Democratic Underground is fast becoming a place where people whine when they can't win the argument.

[beachmom]

Good God, people. Make your argument, take the hits, debate the issue, acknowledge errors if you made any, admit if you might have been wrong, or stick to your guns if you think you were right. But regardless of how it all ends up, do not, I repeat do NOT write a thread of how you have been treated unfairly because someone out in the ethers of the internet dared to disagree with you.

[GoneOffShore]

1. Attack of the Perpetually Outraged in 3..... 2...... 1......

:popcorn: :beer:

[Occam Bandage]

2. WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO SILENCE ME!

[Buzz Clik]

3. I'd like to take this opportunity to relate the kind of abuse I've been suffering here at DU.

That is what this thread is about, right?

[Cha]

39. You make your

own abuse, buster. :evilgrin:

[blm]

4. And when conviction (and/or the historic record is on your side), the 'hits' don't even hurt.

People should spend more time in the National Security Archives and less in the Kleenex aisle.

[redqueen]

5. But... Obama is a coward! And a Republican!

And anyone who thinks Pelosi isn't a criminal is a FREEPER!

And people get MAD at me when I say it! It's not fair!

[berni_mccoy]

6. Most of the whining here is done by Obama bashers

Because they either
1. Trust the MSM more than they trust Obama
2. Are just now realizing what Obama's positions were that he actually ran on
3. Can't get past their own extremism and want Obama to be their barbie-doll president that they can make do what they wanted because they voted for him.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted sub-thread

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

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. You've got that right.

They even whine when you point that out to them.

[nichomachus]

23. Then please tell me

just what Obama ran on?

Did he promise to continue the occupation of Iraq and Afhganistan?
Did he promise to by-pass qualified Democrats to appoint Republican ideologues to office?
Did he promise to sabotage single-payer health care?
Did he promise to shove the GLBT community under the bus?
Did he tell us he was going to empty the treasury into the pockets of bankers?
Did he tell us he was going to cover up for torturers?

'Cause that's what he's done, and if he had told us he was going to do that, things might be different.

[beachmom]

25. Actually,

1. Yes, he did say we were going to escalate the war in Afghanistan, and if you read the fine print continue the occupation of Iraq for quite some time.

2. Yes, he said that he would make his cabinet include some Republicans.

3. Yes, he said he was against a single payer health care plan, as did all Demo candidates except Dennis Kuccinich.

4. He has been a disappointment on GLBT issues, although he ALWAYS said he was opposed to gay marriage, and preferred civil unions.

5. Basically, yes. He supported the $700 billion bailout bill, as did his opponent, John McCain.

6. Well, a mixed bag there -- he DID release the torture memos, but did NOT release the photos. He said he would end torture, but he never said he would investigate or prosecute the torturers. He did, however, campaign on more transparency. Again a mixed bag.

I have been disappointed about some things as well. But your argument that Obama is going the opposite way of his campaign is not based in fact. And better yet, you should have consulted his Senate record, which was quite cautious, and geared toward the center. You should have done your homework.

[redqueen]

34. I'm glad people are still trying...

but hasn't this information been provided over and over?

[Occam Bandage]

27. Yes.

Did he promise to continue the occupation of Iraq and Afhganistan?
Yes, he did. He promised to leave Iraq over the course of 16-18 months, leaving military advisers for training, and promised to send those troops to Afghanistan instead.

Did he promise to by-pass qualified Democrats to appoint Republican ideologues to office?
Yes, he did. He promised to appoint qualified Republicans to office as well as qualified Democrats.

Did he promise to sabotage single-payer health care?
Yes, he did. He never once suggested he would be in favor of a single-payer system. No Democrat, save Kucinich, did in the 2008 primaries.

Did he promise to shove the GLBT community under the bus?
Yes, he did. He said explicitly that he was in favor of civil unions and not gay marriage. So did every candidate but, again, Kucinich.

Did he tell us he was going to empty the treasury into the pockets of bankers?
Yes, he did. He voted for the first bank bailout, and committed himself to ensuring that the nation's financial engine didn't collapse the same way it did in 1929.

Did he tell us he was going to cover up for torturers?
No, because he's doing no such thing.

[cboy4]

28. What does whether he favors gay marriage or civil unions have

to do with stopping government-sanctioned workplace discrimination in the workplace?

[Occam Bandage]

31. It doesn't. If you're talking about DADT,

I agree with Obama that a legislative solution would be better than an executive order indefinitely suspending the practice (until the next Republican President). I also think an executive order would make many people believe the problem was "solved," and would make others believe he was trying to game the system (as there's rarely a legitimate reason to ban something twice), both resulting in lower support for such a bill. I'm disappointed, however, that Obama has not pushed more strongly to get a bill in front of him, and I'm disappointed he hasn't offered a limited suspension (expiring, say, in three months--certainly enough time for Congress to get a bill in front of his desk).

I don't believe that amounts to a violation of a promise; he never gave a timeframe for DADT, and it's too early to say he won't overturn it within his first year, to say nothing of his first term. However, I do believe it strains credibility to say that he hasn't unnecessarily deferred action on that issue.

I mentioned marriage equality/civil unions because while I understand his position is mildly politically safer than support for marriage equality would be, I believe his position is ultimately both legally and morally untenable. I personally used to believe civil unions would be a necessary foot-in-the-door to achieving marriage equality. Recent developments have convinced me that I was wrong in my assessment.

[cboy4]

32. He has the power and authority to step in right now.

I'm not arguing with you.

I'm just saying, as you point out, he has options right now and for some reason he's not acting.

That's a huge disappointment for someone like myself who did not support him in the primaries, but ultimately voted for him.

Fixing DADT is something some of the most fierce opponents of same sex marriage say they don't have a problem with.

The longer he puts it off, the closer we come to the midterms, or God forbit, the 2010 election, and it be used as a wedge issue by the right wing fundamentalist christian conservatives.

[Occam Bandage]

33. I wish he would be more conscientious about explaining himself to the left.

Uncertainty breeds anxiety, fear, and disappointment. As much as I'm frustrated he hasn't shown any signs of acting, I'm even more frustrated that he hasn't explained why he hasn't acted. He's very good at explaining what he's doing to the center, and to the populace as a whole, when it comes to the Big Issues; he knows that people want to know what he's doing and why, and he knows that a lack of information can only breed assumptions. I wish he would take more care in explaining to the left what he's planning on doing, when he's planning on doing it, and why he's planning on doing it in that way. An informal one-year legislative plan would be lovely.

[tkmorris]

42. No, your side whines incessantly too

Actually the whines don't bother me as much as the aggression does. Time and again I open a thread which looks promising only to find it is populated by two distinct mobs flinging insults at each other. I imagine there'd be a lot less whining if we could somehow repress our desire to scream invective at each other.

[cherokeeprogressive]

45. Would you classify this as whining?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8417793&mesg_id=8418457

[iamthebandfanman]

7. turning into Freeperland

if you ask me.

they ran off all the dissenters over there after W was elected (even the ones who complained about bush making the government bigger, a stance supposedly all republicans were againt)

this party or person over substance crap shouldnt stand at DU.

theres nothing wrong with loving the president, and theres nothing wrong with having disagreements with his policies...

everyone around here has to massive of egos tho , which is just like FR is... and hence why they are just a bunch of like minded robots now.

[berni_mccoy]

8. Dissent here has degraded to "OBAMA IS A CRIMINAL" and "OBAMA = BUSH"

Shouting, whining and screaming fallacies is not dissent.

[iamthebandfanman]

10. exactly, its all extremes...

and eventually one side is gonna get tired of it...

[beachmom]

13. Name calling happens when one is not winning the argument.

I have no problem at all with criticizing Obama or any other Democrat. If it is constructive.

[Occam Bandage]

9. Quite the opposite happened at Freeperland.

The hardcore ideologues ran off all the moderates, libertarians, and anyone who ever suggested compromising with the enemy. The only reason it looked like they always supported Bush was that Bush pretty much always did what his political base wanted (which tends to end in failure, of course), and so they were kept happy. When he dared to oppose the base, though--such as on immigration, or when he acted like he was going to cooperate with the Democrats to fix the financial meltdown he caused--they turned on him viciously, with much the same tone and much the same arguments that purists tend to make here.

Purists are purists, no matter what ideology they adopt.

[Terran]

22. Worried about a lack of substance here?

Then provide some of your own. The site is what you, yourself, personally, make it.

[reggie the dog]

11. but but but

but you are stinky, and teacher says you are wrong and I am right; and you are stinky!

[Pacifist Patriot]

12. I honestly see no difference.

This place has always had people who could argue rationally and those who could not. These hell-in-a-handbasket posts seem to come in batches in some sort of cycle. Haven't figured it out when and why yet, but I know I've seen it all before.

[Mass]

14. When you do not have an argument, you whine. And this goes both sides.\nt

[unblock]

15. that happened back in 2001.

but real life isn't much different, few people seem to care for assertive intellectual pushback outside of college.

[ananda]

16. OK, make .. my .. day.

Mano a mano. LOL

[Political Tiger]

18. Amen! n/t

[salguine]

19. The best one is when somebody can't refute a well-reasoned argument, so they just

post "You Fail", and that supposedly counts as victory for them. I love that.

[TheWraith]

20. Thank you! Kicked and freakin' recommended.

[bvar22]

24. Sheesh.

A Whine Thread complaining about Whine Threads.
:silly:


Don't you people know there is a WAR on?

[beachmom]

26. No whining coming from me. Just an observation.

[bvar22]

29. Oh, I see.

Its NOT whining when YOU do it.

Got it.

[Inuca]

30. She is NOT whining

she is describing and disagreeing with an attitude. That's not whining.

[redqueen]

35. And guess what those who start the threads that you and the OP label whining

would say about their own threads?

:think:

[JuniperLea]

36. And hide all "meta" threads!

CLICK!!

[Number23]

37. lol

:thumbsup:

[TheMachineWins]

38. Hold war criminals accountable or nothing changes in the U.S.

We're a country without morals, without a conscience, with laws that only apply to the lower classes if we do not hold torturers accountable and gov't officials accountable for a conspiracy to commit war. The bickering that goes on everywhere is just a symptom of a much larger sociological issue of unaccountability in every walk of life.

[D23MIURG23]

40. Thanks.

[bigwillq]

41. DU is fine.

It's an internet message board, with all types of people and viewpoints. This site has features so you don't have to put up with the BS if you don't want to.

You just added to the whine, whine threads. :thumbsup:

[Creideiki]

43. I will say

that DU is fast becoming a place where people don't dare to make an unpopular argument because the Landmark crew will alert on the post a thousand times until the user is banned.

Ah, Liberalism.

I mean, Centrism. I'm a Centrist!!!!! Therefore I'm good!

[file83]

44. So what argument did you lose?

:yoiks: