An Offensive Photo (shop)

[denem]

Posted here on DU today.



Created in July, it's just a general illustration of the Obama = Bush Lite. Pity the teabaggers co-opted Obama as Joker, it could have been subtitled imperialism.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[NYC Liberal]

2. Of course you don't.

You use right-wing terms like "cheerleader" to describe supporters of the Democratic president on Democratic Underground.

And you think Obama is Dana Perino's biggest supporter

[DontTreadOnMe]

3. Maybe you should give me a Democratic Purity Test?

Since I don't agree with you.

[NYC Liberal]

6. Sure. Your purity test consists of the DU rules.

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

The Rules: "Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party."
You: "Obama cheerleaders need to wake up." Using right-wing terms to label supporters of Obama (Democrats supporting the Democratic president) as "cheerleaders" is broad-brushed and a smear.

The Rules: " Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."
The Rules: " Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. "
You: "I am ready for a third party Progressive candidate that supports my positions." (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=15872&mesg_id=16576)

[avaistheone1]

17. The problem is that so many of our Democratic leaders when push is coming to shove are

not supporting Democratic ideals or even their commitments on issues like FISA, Gitmo and the war.

Should all discussion and support of those candidates be banned? How does that help the democratic process or the interchange of ideas on this forum?

Why do people on this forum feel so threatened in terms of ideas and criticisms that are being widely and openly discussed on other democratic forums like Common Dreams, Daily Kos, alternet, Democrats.com among many others?

[NYC Liberal]

21. No, it shouldn't be and that's not what I said.

First off, "Democratic ideals" is such a broad term that it's useless for any meaningful discussion. To say one does not support Democratic party principles could mean anything. Are we to go by the party platform? I am positive there are many things in there that many Democrats disagree on.

So no, I'm not talking about banning discussion of various candidates. I'm talking about people who don't support the Democratic party. At all. If you are more liberal or progressive than the Democratic party, if you feel like the Democratic party doesn't represent your views and want to leave it - that's fine. All I'm saying is that it seems to me like it's a waste of everyone's time for one to go to a website which is meant to be generally supportive of the Democratic party and its candidates and post nonstop criticism.

Quote

Why do people on this forum feel so threatened in terms of ideas and criticisms that are being widely and openly discussed on other democratic forums like Common Dreams, Daily Kos, alternet, Democrats.com among many others?

If you feel that that is the case, why not post there? This is one website with its own audience and slant. I'm not saying "get lost" to anyone who doesn't march in lockstep - I'm simply asking why anyone would waste their time on a site that they don't feel is open to them. :shrug:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

24. Is FISA

indefinite detention, renewing the Patriot act, surrounding yourself with the Wall Street guys that helped us get into the financial mess we are currently in, ignoring GLBT issues, escalating a losing proposition in Afghanistan and a sundry of other issues, progressive ideals? Thanks for the heads up on that.

[Buzz Clik]

7. Don'tTreadOnMe. Where have I seen that over and over again recently?

Oh, yeah. Tea Party protests.

http://www.jkevinparker.com/asset/1-dont-tread-on-me-jpg/

Probably just a coincidence.

[DontTreadOnMe]

8. Gee, I wonder if I joined with that name well before any Tea Party nonsense

But that's ok. I know where I stand... and it's a bad sign when DU members are attacking Progressives.

[Buzz Clik]

9. No shit. Several of us -- even on this thread -- have commented on it.

[NYC Liberal]

10. "I am running out of hope for change. And I am going to do something about... by not supporting the

Democratic Party anymore"

That's a quote from Mr. "DontTreadOnMe."

[DontTreadOnMe]

11. If you are going to quote me, you should at least post the full picture...

"I am ready for a third party Progressive candidate that supports my positions.
As a life-long voting Dem, the current Democratic Party is wearing thin in my household."

I am waiting for your "love or leave it" reply... or maybe even the "don't let the door hit you on the way out".
That is always a winning politcal strategy for a big tent party.

[NYC Liberal]

13. Um. Yeah. That isn't really any more preferable.

The way I quoted it made you look better, not worse.

[DontTreadOnMe]

14. Yes, you are correct...

posting any opinion that disagrees with the current Administration should be frowned upon and banned.

And you should drive away dissatisfied life-long Democratic voters too. That is a winning strategy.

[NYC Liberal]

16. This is a board specifically for people who support Democrats for office

If you do not support the Democratic party then, in all honesty, what are you doing on a website for people who do?

If I was a conservative who left the Republican party, I wouldn't be posted over at Freeperland constantly crying about how much I hate the Republican party, I'd go to a site that either supported the same kind of people and ideas that I did...or go to one that wasn't specifically meant to support one party/ideology over another and simply fostered debate.

So if I was a liberal/progressive who wanted to leave the Democratic party ... I wouldn't come to DU -- a website where members are expected to support Democratic candidates -- to constantly post about it.

[DontTreadOnMe]

18. So if you were unsatisfied with a politician you voted for, you would just go away?

I guess what I am saying to you, is I don't value your advise. But you can keep replying if you like.

[NYC Liberal]

20. No, I would go help the cause I supported

instead of simply attacking what I didn't.

Quote

I guess what I am saying to you, is I don't value your advise. But you can keep replying if you like.

Ok then, welcome to Ignore. Bye.

[DontTreadOnMe]

22. Either you are not paying attention or

you are IGNORING to see there are MANY others out there "complaining" as well. I am not sure which is worse for the country, the ignorant attitude that "all is well and give it more time" or the stubborn "cheerleaders" who refuse to admit any failure in many current policies (unemployment, Wall Street Accountability) or a complete lack of direction (war, healthcare) in the current Administration.

"Today, it's crucial to ask where Obama is heading. From the stimulus to healthcare, he's shown a Clinton-like willingness to roll over progressives in Congress on his way to corrupt legislation and frantic efforts to compromise for the votes of corporate Democrats or "moderate" Republicans. Meanwhile, the incredible shrinking "public option" has become a sick joke."

full article here: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/25-0

Note this paragraph and then come back and attack some progressives for being too critical...

"When you start in the center (on, say, healthcare or Afghanistan) and readily move rightward several steps to appease rightwing politicians or lobbyists or Generals, by definition you are governing as a conservative."

[Kdillard]

4. Disgusting and disappointing.

[Buzz Clik]

5. There will be a faction of DUers who will applaud this picture.

[slackmaster]

12. I think it's hilarious

:shrug:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. That graphic can easily be defended or attacked

It depends on the breadth of ones world-view and what one is trying to say.

If one thinks that the world revolves around the person and image of Barack Obama then the image is offensive.

If one thinks of Barack Obama as the current President of the United States of America, rather than as their personal savior or Moses in the bull-rushes of Morpheus from The Matrix, then the image makes a controversial but not intrinsically outlandish point.

To say that broad American interests are imperialistic is controversial, but not beyond the pale.

To say that our broad interests are so deep and intractable that all American presidents will be variations on a theme isn't even particularly controversial, or at least should not be. (For instance, Eisenhower's Military/Industrial complex speech wasn't a slap at the yet to born Barack Obama.)

But if a person happens to be a hyper-literal moron obsessed with Obama as some internalized component of his own ego then the image says, "Obama and Bush are exactly the same."

That is obviously false. Obama and Bush are not the same.

Is the image extreme, one-sided, lacking subtlety? YES. It is a fucking political cartoon. Duh.

It doesn't lack subtlety any more than the view that it fully equates Obama and Bush lacks subtlety.

The cartoon says that our leaders are different faces to a fundamental underlying reality of brute American interest that shapes every president.

That may or may not be true, but it is not a facially indefensible proposition.

[slackmaster]

19. IMO it only equates Obama and Bush on the subject of "imperialism"

As viewed from abroad from, say, Afghanistan or Iraq, it might make perfect sense.

[LWolf]

23. You're right. It's offensive. Why post it? nt