it takes someone like the President to admit when they're wrong.

Hey... notice I didn't say "democratic" president.

The question is this..

"Because my impression is that DU hasn't been discussing "questioning" vs "idolizing." We're been discussing "insulting" vs "not insulting". So I ask: Is it obligatory that the president be rhetorically shat upon?" Skinner

[Skinner]

195. I'm using "should" because that's the word the OP used.

Note later in my post where I use the words "required" and "obligatory." I could have also said "necessary." Is it necessary that presidents be insulted?

It is not required, obligatory, or necessary that presidents be insulted. Insulting is not necessary for criticism. That goes for Democratic and even Republican presidents.

But this is Democratic Underground, and we have no Republicans here -- at least none that are posting openly about their party affiliation. So, allow me to state as plainly as I can: REPUBLICANS AND THEIR SHITTY PRESIDENTS CAN FUCK OFF. If anyone here doesn't get that, then they're on the wrong website.

[OKNancy]

199. +1000

[Spider Jerusalem]

200. Right then.

However if one is frustrated by the policies, actions, or inactions of a president, even (and perhaps especially) one whom one supports, or supported, that frustration may manifest as anger. Americans on the political left, such as it is, are more likely than not to vote Democratic, because, really, what else are they going to do? Vote for Republicans? This does not however mean that they're necessarily going to be partisan Democrats, or that they're going to refrain from criticism of a Democratic president from the left. Much of this criticism is going to be necessarily misguided criticism as it tends to overrate the power and ability of any president to pass legislation in the face of significant obstructionism from the Republicans in Congress as well as from within his own party, but then people at the further ends of the political spectrum tend to be more idealist than pragmatist.

[Skinner]

209. You're changing the subject.

You say:

This does not however mean ... that they're going to refrain from criticism of a Democratic president from the left.

Again, this isn't about criticism. But I think it is telling that whenever someone like me suggests that maybe insulting the president isn't appreciated, the topic always gets switched to criticism.

I already made clear: Criticism is fine. I would even say that criticism is both necessary and appropriate. So we don't need to discuss that issue, because there is to nothing to discuss -- you and I both agree.

Here's the question: is necessary to insult the president? Is it necessary to insult President Obama?

[randome]

212. Maybe Tourette Syndrome is also under-reported?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Spider Jerusalem]

214. No, I'm not actually changing the subject.

Is it necessary? Not any more than it was necessary to insult Bush. But an expression of frustration and anger is something that's understandable in context even if it is not necessary. Sometimes criticism is going to be very harsh. Mind you, I don't think it's especially helpful, not when there are a couple of dozen members of Congress and senators more deserving of criticism re lack of a public option in the ACA (for example); criticising the president for not achieving the politically impossible is not really contributing anything meaningful or constructive to the discussion, but in the circumstance and context? I can understand it.

And my own opinion on this? It'd be far more constructive to channel some of these generalised frustrations into working for a Democratic majority in November in order to actually achieve anything legislatively. Otherwise we'll have two more years of people complaining that Obama didn't do XYZ, and never mind that he was hamstrung by Congress and only has so much room for manoeuvre (just like a lot of these very same people criticised the then-Democratic Congress in the last two years of Bush's term for not bringing impeachment charges, even though the votes were never there to either impeach or convict).

[Skinner]

225. Is it really so difficult to just give a straight "no" answer?

In my previous post I stated my opinion plainly that insulting is not necessary for criticism. You insist on bringing Bush back into the discussion, for what? Obviously because I have no qualms about insulting George W. Bush here on Democratic Underground. Apparently because I insult George W. Bush then I should also be totally cool with people insulting President Obama. After all, I wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, right?

I have a secret confession: I have some Republican acquaintances. (I have some Republican friends, too, but that's irrelevant here.) Sometimes, but not often, the topic of politics comes up when I am talking with Republican acquaintances. And when I discuss politics with Republican acquaintances I don't call George W. Bush the "Illegitimate Unelected Asshole." And my Republican acquaintances don't call president Obama "Barry Hussein O'Bummer". We don't have to agree ahead of time to avoid insults like this. We just do it out of mutual respect -- not respect for the other's preferred president, but rather out of respect for each other. It's just not cool.

To all the people arguing in favor of insulting President Obama... How do you think it would go over on DU if someone crudely insulted a politician whom we all hold in high esteem? I am a big fan of Elizabeth Warren. Could you imagine the uproar if someone called Elizabeth Warren a crude name? How about if someone called Bernie Sanders a crude name? Offhand, I don't actually remember it ever happening on DU. But I'm going to venture a guess that many of the people here who are arguing in favor of insulting the president would not be so tolerant if the target of the insults were someone that they liked and respected.

[Spider Jerusalem]

239. Excellent way to completely miss the relevant context, there.

Note that I'm saying it's not necessary to insult anyone.

The anger of some on the left at Obama for what they perceive as the failings of the ACA? It's not comparable to anger from the right; Republicans? They're angry because they think the ACA goes too far and represents an unreasonable extension of Federal power and government intrusion into healthcare. The left? The anger comes from feeling like things didn't go far enough. There are some people who have found themselves affected by changes in insurance coverage in potentially negative ways. Their anger and frustration is understandable. All this handwaving over how terrible it is to insult the president completely loses sight of the context involved (NB that the insult in question was "piece of shit used car salesman", and it was specifically in reference to the Affordable Care Act and how it was sold; it's somewhat disingenuous to reference it with "crude name" as though it were some other and more explicitly personal and completely gratuitous insult). Was the anger in that instance justified, or not? Is it representative of something that is in fact a broader issue? If so, should we perhaps be talking about that instead, and what might be done to fix the existing law?

And I'm not entirely sure there is a politician we all hold in high esteem. Speaking personally? If someone insulted a politician I respect? I'd probably ignore it, or laugh at it; I'd certainly not get my knickers in a twist to the degree that a lot of people seem to.

[treestar]

237. I have run across the idea that

one should criticize one's own side more harshly, because we expect more of them. People who think that must be real gems to live with.

I swear, Bush got made fun of here, but I really don't think he got the same amount of vitriol and hatred. He was blamed only for what he really did wrong, but things were not twisted out of recognition to get there.

[840high]

148. So you've never

respected a Repub prez?

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. +1 I asked the same

and will take the high road and from now on adopt that military standard, of respecting the OFFICE regardless of who occupies it.

Don't expect an answer, I did not get one either.

[Skittles]

103. I don't care for the crude insults

but the fan club decries ANY and ALL criticism, not just the over-the-top posts

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. I will ask again, are you intending to extend this courtesy to all Presidents

regardless of party? It will happen, a Republican will become President of the United States. So at that moment will you extend the same courtesy?

I know I do not expect an answer, so I will do what I can do, and that is extend that courtesy to all Presidents out of respect for the OFFICE, not necessarily the person.

Of course I understand that calling a President, well President, and not using any names, might mean for some members that this means one is not questioning policy. Far from it. One can be polite and not use names, and still call them on policy. I am tired of the double standard though. When our guy is in, do not even question him... when it is the other side, all types of names are allowed... and not necessarily questioning policy.

Of course, given these days I spend a lot of time reading policy, I know the difference between hurling stones and well, discussing policy.

[randome]

110. Then I respectfully suggest you find another forum.

This is a site to support the Democratic party. Maybe there's a Green party or a Nader party more to your liking? Or a Heisenberg Party since you don't seem able to make up your mind.

Seriously, no offense intended but if you don't want to at least give the benefit of a doubt to Democrats, why are you here?

If you can't make a choice, why bother?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[truebrit71]

113. Lt Awol was regularly shat upon by DU during his tenure

Not sure that party affiliation changes the fact that the person holding that office should expect a large amount of verbal fecal matter be thrown in their direction pretty much from all sides from fans and foes alike...I think the bigger issue here is the swarm's furious reaction when someone uses less than complimentary language about the President THAT THEY THEMSELVES WOULD USE if the inhabitant of the Oval Office had an R behind their name and not a D, but because it's used against "their" guy it's deemed unacceptable, or racist. THAT is the problem. What separates us from the republicans is that we DON'T mandate obedience and fealty to the man in the office, and we sure as hell don't march in lockstep when a few pearl-clutchers get their fee-fees hurt. Circular firing squads, that's us, to a tee, but that's what happens when you have a big tent.

I am also pretty sure that President Obama has a thick enough skin to endure any criticism, "civilized" or otherwise, and that flamefests on an obscure democratic bulletin board are the least of his worries.

[ProSense]

126. What a

"Not sure that party affiliation changes the fact that the person holding that office should expect a large amount of verbal fecal matter be thrown in their direction pretty much from all sides from fans and foes alike..."

...bizarre comment.

[greatauntoftriplets]

127. Really!

Just had to check the top of the page to figure out where I am. Never thought I'd see so many defending Republicans here.

[freshwest]

187. Interesting that, huh? But we have some here who freely admit they are former GOP but always post

hate about Democrats and never say anything that won't depress Democratic voters.

Maybe it's possible to take the Republican out of the GOP, but you can't take the GOP out of the 'former' Republican, after all.

Perhaps they deluded themselves, (or us) when they say they left the GOP but can't find it in their hearts to say one damn thing to help get Democrats elected.

They know abuse and denying anything good and promoting the perfect won't get what they 'say' they want, either. So it's always:



And they sure love beating on that donkey. With friends like these, who needs enemies...

Just sayin'

These Do-Nothings profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and discourage all effective action for change. They are known by their brand, 'I agree with your ends but not your means'.

~ Saul Alinsky

[sheshe2]

174. You do realize that this is Democratic Underground?

You do know where you are posting do you not?

We support Democrats here, not Republicans. Screw Bush!

You applaud fecal matter being hurled at this President? Our first African American President? Seriously get a grip.

[JI7]

191. the person was also angry about the trip to China by Michelle Obama

and her daughters and mother.

his reasoning was "what will the republicans do" bs .

the person seems to be very personally angry over not being able to go after Obama the way we did after Bush.

[truebrit71]

204. I was angry? Really?

I posted that i thought that it was ill-timed and fit the rw meme perfectly that they were nothing better than free-loaders. But thanks for putting words in my mouth

I will "go after" whomever I damn well please, regardless of party affiliation, when they act against the country's best interest, you know like ramping up fracking, approving drilling in the gulf, de-listing wolves from the endangered species act, murdering innocent people with drone attacks and ordering extra-constitutional executions without benefit of trial...you know, shit we used to attack bush for...

[freshwest]

273. I was looking for some information on her trip there... And one of the first search resutls was a

website that daily follows her with every insult imaginable for years, and the latest came out with every imaginable insult against her. With many pictures and plenty of text to portray in the worst possible light, demeaning her motives and .actions.

I won't post the link, but may start going to it to see where these fresh outrages are coming from daily. Because she isn't doing anything outrageous, at least not to Democrats. But every word she says is widely hated by the GOP, Tea Party and Libertarians.

None of it is from the Democratic base who are busy making good things happen in their local political scenes. And no, they are not sociopaths.

I was to add, this website was founded due the criminal actions of the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party. They have tried to steal all our rights and are still trying to send us back to the dark ages with their actions. There is no equivalency between the two parties to anyone who knows the history and platforms of the two.

I haven't seen the post or poster you refer to, but as far as to the 'what will the republicans do?' We already know that:

Lie, obstruct, steal, cut taxes to bring down all the things we care about and then do it again to win elections. It's worked like a charm since the Nixon era:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110215862

The mood is reminiscent of the way Rush referred to Chelsea Clinton as a dog and conservative magazines (one mainstream one, in particular) called to eliminate here from the gene pool.

Democrats do not act that way.

Nice seeing your responses on this thread.

[truebrit71]

203. Do you have reading comprehension issues? Seriously.

How the fuck do you get to that wild-ass conclusion from my post?

The same people decrying harsh criticism of Obama said similar things of the former president when he was in office, and pointing that out makes me a republican? Give me a fucking break. My point is that yes, it is expected for shit to be thrown at the president REGARDLESS OF PARTY, COLOUR OR SEX because that comes with the job. I have been on DU damned near since the beginning, and to be accused of being a republican, or supporting a republican is just about the must laughable and downright stupid thing anyone has ever posted about me on DU.

Re-read the post I was responding to, and then pull your head out of your backside. Obama is by a country mile better than either of the two people he has run against, but i will be damned if that means I have to cheer him on when he does things that are contrary to the party, or the country's best interest.

I suggest that YOU are the one the needs to "seriously get a grip".

[Cha]

192. Thank you for the question, Skinner. The question that's getting a thousand

deflections.. Crickets from the OP, so far..

I'm waiting with bated breath.

[ProSense]

83. These are

"Sure, some are less hideous than others, but all of them possess the peculiar quality of being able to order people to be murdered, even entire cities and/or nations bombarded, before shuffling off to bed. As commander-in-chief, they wield the power of life and death...there's something a bit off-kilter about these individuals (recall that even "saintly" Jimmy Carter wasn't above throwing a bit of money to a right-wing Latin American outfit, or stirring up trouble in Afghanistan). On occasion, we might get a Lincoln or FDR, but even those titans had to be pushed into doing the right thing."

...silly strawmen lectures, and not well-thoughtout. It seems you're against this strawman practice because Presidents have the power to "order people to be murdered." You criticize the "'saintly' Jimmy Carter," but then say, "On occasion, we might get a Lincoln or FDR..."

"Titans"? Isn't that term idolatry? I mean, does being "pushed into doing the right thing" negate the fact that these "titans" also "order people to be murdered"?

All Presidents have a hand in war, indirectly or directly. That's the price of being the leader of this country. The one thing citizens can hope for is that they exercize good judgment.

There are those who still haven't forgiven Clinton for the Rwanda genocide. (And I should ask would these critics want a President to intervene in a similar situation today?)

[MrMickeysMom]

88. Yes, the executive office connects with the message and leads as a result...

I am not buying a car from anyone who has been in politics as long as our president has who recognizes what really happened December 12 2000, and once in office after the direct results of SCOTUS decisions like that decides to smooth over things like that.

I'm not buying

[Sarah Ibarruri]

92. When I hear the attackers of the president come up with 1 good idea, I might listen to them

Until then, I see them as mere whiners with no purpose.

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. Well here is one that I knew was going to be a problem

the Federal Government, under it's negotiating authority, should negotiate a single formulary. This will crater the prices of medications and, actually be a measure of cost control This was not even considered during any of the five full versions of the bill. I remember writing back then, before it even passed, let alone signed. that this was going to be a problem.

That is an actual policy position, Then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and President Obama did not push for this, never mind that multiple specialists in policy said that cost of medications was essential for cost control, ultimately.

I admit, I like pain. I read all five versions of the bill, major versions, and a few minor ones, hoping this would make it in there. but give Medicare Part D, which forbade the Federal Government from doing precisely that, I was not too surprised when that did not happen.

This is actually something that needs to be fixed at the legislative level, and in a rational nation, it would. I might add, this fix also goes for Medicare Part D. I am also willing to bet resistance from both Pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies to this rational policy level change.

[lumpy]

137. And it is proving to be a problem. Time will tell whether the problem will be solved.

I really don't know if Pelosi pushed for cost control or standard price listing re. medications. I do know that is one thing corporations fight tooth and nail against.
Time will tell, that is just one reason Dems have to take over the reins to smooth the road to fair dealing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

144. As I said, Leader Pelosi and President Obama did not fight for that

and there was quite a bit of resistance from then Leader Boehner, now current Speaker. At the time Leader Boehner was serving the same group of lobbyists from K Street his party protects. This is the reason that under Speaker Hastert, the Federal Government was also forbidden from negotiating that formulary for senior citizens. That was a major critique that later was partially dealt with with the filling of the donut hole, but it was not a complete fix. The Feds are still prevented from negotiating directly with pharma, and instead this is the status quo with the Pharmaceutical companies negotiating with insurance companies that are the final service aspect of Part D, as Part D is not strictly part of Social Security, and was hailed as a great cost saver by the then Administration of President George W Bush, and his health and Human Services secretary, as well as the House and Senate leadership.

But that is an issue that will have to be dealt with at the legislative level, for both, if we are to achieve critical cost saving targets.

Mr. Ibaurri asked for an actual policy critique, I gave her a clear one that emerged from those discussions, as well as the five major versions of the ACA and several minor reviews before the final vote, and ultimate passage. She asked, she received. I do not expect her to answer either.

And yes, I will maintain a policy level discussion now, including the boring policy language.

I read it often, so why not? And speaking of that. Climate Change Plans are all kinds of fun. I got coffee, and a long night.

[treestar]

235. +1 most of them are just not really good constructive criticism

I get called fangirl but I don't really have to be. I simply react to the lack of logic and thinking in the attacks. The one about "defending" the Iraq War is so twisted and so obviously taken out of context that it smacks of people looking for something to "criticize" and getting pretty desperate in finding something.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

250. I agree. Out of context. Plus the whiners have 0 ideas. I've yet to hear one. They have none. nt

[fujiyama]

93. Doesn't that go with all world leaders? Or Executives in general?

I suppose they all have elements of psychopathy. We know that those who reach such a level do have great egos.

Criticism of leadership is vital to any organization or nation - especially one that considers itself a democracy. It needs to however be pointed and rational. Unfortunately blind partisanship and ideology makes that seemingly impossible. I've seen all sorts of idiotic vitriol flung from the "bashers" and the "Obamabots".

[Skittles]

101. no shit

the Tiger Beat fan club is sickening

[ProSense]

105. "the Tiger Beat fan club is sickening"

You don't think the name calling is "sickening"?

I mean, that's typical in a lot of threads, and somehow it's the "Tiger Beat fan club" that's "sickening"?

[truebrit71]

140. Indeed it is..

...it apparently completely disconnects the logic programme in their cerebral cortexes...

[Rex]

149. Yeah and they love it. I guess the next time I lose a jury decision

I need to blame the entire forum and then go on a witchhunt!

It is sad, that is their only ability.

[Skittles]

152. Aw f 'em

Obama himself would laugh at them

[Rex]

153. No doubt.

Then again, the POTUS has actual character. Some of these people are nothing more than fancy algorithms imo. Their syntax gives it away.

[Jgarrick]

102. +1

[Texasgal]

109. Well...duh.

I mean seriously! Thank you for making us look and feel like idiots.

UGH.

I don't idolize anyone. I support my president. I do not support every issue. Jesus f'ing christ!

[ucrdem]

131. I'd like to see the FUD peddlers questioned and confronted.

Just once. I didn't elect Amy, Noam, Jeremy, Chris, Glenn, Jules or Eddie, and I don't trust them to represent my or anyone's interest. I don't trust them at all. Assange for example was behind the UEA "Climategate" scam that torpedoed the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit. Why are their dishonest dog whistles slobbered over here while the guy we elected, who's been criticized and scrutinized intensely for the last six years, gets the rotten tomatoes?

Doesn't make a lick of sense.

[seveneyes]

138. Because we are not a monolith

Everyone has an opinion.

[lumpy]

139. A good question

[fleabiscuit]

173. Question...

What was it about Assange 'that torpedoed the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit?' I thought it was corporate that cherry picked parts of scientists stolen emails to create false testimony about their work? I think the rest of those named say to just fact check and make up your own mind about what they say.

[MADem]

180. DAMN right and WELL said! Full marks for you, go to the head of the class!!!!! nt

[freshwest]

274. Nailed it. n/t

[cheapdate]

156. This level of distrust and cynicism goes far beyond what's healthy

for a pluralistic, democratic, civil society.

[freshwest]

275. Yes, and it's a recipe for apathy leading to very bad results. n/t

[cheapdate]

277. I haven't made a formal study of the question,

but from what I've observed, boycotting elections has led to disastrous and regrettable (and of course entirely predictable) consequences in every situation where it's been tried as a strategy.

[freshwest]

278. CP posted this cartoon of why it's necessary:

Obama, Reid and Pelosi are regularly demeaned by those who don't know civics. Makes people really want to get out and counter the raving troglodyte vote, uh?

The majority of the vitriol has no basis in history or facts, as a simple google wiil erase all of it, save the underlying disdain and contempt. The lack of facts and logic overriden by volume and profanities indicate the issues are neither political nor educated.

Thus we are stuck with:

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.

~ Plato

Depressing the vote rewards the status quo who seek to keep us disempowered. We can only do that to ourselves:

Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves, and the only way they could do this is by not voting.

~Franklin D. Roosevelt

Whoever stays at home is voting for the Tea Party, even if they don't vote for them. Apparently, they don't consider the effect of the lunacy of right wing theocrats and bigots important enough to get involved, they'd rather sit on the sidelines and throw spitballs. Do they really share our values?

These Do-Nothings profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and discourage all effective action for change. They are known by their brand, 'I agree with your ends but not your means'.

~ Saul Alinsky

Thanks for the reply.

[fleabiscuit]

161. Aye

Change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington.

[AceWheeler]

177. We call this a false dichotomy.

It's not either, or.

[MADem]

178. Politicians are servants of the people...and anyone who is abusive towards their servants is an ass.

There's nothing wrong with insisting upon good work; payment made when value is received, but anyone who uses abusive, nasty and vitriolic language because a "servant of the people" doesn't do precisely what they want, when they want it, is a person with serious issues.

And certainly, render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. That includes a modicum of decorum--not deference, DECORUM-- if you want to be treated seriously, like a person with an opinion worth knowing, and not like a deranged zealot.

[DrDan]

202. not sure that was the attitude around here 2001-2008

funny how times change

[MADem]

255. I have been here since the first week DU went live, notwithstanding my "new"

(ten years ago) screen name (I left my old one at work, alas).

I've never seen such assholishness before. It's reached a new low.

[DrDan]

257. well - I have been here since 2001 also

". . . but anyone who uses abusive, nasty and vitriolic language because a "servant of the people" doesn't do precisely what they want, when they want it, is a person with serious issues. "

Do you really think bush, cheney, bolton, rice, et al were not treated in an "abusive, nasty and vitriolic" manner?

[MADem]

258. Come on--this IS a partisan website, after all. You are, since you've been here as long as I have,

aware of the old "rules" that grew longer by the year, and you're aware of the Statement of Purpose and the Terms of Service here today.

Mocking the opposition is "sport." That said, I've NEVER been a fan of some of the more nasty shit having to do with family members. It reflected poorly on us. And if the insult directed at an opposition politician is just stupid raging dumb-ole-sack-o-flail, I don't care for that either. "Dick Cheney is a poopyhead" is childish and makes us look like inarticulate rightwing morons ...."Drunken Deadeye" Dick is more on point, since he shot his friend and avoided the police until he sobered up. Distinction, AND a difference. Insults, if tossed, need to be both salient and smart.

Calling POTUS a "piece of shit used car salesman" sounds, to me, like "I didn't do my homework, waited until the very last possible minute as a supposed Democrat who knew about this brand-new program and the timelines associated with it, AND the delays due to congestion to sign up for this new scheme, WITH a family member with a pre-existing condition, I took advice from a buddy who didn't know what he was talking about, and at the end of the day, I didn't get the answers I desired...so that MUST mean ....Obama is a piece of shit used car salesman!!!!!!"

NOT salient. NOT smart. It reflects on the writer and not in a good way. It's not clever and it's not supported by the circumstances. And it makes DU suck. IMO.

[DrDan]

259. it was silly of me to think "abusive, nasty and vitriolic language" applied to

both sides

of course it is appropriate when directed rightward

[MADem]

262. Well, thanks for missing--quite completely, too--the nuance in my remarks!

[fleabiscuit]

253. No mistreating the 'servants?'

I think you have it backwards. Whether one trusts “Noam” or not, he reminds us that the people are agents of morality and the state is an agent of power. If not why bother endorsing or voting for anyone? We’re trying to petition the STATE to make changes we want.

Another interesting meme I see floating often is, paraphrasing, ‘would we tolerate a RW coming here and saying blah. blah, blah.”

Obviously we should not. But I’d ask, is this a better site if we imitate a RW site and only allow unquestioning loyalty and support for everything party members do and say just as RW's do? Do we have that kind of religion?

We are better than that.

[MADem]

254. Did you not even try to read what I said? I had it exactly right.

Politicians work FOR us. That is their JOB. We are their bosses.

The mark of a shitty boss is a person who is ABUSIVE.

That doesn't mean that we should not demand quality work, what it does mean is that calling the "servants" pieces of shit is just NOT ON.

And we are better than THAT.

As for Noam and his agents of power crap, the state, in the USA, is US.

"WE, the PEOPLE." And if "WE" don't get off our asses and execute that boss power that is inherent in each one of us, then WE the PEOPLE are to blame.

Sick of passivity, I am. "Waaah, we're victims of THE STATE!!! WAAAH!" We are the frigging state--people need to get off their collective asses and grasp that. Our power is in our hands, and so many of us just piss it away. I'll bet even the most ardent DUers don't show up for local elections in their communities half the time....and that's on THEM. Because that is where it BEGINS.

All politics is local. That alderman becomes a state senator and then a representative and then a senator. That selectman becomes an attorney general and then becomes the governor. That IS how it works. Local elections MATTER.

I think that saying it's "OK" to call a leader who involves him or herself in the brutal arena that is politics a "piece of shit used car salesman" IS acting like the RWing nutjob sites you say we should not imitate. Intelligent people don't have to resort to that kind of, dare I say, childish and petulant BULLSHIT.

We ARE better than that.

[fleabiscuit]

260. I’m not going to take responsibility for the actions of others.

II don’t have any boss/servant issues to get past and I’m not going to accept delivery. A politician would have to claim to being completely ignorant to not read the polls that are done over and over about what the “boss” wants. Why aren’t they doing it? Who’s the real “boss?”

[MADem]

261. The real boss is the population that shows up at the polls.

We The People have largely been an absentee boss--from local to national government.

We're reaping what we've sown.

The servants don't steal the silver if the homeowners keep a watchful eye out. But We The People aren't motivated to do that, and we need to get better at it.

[dionysus]

182. someone might chug a fifth and either edorse that, or rail against it.

[blkmusclmachine]

183. You are way too generous.

[DeSwiss]

185. K&R

"I don't think a tough question is disrespectful. I say. ´Mr. President...´ I say, ´Thank you.´ What else do you want? The presidential news conference is the only forum in our society where a president can be questioned. If he's not questioned, he can rule by edict; by government order. He can be a monarch. He can be a dictator, and who is to find out? No. He should be questioned and he should always be able to willingly reply and answer to all questions because these aren't our questions. They're the people's questions." ~Helen Thomas, White House Press Corps Reporter: 1920 - 2013

[yardwork]

205. I think that's what the founders had in mind.

K and r

[L0oniX]

208. Leaders and those in positions of power should always be under much more scrutiny.

This should go without saying. If you have to tell someone this then they shouldn't be in the gene pool.

[marble falls]

220. Taught my kids, ALWAYS question authority.

[randome]

229. That's what I tell my daughters, too.

I add they need to question my judgment and authority, too, because I'm not infallible. But questioning authority should not lead to vile insults. It should lead to something productive.

The point is lost when one comes across as blinded by rage. You want to convince someone of something? Make a measured argument to support your case.

(Not implying anything to you, specifically.)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

234. Even in simpler matters?

Always? Really? I suppose you will think I am an authoritarian. But do they have a lot of trouble at school? What if it were a teacher, or fire or police personnel and the instructions are for safety?

You can question a judge's on appeal, but if you do if yourself right there, it will be a contempt charge. There's a point where society has to hang together and people who think they are above it end up in jail.

[marble falls]

240. Always question authority. Always truth to power.

[Logical]

252. You trust all judges in this country? Wow, do more reading. Maybe questioning a judge should not....

be a contempt charge.

[Zen Democrat]

223. Don't be talking trash about Jimmy!

From my perspective, there's something a bit off-kilter about these individuals (recall that even "saintly" Jimmy Carter wasn't above throwing a bit of money to a right-wing Latin American outfit, or stirring up trouble in Afghanistan).

No. 1 - Carter strenuously opposed right-wing Somoza in Nicaragua and also did not support the left-wing Sandanistas. He supported free elections. He also gave the Panama Canal back to Panama, which the right-wing despised.

No. 2 - Carter stirred up trouble in Afghanistan? It was the Soviet Union that invaded Afghanistan and as a result, Carter boycotted the Moscow Olympics and allowed Brezhnev to enter the debacle of their Afghanistan occupation attempt. Carter may have enticed the Soviets to invade, but he didn't make them do it.

No. 3- Jimmy Carter is the closest thing to a Saint the American Presidency has ever had. He invented the term "Human Rights," he promoted and practiced environmentalism in and from the White House, not a shot was fired by the American military during his term, and he never lied to the American people.

Don't mess with my Jimmy Carter!

[freshwest]

276. Thank you! n/t

[JohnnyRingo]

227. If I don't criticize, then I must idolize? Is that what you said?

That's making quite a jump.

I guess you're saying that if I'm not as displeased with the president as some of those who see the NSA spying as a grave constitutional crisis, for example, then I must be putting him on an unassailable pedestal and worshiping him. If I'm not fed up to the absolute gills that Gitmo isn't closed, then I must be an Obama lackey?

I think there may be some vast middle ground you're overlooking, where people think this president is doing a good enough job and well deserved his second term. Some of the most fiery threads here call out the president as the biggest mistake since Windows ME.

Good working class democrats who were so seriously upset with Jimmy Carter's perceived lack of initiative on foreign policy and the economy helped usher in the era of Ronald Reagan. A "new morning" they called it. I admit they roped me in with the anti-Carter hype at the time, but I'll never fall for that again, nor am I willing to sit back and watch history repeat.

Live & learn.

[Vashta Nerada]

232. I wholeheartedly agree.

[polichick]

236. "And what sort of person is allowed to be president?"

A person who won't throw more than a few crumbs at the voters, while surrounding him or herself with industry insiders and making sure any "change" that happens doesn't threaten corporate profits.

[wildbilln864]

244. damned right! n/t

[Logical]

251. Wow, this will piss off the Obamabots. n-t

[cheapdate]

279. You know what really pisses off "Obamabots"? Right wing trolls.

** Note to alerters. This is not a personal attack but merely a general observation, like the general observation regarding "Obamabots" that preceded it. **

[Rex]

280. Looks like it worked!