I'm sick to death of saying dems are not pukes

[theaocp]

You can be defined by what you are, or rather what you do and not what you are not. Enthusiastic support comes from doing positive, supportable actions. Notice how the pukes ran from 43's wars, saying, "Iraq? Afghanistan? What name so?" If these were good actions or even perceived to be so, their drubbing during '06 and '08 wouldn't have happened. Instead, dems came in telling everyone what a colossal fuckup the pukes have been, so how would you like something different?

Well, since the dems new strategy to stay in power is the same as the pukes back then (iow, "you wouldn't want to put THEM back in charge, would you? my gawd, they'll turn everything they touch into liquid shit!"), they must not have much belief in what they've done, yes? As Cenk says all the time, MAKE YOUR CASE! Unless, of course, you don't have a case to make or just don't believe in what you've "accomplished."

I'm not a gloom-and-doomer who thinks Obama and his have done nothing right. However, as many have stated, they have squandered opportunities like they're getting paid to do so. WTF? Give me a fucking reason to support you and I will do so. Vigilantly so. Don't just try and frighten me about the pukes for the umpteenth time. That's out of their playbook. You're different, right? Everybody already knows they're scumbags, and we don't need more of Gibbs coming out and telling us not to take candy from strangers. We get it!

I guess it all comes back to the reason I'm an athiest. I'm probably closest to Thomas. If Jesus showed up to me (presumably he could do so) and say, "What's up? I'm Jesus from Nazareth and I understand you've been having some doubts about me and my accomplishments," I would become his biggest cheerleader and supporter. However, since that isn't happening, I'm not down with faith based on mythical teachings, stolen from other myths, and written down by men interested in their own power and influence. Jesus isn't making his case to me and neither are the dems. For fuck's sake, I didn't vote for "Better than McCain." MAKE YOUR CASE, dems, why I should support you. Stop trying to scare me with the boogie-man of pukes. It just pisses me off.

:rant:

[RandomThoughts]

1. hmmmm.

[JuniperLea]

2. "I would become his biggest cheerleader and supporter"

Ah ha! So you are the one Jesus was talking about when he said you weren't supposed to test him... he said it's all about your faith, which is kinda like hope.

I'm not going to make a case at all... I'm just going to put you on ignore right away and save us both a lot of trouble.

[theaocp]

4. my faith is based on accomplished evidence

Neither Jesus nor Obama has shown me much of either. Fortunately, my mind is open to change, unlike yours. Cya.

[JuniperLea]

10. "my faith is based on accomplished evidence"

Get thee to a dictionary, post haste.

Ploink!

[theaocp]

17. Whatever

so much for ignore. The point you miss is I'm still not getting inspired and "faith" is exactly the problem. It can't be that hard to just let us know why we're not Rahm's retarded masses and more time and patience for Obama and the dems immediately shows up! Otherwise, we're left to imagine what's happening based on what we see in front of our eyes. Enough of the "Everybody chill the fuck out! I got this!" If I wanted policies birthed from the cavaties of the DLC thinktanks, I'd have supported Hillary. Stop trying to frighten me and MAKE YOUR CASE! Not you, but rather the dems. They're still trying to tell us how horrible the pukes are. THAT, I've got on lockdown.

[JuniperLea]

20. I was waiting for your 111th post...

It's my lucky number, donchano.

[MineralMan]

42. I'm sorta wondering what the evidence managed to accomplish.

Did it grow hands and build something? This is all very, very confusing.

[blondeatlast]

13. "...accomplished evidence." In other words, your evidence took English Comp 101,

but did you?

[blondeatlast]

3. My mom used to say to me you've lost the argument as soon as you say "I."

Mom was damn smart, in retrospect; but I hated it when I was a child.

[DJ13]

6. I dont believe that

oops....!

[theaocp]

7. I'm honestly confused

as I think ascribing "you" to an argument uses too much projection. Cheers to your mother, however, as their wisdom comes with our own age. Same with me.

[NNN0LHI]

5. How much would your life change under Republican rule?

Some change? Little change. Or no change?

Don

[blondeatlast]

8. ...

:popcorn:

[theaocp]

9. Quite frankly,

I'd say change tilted toward feudal rule, just faster than dems. I want dems to give me something tangible to fight for, not just slower regression and crumbs. I guess I'd rather be mugged by a stranger than my blood.

[NNN0LHI]

16. No, your personal life. Would it change?

Would you eat better, worse or the same with Republicans in control? Have more, less or just as much money?

That kind of stuff.

Don

[theaocp]

28. Pukes would make my life worse

So what? That's not my point. I want the dems to do BETTER.

[NNN0LHI]

32. You would knowingly vote against your own best interests?

That is an interesting concept.

Haven't quite wrapped my mind around that one yet.

Don

[theaocp]

35. Ummm, no

The problem is dems are making me consider my options for everything on the ballot, when that shouldn't be necessary. Where is the repeal of DADT or the closing of Gitmo? How hard is this? Where is the ability to bargain for better drug prices? Hell, start naming names of these obstructionist pukes again and again and again. Make them famous and welcome their hatred. Sound familiar?

[sarge43]

19. So, you see no fundamental difference between the two parties.

Fine, then why should we bother trying to change your mind? Either, after careful thought and study, you've arrived at this point of view in which case anything we'd say probably wouldn't matter or you're stirring the chamber pot for the maximum amount of stink.

[Electric Monk]

23. "...stirring the chamber pot for the maximum amount of stink...." +1

IBPIA



(in before pizza I am)

[theaocp]

30. I'd rather have stink to talk about

than the same shit sandwich put ketchup on to make it taste better. The dems can do BETTER. That's the point.

[JuniperLea]

11. Good question...

Hella change, I reckon! The rich would be uber rich, and the poor would die. Yeah, that's change.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[JuniperLea]

14. How is this post NOT against the rules?

Pray, tell.

[blondeatlast]

18. Because he's "sick to death of saying it..."

But he is.

Edit: Oops--"he."

[JuniperLea]

21. I'm pretty sick to death right now myself...

Oy...

[blondeatlast]

24. Just as I read your reply, "Gloria" by Laura Branigan popped up on my Pandora.

I had to pick myself up off of the floor...

:rofl:

I'm just this close to having funny tears, I really am!

[JoePhilly]

15. What's the job lose situation now ... beter or worse ?

GDP ... better or worse?

Stock market ... better or worse?

Housing numbers, better or worse?

Iraq troop levels?

Do you think we are about to bomb Iran, yes or no?

Is the HCR bill better than what we had prior, yes or no?

The financial bill that is about to pass ... better than status quo??

DADT should end by the end of the year.

Would a GOP white house be fighting the AZ law???

The GOP is blocking extending unemployment benefits ... you think they would be MORE charitable if they held control in Congress or the White House??

Now ... would the GOP being doing MORE to support your specific views, doing the same as Obama has done, or running hard AGAINST your views?

Seems like a very simple comparison. The GOP would be running hard against everything you want ...

But let's pretend that the Dems and the GOP are "the same".

Clearly, we learned nothing from letting Bush win in 2000.

[JuniperLea]

22. Don't go scaring him with facts now...

I'm quite sure he's sick of those too.

:rofl:

Awesome post;)

[theaocp]

26. Thank you for giving "tangibles"

I'm not on top of all of these, but I'll give it a go...

GDP: don't know, but if it's going positive, the unemployed will want to know.

Stock Market: honestly, don't care. I don't think it's a predictor of the health of our nation.

I don't understand what you mean by housing numbers.

Iraq: troops coming home? Great. Crow about it from the highest rooftops. I don't hear anything.

Iran: about to bomb. No. However, that's not an accomplishment in my book. More fearmongering about moronic pukes.

HCR: No, I think it's a giveaway to corporations. Why the fuck can't we even negotiate drug prices? Jeezus, we are pathetically weak.

Financial reform: Meh, better than nothing, but put away the Mission Accomplished Banner.

DADT: show me the money and I'm on board. Stop talking about it and fucking just do it already. Sheesh.

AZ: Probably not, but like gay marriage, it wouldn't stand the test of time. Like I said, crow it from the rooftops. "We're actively fighting against what we consider to be the racist profiling law of Arizona. Let me be clear: Hispanics of Los Estados Unidos, the Democratic Party is with you." How's that sound?

Unemployment: let them continue to block sane measures. The dems don't need to demonize the scumbags, but rather tell us what they're doing FOR us.

Finally, put away your strawman about the pukes and dems being the same. I want the dems to do BETTER. THEY haven't learned from the past and the evidence is in all the assholes surrounding Obama. Hope that helps.

[JoePhilly]

53. My response ....

GDP ... after being negative for about 5 straight quarters, it has now been positive for 3 or 4 straight.

Stock Market: The market matters. If you have a 401k, it matters. For many Americans, their retirement is tied to a 401k. If you want companies to hire, it matters. The markets strength also influences consumer confidence.

Housing numbers ... if you examine home sales, new and existing, and compare them over the last 3 years ... they are better now. The TREND lines have been improving.

Iraq: You seem to be more concerned with the messaging then the facts. We have drawn down in large numbers.

DADT: Did you know that Obama has given partner benefits to federal employees? If Obama did an executive order to end DADT, the congress would STOP paying any attention to it. And President Palin, would reinstate it.

AZ: Again, you complain about the message, not the facts.

Unemployment: Exactly what do you expect the Dems to do ... please be specific. The Dems have already extended unemployment benefits multiple times ... multiple times ... each time having to drag 2 or 3 republicans along kicking and screaming.

What strawman?? You can see posts on DU every day that claim the Dems and the GOP are the same.

As for strawmen .... you response was packed with them.

[theaocp]

58. I'm enjoying talking about this

GDP: I guess I'm too cynical about corporations and those business folk throughout Congress and the WH who serve them to think GDP will have a meaningful impact on employing those who wish to work. It certainly sounds like good news.

SM: I understand the impact on 401Ks, as I have one, but without proper regulations, the market will do what it wants and Main Street gets hosed. If both do well simultaneously, I'm ok with that, but MS should be helped first. The fat cats can wait for once in their pampered lives.

Housing: That sounds good, but I don't think the big banks that control the housing market have been reigned in at all. That's going to lead to greater housing troubles down the line.

Iraq: You're right, b/c I like a good message from the Dems to praise what they're doing and not insider facts that we can share together. At least I can spread news better when the Dems start the ball rolling.

DADT: Yes, I knew of the partner benefits. Your theory on why DADT is not in place yet takes the sort of faith I don't respond well too and certainly can understand why demographics that would vote for Dems would be insulted by. (awful phrasing, sorry)

AZ: The facts are irrelevant if the voters are swayed by a message.

Unemployment: It's a tough question, agreed. To start, I'd really like the Dems to call out specific pukes and especially DEMS (like Nelson, etc.) who get in the way of progressive and helpful legislation. They need to have their names in the public domain where they feel the heat for their choices against the voters. Everything seems way too vague and impersonal for such a personal issue. Otherwise, keep extending benefits and even hold a press conference to illustrate how these are not handouts. This may seem silly, but I would listen to Obama or another Dem speak out specifically to dispel myths about benefits the pukes throw out there. I don't know, maybe that's too defensive of a measure, but it sounds good on paper. Beyond that, I'd have to become more educated on the opportunities, but the message is important.

I claim strawman on the idea that I'm saying Dems and pukes are the same. I don't believe that was my intent, nor did I convey such. I just want progressives to knock the knuckle-dragging pukes back to the stone ages where they belong. Do it with good legislation and naming names of those who need to be named for their petty and selfish obstruction to the former. Cheers.

[benchwarmer]

31. I will push for a full term before judgment.

Here's my take on this whole friggin thread:
Obama has been in office for less than two years. LESS THAN TWO YEARS. (is there an echo in here?)
He entered office about a year after (economists now tell us, in hindsight) the worst recession since the great depression began.
He inherited a huge structural deficit, two wars, rising unemployment, a housing-market catastrophe the TARP bailout, a changing world economy and power structure and most recently a friggin oil spill...among god knows how many other problems. I can't reasonably and in good conscious expect miracles from him. It's an uphill battle and any promises he made that he didn't yet keep, I attribute (without hesitation) the unprecedented "unexpectedness" that he's walked into. It's as if the Republicans put a flaming bag of poo on the white house steps when they left. Obama's only mistake was trying to stomp out the fire (i.e. he took the job as President).

All that said, I voted for Obama and I for one am willing to give him and the Democrats more time to plot a different course. I'm a little on the fence about Obama's approach thus far. I agree with Reid (oddly) that Obama should have taken a more active role in Health Care Reform. I think had he, at the onset, we'd have a public option. I also think he has been too soft on the right wing. The reason I'm on the fence, is that he said time and again that he would seek compromise, and that's exactly what he's done. So it's hard for me to be mad at him, but on the other hand there comes a point when compromise starts to look like giving away the farm. I'm afraid he's crossed that line once or twice, and I fear that with a stronger Republican presence in congress we'll see more of it. So, in my mind, regardless of the midterm outcome he has to take a firmer stand and push his agenda. The one I voted for.

[JuniperLea]

34. Great post!

I view all of his successes as miracles, given the 8 years it took W to screw us... and the obstruction Obama faces now... it's miraculous anything has been done at all.

That said, I've always said, and repeated it on DU often, that his initial trek on the high road has been necessary. I figured that somewhere between the first year and mid-term, the gloves will come off and he will be able to say with much honesty that he tried it the right way first, got no assistance from across the aisle, and now it's time to get things done.

[Subdivisions]

39. I really hope you're right about the gloves coming off. n/t

[JuniperLea]

40. Me too...

He's always given me that impression... I hope I'm reading him correctly.

Still, his current list of accomplishments is nothing short of miraculous. We were so doomed... still might be... but we aren't rushing to ruination at quite the break-neck speed we once were.

[JoePhilly]

54. I agree with you ... he ran on a bipartisan message ...

And the GOP has used that against him. They decided that creating bipartisan legislation was a goal that they simply would not let him achieve under any circumstances .... going to the point of voting against policies that the GOP has proposed in the past.

I do hope that he's done with trying to find common ground with the GOP. There is none.

[theaocp]

59. You're right, there is no common ground

So what happens when names are not named and Dems keep trying to be bipartisan? I don't know, but I wonder how much slack you have to give them.

[JoePhilly]

63. Which "them"??

Here is how I see it ... somewhat over simplified.

40% of the right will oppose Obama no matter what. They claim he is doing too much.

40% of the left will support Obama no matter what. They claim he is making progress.

10% of the left will oppose Obama no matter what. They claim he is doing too little.

The remaining 10% are sheep and will join "the majority".

The media combines the 40% of the right, and the 10% of the left who oppose Obama, and then they claim that 50% of the country opposes Obama for going to far.

The 8% of the sheep join the "oppose Obama" camp. Not for any actual reason.

The poll results ... 58% against, 40% for, 2% undecided.

Dems lose interest ... and lose the Congress.

[theaocp]

64. The Dems

I honestly don't know what I meant by "slack." It could have multiple meanings, but I think we both agree trying to please the pukes is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think the way to lose Congress is more rooted in the anti-incumbency being felt across the country these days. Since Dems have greater numbers of incumbents, they're more likely to lose control when people vote for "anyone else." This is the danger in not making your case for what you are accomplishing. Pukes make their followers feel empowered by default of supposed victimhood. This won't work for many leftists and independents, so they're likely to not vote puke, but rather stay home. Thanks for the percentages. You're one of the few to approach my rant from a logical point of view and it's refreshing. Cheers.

[theaocp]

36. I appreciate your candor and flexible thinking

I don't actually disagree. It's tough to help people understand that I want Obama and the dems to succeed. They can do so much good, but don't seem to want to. It's not like my little rant is going to change the midterms or hasten our leaving from Iraq. I just refuse to sit idly by and give attaboys out when scum like Geithner, Summers, Duncan, etc. are whispering in Obama's ear like Wormtongue.

[MineralMan]

43. Help you I can. English can I teach.

[theaocp]

44. Is it too much trouble to address the points?

Your smugness is beneath you.

[MineralMan]

55. Yes. It is too much trouble.

[Winterblues]

37. Why the Hell are Democrats bailing on Democrats then and Republicans out polling Democrats.

Something is just not all it's cracked up to be.. I just heard on the radio that Obama has lost another 7 percentage points Among Democrats .. Why is that do you think?

[Amonester]

48. Think it's the cat food scare (that will be a major LOSS).

Unless... someone(s) wake(s) him up and make(s) him smell the cof... uh, the cat food....

[JoePhilly]

52. Because of how the polls get reported.

We start with about 40% of the right that is AGAINST absolutely anything Obama wants to do. They claim he's going too far.

Then you have about 40% on the left who will SUPPORT Obama. Some progress is better than none.

Then you have about 10% of the left who are AGAINST Obama, claiming that he did not go far enough.

That leaves 10% sheep who have no idea.

The press takes the 40% from the right who are AGAINST, and adds in the 10% from the left who are AGAINST. The press then claims that 50% of the country thinks Obama is going too far.

The 10% of the sheep decided that Obama must be going too far.

Pay close attention almost anytime the polls are discussed. This pattern is almost always there right now.

[LoZoccolo]

25. There is post after post of Democratic accomplishments since Obama took office.

Tired of people ignoring and/or dismissing them.

[jp11]

46. I don't think a list of accomplishments has anything to do with the discussion

when virtually no one says 'he hasn't done anything', that list is the answer to a question that practically no one has or is asking.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[theaocp]

29. Who? n/t

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Spazito]

33. Uh huh

:popcorn:

[MineralMan]

41. I don't know, but an atheist who spells it "athiest" is a little

suspicious to me. Do you not believe in "thie?" I don't understand.

If you just "doubt," then you are not an atheist in the first place.

[theaocp]

45. I'll be happy to argue my personal religious beliefs

with you in the appropriate place. That being said, try and leave your smugness at the door and avoid arguing spelling errors. It's a little '90s of you.

[MineralMan]

56. You brought your "athiesm" in the OP, so you must think it

significant.

[Born_A_Truman]

47. Hope you feel better ...

Just love "Dems" who come here asking "Dems" to make their case on why you should support us.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

:boring:

[theaocp]

50. Your silly quotation marks aside

yes, I would like the Dems to make their case for support.

[Raineyb]

61. As opposed to Dems assuming they can do anything and expect to get your vote anyway?

It's exactly that attitude that has allowed the party and their apparatchiks to develop a rather undeserved sense of entitlement. They should make their case. Every damn day they should be making their case. Let the people know what about them is different from the Republican party and why how they do things is better than how the Republicans would do things. THAT is how one gets the message to the people. Of course when you're only concerned with what the donors think it's hard to make your case since what the donors want to hear is certainly not in line with what the rank and file want to hear.

Oh and "We're not as bad as the Republicans" is NOT going to cut it.

[theaocp]

62. +1

[opihimoimoi]

49. MISSION: Weaken/Destroy using Distraction, Denigration, DeCeption

[theaocp]

51. You're wrong

I'm drawing attention to a fatal flaw in the Dems' approach to electoral success. You're willfully blind, from my perspective.

[opihimoimoi]

57. I WAS DRAWING ATTENTION TO THE TACTICS OF THE GOPers

They have a Death Wish

[theaocp]

60. Thank you for the clarification

My apologies and no need to shout. It appeared as though you were replying to me. Cheers.