Firebagger Panel Disconnected with Reality

[jefferson_dem]

Firebagger Panel Disconnected with Reality
Posted on 06/18/2011 at 11:00 am by Bob Cesca

Several members of the firebagger high command appeared on a panel at Netroots Nation to beat their myopic unrealistic mythological drum about how President Obama is the worst president ever, etc, etc.

The panel was called “What to Do When the President is Just Not that Into You.” Yeah. Clever — two years ago. Ugh. Anyway, it was Dan Choi, John Aravosis of AmericaBlog and, naturally, Jane Hamsher collectively lying about the president’s record on, among other things, LGBT rights.

Dan Choi appeared on Lawrence O’Donnell last night to repeat all of the hyperbolic silliness about how the president has broken all of his promises to the gay community — an accusation that simply is not true. Here’s the video:

<SNIP>

Not a fierce advocate? Not that into you? Horseshit. Utter horseshit. In addition to the Obama administration deciding not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act because, in in the view of the Obama Justice Department, the law is unconstitutional, the president has also racked up the following LGBT achievements:

<SNIP>

http://bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2011/06/firebagger-panel-disconnected-with-reality.html

Here's a tiny sampling of the clownshow that is FDL:

I defy any Obama spokesperson to point out any meaningful difference between what Obama has done and what a President Romney would have done. :crazy:

http://bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2011/06/firebagger-panel-disconnected-with-reality.html

[AtomicKitten]

1. Quelle surprise that Jane Hamsher is on that panel.

Once a PUMA always a PUMA.

[Number23]

49. And the addition of John Aravosis just sweetens the pot of shit, don't it?

There isn't enough :puke: in the world for those two.

[Whisp]

56. oiy. pot of shit is so right.

how they bask in the shadows of lies and distortions.

[vaberella]

57. John Aravosis---is a bit pathetic. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

61. It's downright shovel-ready.

[William769]

2. Well Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

[jefferson_dem]

3. So not impressed with his record on equality, huh?

While there's still MUCH to be done, there's MUCH that has been done. To deny the most substantial advancements in the area of GLBT equality in our nation's history, made possible because we've had Democrats in charge, is just not right.

Signed repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell

Signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act

Reversed an inexcusable US position by signing the UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees in 2009 and, further, in 2010

Lifted the HIV Entry Ban effective January 2010

Issued diplomatic passports, and provided other benefits, to the partners of same-sex foreign service employees

Committed to ensuring that federal housing programs are open to all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity

Banned job discrimination based on gender identity throughout the Federal government (the nation’s largest employer)

Eliminated the discriminatory Census Bureau policy that kept gay relationships from being counted

Instructed HHS to require any hospital receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds (virtually all hospitals) to allow LGBT visitation rights

Required all grant applicants seeking HUD funding to comply with state and local anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBT individuals

Adopted transgender recommendations on the issuance of gender-appropriate passports that will ease barriers to safe travel and that will provide government-issued ID that avoids involuntary “outing” in situations requiring ID, like hiring, where a gender-appropriate driver’s license or birth certificate is not available

Extended domestic violence protections to LGBT victims

Extended the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover employees taking unpaid leave to care for the children of same-sex partners

Issued guidance specifically to assist LGBT tenants denied housing on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity

Cut back authority to discharge under Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell from hundreds of generals to just 6 civilian appointees, effectively ending discharges while working toward a permanent end to the policy.

Launched the first-ever national study of discrimination against members of the LGBT community in the rental and sale of housing

Determined that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, that discrimination against LGBT citizens should be subject to “heightened scrutiny” and that it will no longer defend this portion of the law in court.

Vacated a court order that would have deported a gay American’s Venezuelan partner

Endorsed the Baldwin-Lieberman bill, The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, to provide FULL partnership benefits to federal employees

Released the first Presidential PRIDE proclamations since 2000

Hosted the first LGBT Pride Month Celebration in White House history

Appointed the first ever transgender DNC member

Testified in favor of ENDA, the first time any official of any administration has testified in the Senate on ENDA

Hired more openly LGBT officials in its first two years – more than 150, including more than 20 “Senate-confirmables” – than any previous administration hired in four years or eight

Named open transgender appointees (the first President ever to do so)

Emphasized LGBT inclusion in everything from the President’s historic NAACP address (“The pain of discrimination is still felt in America. By African American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and a different gender …. By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights.”) … to the first paragraph of his Family Day proclamation (“Whether children are raised by two parents, a single parent, grandparents, a same-sex couple, or a guardian, families encourage us to do our best and enable us to accomplish great things”) and his Mothers Day proclamation (“Nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by two parents, a single mother, two mothers, a step-mom, a grandmother, or a guardian. Mother’s Day gives us an opportunity to celebrate these extraordinary caretakers”)

Spoke out against discrimination at the National Prayer Breakfast (“We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are – whether it’s here in the United States or, as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.”)

Dispatched the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to call on the Senate to repeal Don’t Ask / Don’t Tell

Publicly invited the shunned Mississippi high school prom student to the White House

Successfully fought for UN accreditation of IGLHRC (the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission) – against Republican attempts to block it

Awarded $13.3 million to the LA Gay & Lesbian Center to create a model program for LGBTQ youth in the foster care system

Hosted first-ever White House transgender policy meeting

See more here http://theobamadiary.com/2011/06/17/ah-yes-choi/

[William769]

5. Just not impressed with him period.

[jefferson_dem]

7. Same as it ever was.

Fair enough. :hi:

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[jefferson_dem]

6. If I felt the need to construct and/or use a term like "veal pen" to represent my feelings of worth

I'm not sure what tune I would ... or should ... be singing.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. But the term 'Firebagger' is out of the Oxford Dictionary?

I checked. It is not. It seems to be a recent construct created by one political faction to use as a derogatory against another political faction. If one is not part of one or the other faction, one might see the terms as six of one, half dozen of another. Becaue they are both constructs of the exact same nature and all. Although, one has been in use to describe 'free speech zones' at Bush events for sometime and the other is far more recent in origin. One is used to describe a place, the other to describe people, which is another difference an objective person might see, so one is a personal slam, the other is not. The use of words here is really interesting. Six. Half a dozen. All of that. At sixes and sevens. Goose and gander sauces. All of that.

[William769]

9. Would that be on the same line as...

oompa loompa?

[Mojorabbit]

16. plus 100 nt

[Jakes Progress]

64. Care to conjecture what would happen if someone used the term

BamaBaggger? Hmmmm. 3...2...

[jefferson_dem]

69. Others would look at him and wonder when he lost his grip on reality?

Firebagger, on the other hand, has actual meaning: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Firebagger&defid=4972615

[Jakes Progress]

70. Meaning is in use. Use it and it has meaning.

That is how language works. Sticking bagger on the end of a word is like sticking gate on the end of a word. It is sloppy and stupid. But I bet you wouldn't object to Hillbagger or Kuchbagger. I doubt some here would object to progressivebagger or any attempt to belittle and stifle actual progressive condemnation of the conservative leanings that are part of this administration. Nope. They would just say the person was crazy. Another shortcut that avoids addressing the issues.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[jefferson_dem]

28. I've got plenty to say...

but cannot spend all day responding to everyone who comments on one of my OPs. Sorry you feel personally troubled by that.

I do concede that the Obama administration has decided it will not "defend" DOMA and not that it will not "enforce" DOMA. I appreciate that distinction as a major one...for now at least...until the legal challenge become ripe. So the content in the OP is incorrect in that respect. Point taken.

But what about the rest? What about the administration's decision to not DEFEND DOMA? Do you not care about that? The one error in the OP that you drag around like a red herring does not negate the mountain of accomplishments on GLBT equality by this administration, which are neither refuted ... nor recognized ... by too many of his harshest (supposedly) progressive critics. For example, after railing non-stop, have you ever given POTUS and the Dems credit for initiating repeal of DADT?

The rest of your post is not worth responding to in particular. Frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about...and would suggest that it's not the writer I quote in the OP who "froths at the mouth".

[Bluenorthwest]

30. So this post which is calling others liars is lying about the key

issue being discussed. That is my point. Lying to call others liars is extremely low. To write inaccurately that a civil right is now in the hands of those who are in fact still fighting for it is irresponsible and vile, to do so while claiming others are being false is doubly wrong.
I'll skip the personal criticisms, as your opinion is that of a person who will post that DOMA is no longer enforced when it is and then sputter about other things when confronted with the actual facts.
The content of the OP is a lie, and the OP is calling others liars with his lie, that is called 'bearing false witness'.
If you want to talk about the realities, and get some praise for 'not defending DOMA' first the facts have to be in order. This routine where falsehoods are posted as truth is dishonest, and that can not be answered with the moderate speech you claim to desire. A harmful lie, no matter what the agenda of the person scribbling it, has to be shouted down. Why? Because you admit it is false, but downplay that fact. Many people would post a retraction as strong as the original if they realized that lies were being foisted to paint others as liars. That is not likely on DU. This post had an intention, and that intention was derailed by the mendacity of the author.
What you posted was factually false. Speak truth to me, you might get the same returned to you. Come on with hype and drama and improvised 'facts' to sell an attack on others and you will get nothing but the truth repeated to you.
It is disingenuous to post angry, false crap and then start spouting about another subject. This is not about me, this is about the facts, which are not present in the piece you posted. An author who would type that about DOMA would type anything about anything, to serve his angry rant, I think.
The key 'fact' in his piece was not true. The entire piece is thus invalid or at least highly suspect.
Just be honest. You'd be shocked to find what I think of some of that panel, and why. But let me tell you this, I will defend even an enemy against mendacious operatives. Yep.

[jefferson_dem]

31. "This is not about me, this is about the facts..."

I'm sorry that the tone of your posts suggest otherwise, as you conveniently overlook good faith gestures and fail to respond to any of the *other* facts presented.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. DOMA is still the enforced law of the land.

So how could I know that anything else this author wrote is true, if the basic facts he states are not true?
And the 'tone of my posts'? How about the veracity of the OP? Why the casual attitude toward false propaganda, negative writing about others using statements that are not true is frowned upon by most, very much so.
Posting falsehoods about my civil rights without posting a retraction is not what I call 'good faith'. This entire thread is bad faith, the OP is not truthful. DOMA is enforced, against us every day.
Sure, the pending end of DADT is a great thing. Everyone who had a part in it gets credit. Obama for sure, Lt Choi for sure.
Still, DOMA is the enforced law of the land. To say otherwise is so far from good faith that it is nudging up against full McClurkinsim.

[Zenlitened]

39. If you want a legitimate debate, start with a legitimate premise.

People have acknowledged and continue to acknowledge incremental progress, if only you care to see it.

But they are unlikely to do so in a thread that starts with an enormous falsehood (which you concede is both "major" and yet merely a "red herring") and which then proceeds to layer on sanctimony, hypocrisy and hostility.

Have there been genuine accomplishments the past three years? Yes. And to those who support Pres. Obama, the LGBT activist community says... you're welcome.

These are not gifts that Pres. Obama has deigned to give. These are the results of long years of hard work, as Pres. Obama himself acknowledges.

You ask: "What about the rest?"

Well, when the crowd that brought us the "didn't get a pony" garbage packages these accomplishments up in sneering put-downs, insinuating that each victory is somehow a defeat for the very people who stood up and fought to help make it all happen...

Well, what do you expect? Instant detente? Kumbayas and group-hugs for the very people who poisoned the whole discussion in the first place?

Now would be a good time for some of that "realism" we hear so much about.

Face it, some people have done so much damage that they can't credibly be part of the discussion anymore. And they're sure not going to win hearts and minds by coating Pres. Obama's actions with the kind of crap Cesca is layering on.

What about the rest? Find a way to separate it from the toxic attitude and outright lies, and we just might see people begin to filter back in to the conversation.

[jefferson_dem]

42. The "falsehood" in the amounts to one word: "enforce" rather than "defend".

That's it? Are you really happy to cling to that thin reed?

I do not want a debate. There's really nothing to debate, in my opinion. After all, we are ALL on the same team (as far as I'm concerned). I will celebrate the accomplishments, commending those who made them happen, all the while demanding more be done.

My problem is with those who spout asinine, fantasy-based assertions like "Obama is no different than Bush" or "We may as well vote for Romney". Even worse are those who recommend that people punish Obama and the Democrats by not voting, or voting third party, next year. Sorry, I have zero patience for that tripe and will call it out, by posting OPs like this one.

[Zenlitened]

43. Well, you've certainly made yourself very clear, and for that I thank you.

By gliding over the difference between "enforce" and "defend," you convince me that you don't take this issue very seriously at all.

The difference is profound, and profoundly affects the lives of gay and lesbian couples, and their families. each and every day.

And I simply can't take you seriously when you say "My problem is with those who spout asinine, fantasy-based assertions"... and then promise to continue posting garbage like the column in your OP.

We're never going to see eye-to-eye, I'm convinced, and that's okay. But please don't pretend you're doing the Democratic Party or Pres. Obama himself any favors with this sort of stuff.

You do a tremendous disservice, you really do.


Edit typo, "or" not "of"

[jefferson_dem]

44. Well, the feeling's mutual then.

Thanks for the lecture though.

In a post below, you dismissively say "Bob Cesca, whoever the hell he is." His wikipedia entry includes an interesting reference that you might want to consider. "About Cesca, Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks has said that "Bob's writing is totally fearless. That's what I love about it."" Indeed.

[johnaries]

12. "real" progressives? Are you familiar with the No True Scotsman

Fallacy?

Progressives support Progress. And although we may not have gotten everything we wanted under Obama, we have seen a great deal of Progress.

[Zenlitened]

10. The author of the article should try getting his facts correct.

The Obama administration did not, as the author claims, "decid(e) not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act."

Such an amateurish error makes him seem, if I may borrow the author's own terms, "ridiculous" not to mention "whining, lying" and not in the least bit "realistic."

[johnaries]

13. Perhaps you should get your facts straight. It most certainly DID!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/02/president-obama-instructs-justice-department-to-stop-defending-defense-of-marriage-act-calls-clinton.html

[Zenlitened]

15. Educate yourself, please. This is a vitally important issue.

It is true that, as per your link:

President Obama has instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of (a portion of) the Defense of Marriage Act...

That is NOT the same as as "deciding not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act," as the author cited in the OP claimed.

The difference is profound, and profoundly impacts the lives of gay and lesbian couples to this day, to this very moment.

The injustices imposed by DOMA remain in place even as we speak.

There is much, much more work to be done.

[johnaries]

20. Because only Congress can repeal DOMA, and only the courts

can declare it unConstitutional. Yes, we still have work to do, but you can't blame this on Obama, either.

[johnaries]

21. The NYT article he links to clearly says

that the Obama Administration is "refusing to defend the law". So you should be blaming the New York Times, not Cesca.

But even by not defending only the Constitutionality of DOMA leaves it open for the courts to declare it unConstitutional. Obama has called upon Congress to repeal the law, but that seems unlikely. By refusing to defend the Constitutionality it is much more likely to be declared unConstitutional by the courts before we can expect Congress to repeal the law.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. To 'not defend part of DOMA' is absolutely not the same as

'not enforcing DOMA'. To say that it is is a lie. Got that? That is the law which prevents equality and it is most certainly enforced, it is the law of the land.
This cavalier desire to make false claims which millions of people know are false because of our daily lives is a hell of a thing to do. When one is a member of the majority and the majority is imposing an injustice, to claim falsely that injustice has ended is a vicious, hateful thing to do. Understand? Vicious and hateful thing to do.

[Zenlitened]

37. This is the problem right here: Why can't you just admit you were wrong, the OP was wrong?

I know perfectly well what the Obama administration decided, what the implications will be for the continuing fight against DOMA... and how the media reports on the topic.

I'm not asking for further schooling on the matter. Nor am I willing to allow a bloviating jackass like Cesca to hide behind the skirts of the NYT, because from the quote you shared it appears the NYT got it right, while Cesca is a whining little liar who won't let basic facts get in the way of an insulting tirade.

But how about you? Can you just acknowledge that Cesca's lie, which you apparently bought into, is a gross misrepresentation of the current environment that gay and lesbian couples live in?

And that, just maybe, the problem here is people like Cesca, not the LGBT community and its supporters?

[jefferson_dem]

41. Ha...

Funny. I admit that the "enforce" is incorrect and should be replaced with "defend". Fine.

Does that negate the meaningful progress that "the Administration will not defend DOMA" represents? Of course not. Does that negate the enormous list of other accomplishments identified in Cesca's post, that nobody refutes. Of course not.

The problem here is not Cesca. Nice try, though. The problem here is the failure of some to recognize...or admit real GLBT progress on the one hand and the real GLBT challenges that lie ahead on the other.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. Wow. The goal of this civil rights battle is the end of DOMA

Cesca claims that DOMA is already not being enforced, in fact he says this was a decision made and deployed by the administration. Then Cesca ponders why the gays are so unwilling to give credit for DOMA not being enforced. ]
The words 'defend' and 'enforce' do not have close meanings. The author selected the word 'enforced' in order to make Choi seem like a huge ingrate, not like a man who was abused by his nation. The author declares without basis that the law we want to change has been changed. He is a 'professional writer' and the first job a writer has is picking the right word. If nothing else, Cesca fails on such a basic level that one thinks of the word 'remedial' in terms of the education he needs.
I'd love to see Cesca say to Choi's face that DOMA is not enforced and call Choi a liar. The furious typing of falsehoods is one thing. Would he have the stones to stand up and say in public "DOMA is no longer enforced, you liar."? Of course not. This is all about slandering good people like Dan to get some web traffic. The truth matters not.
And this falsehood is both about the law, those fighting the law, and about Obama. The OP article claims falsely that Obama has done what he has not done. So the author is lying about the President, and that, even the most ardent supporters should take issue with.
Making false claims while wrapping your rhetorical arm around the President's shoulder is a misuse of the President.
But this has never been about 'supporting Obama' obviously. His name is a prop to use on the way to calling some blogger names. I find that sort of tacky.

[johnaries]

46. Hold on now, I am a huge supporter of the LGBT community

as all my LGBT friends and co-workers will attest. One of them even calls me a "male Lesbian". And may I remeind you that the the LGBT community is quite diverse and not one person or group speaks for the whole community.

The whole point of the OP was that Obama has been a friend to the LGBT community, not an enemy. And most of my friends agree.

Yes, there is still a long way to go and a lot to still be accomplished. But we won't accomplish it by turning on those who are actually trying to help.

[Zenlitened]

58. My point is, stuff like this article... it's no help at all.

And I doubt people like Cesca even care about helping, actually.

I mean, they take a list of actions taken by Pres. Obama, then wrap it up in smirking insults, poisonous insinuations and (in this case) even an outright lie.

It's a shit sandwich, with the shit on the outside. And they wonder why people don't scarf it down? :shrug:

Look, I am glad you support the LGBT community. Society-wide support is crucial in every civil rights movement.

But people who take Cesca's approach are an entirely different story, it seems to me. I don't think they really give a damn about LGBT civil rights, I think they're more interested in feeling "victorious" over someone who sees the political situation differently than they do.

How else to explain the browbeating, the crowing, haranguing, condescending tone of their words? The easy, often scornful, dismissal of the realities experienced by GLBT citizens each and every day?

That's not support. That's a stab in the back, delivered with a sneering smile.

And yet, amazingly, these people seem to think they're doing Pres. Obama some sort of favor. They imagine, apparently, that they're gathering support and votes come 2012.

When, in fact, they've been the prime drivers of alienation right from the start. By greeting any and every expression of concern or criticism, however heartfelt, with a blitzkrieg of snide retorts and reflexive denials, they've fanned the flames every step of the way.

And now they wonder why we all find ourselves in the midst of a conflagration of ill will?

Believe me, "support" like theirs isn't doing anyone any good at all. Not the LGBT community, not the President, not the Democratic party, not DU itself.

The whole "you're an idiot now vote for me!" approach has been a complete failure, as we've seen since at least January of 2010.

Let's do better, huh?

[Bluenorthwest]

27. So we can now file joint returns? If I die, my partner will now

get my Social Security benefits, like straight couples? The answer is not we can not, because DOMA is still the law of the land, in full force. Stating otherwise is a cheap and dishonest tactic that will not fly with anyone who is harmed by the law.

[CakeGrrl]

11. Wow, they really wouldn't mind trying out a President Romney?

People had better take care not to follow these misguided people out to the fringe and over a cliff. That will not work out well for LGBT interests. Choi made the outlandish claim that President Obama was "the worst President ever" when it came to breaking promises to the LGBT community. Total disconnect with reality and a claim that it would be fascinating to see him try to prove.

[Safetykitten]

17. Will you leave a trail of crumbs for us? OH NOES! The C L I F F!

[CakeGrrl]

18. Hopefully reason will prevail and there'll be no need. -nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. BooMan, and several other "former" attendees have some very interesting takes on this affair.

Well worth the read. :rofl: Especially about the High Priestess of Progressivism. :rofl:

[liberalpragmatist]

19. In fairness, that FDL diary is just that...

... I'm no fan of FDL or Jane Hamsher, but what you posted is basically a community diary, not a posting by one of FDL's actual bloggers.

[jefferson_dem]

23. Fair enough.

Here's a link to the diary with the quote above: http://my.firedoglake.com/scarecrow/2011/06/17/at-nn11-white-house-propagandist-pfeiffer-preps-for-president-romney/

If anyone has questions about the leanings of the FDL community, I encourage they read it...and the cesspool of Obama-hate vitriol that follows in the comments. "You got that right. We should start a movement called “Progressives for Romney!” Seriously!"

[Bluenorthwest]

26. I have questions about the veracity of the OP you posted.

Such as, why is it chock full of falsehoods? You are claiming that DOMA is not in effect, not being enforced? That is a lie. DOMA is in full force as the law of this land, as demanded by the Straight Community.
The poster above pointed out the other 'technique' being used here, Tail Gunner Joe style. JD. If I were to judge any group by what an alleged single member posts on some web board, I would start with one so vile that I have never even mentioned it here, about burning gay bars and throwing acid in our faces, which was on a website for a certain Democratic candidate, along with dozens nodding along. Now, as a good Democrat, I assumed that the candidate would be appalled, informed them, and moved on. I most certainly did not decide that that insanity was representative of the candidate's supporters, and of course did not run around the internet trying to link the candidate or those who supported him at the time to the horrible crap some nutter posted.
When an OP like this is posted, with false information, hyperbole and all you can eat dramatics, I do not assume that anyone but you and the author support telling lies about vital issues. It is yours, and it is his, but it is not 'the DU community'. Not 'Democrats'. Our posts define ourselves, not our neighbors.
Here is another question for you. If this tactic is alright, then I assume that it is also alright to tie the words of Donnie McClurkin to the OFA community, just full tilt say 'that cesspool believes this' because you know, Mr 'gays are vampires' was an actual surrogate to Obama. Do you think the method and standards you are using here should be applied to Obama and to yourself? So when I post a quote with McClurkin calling for war on gay people, it would be fair to say 'look at the leanings of the moderate centrists and the OFA!'?
Which is it? Post a quote and play 'guilt by association'? Or is that not right?

[jefferson_dem]

29. Be honest.

It's not a single member at FDL. It's their mission...as often expressed by its founder...which is fine...but they deserve to be called out for it.

If your description accurately reflects what you saw (regarding burning gay bars, etc), I would be as disgusted as you seem to be.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. The posted OP states falsely that DOMA is no longer enforced.

And you have the nerve to say that to me? Why not address what I have said to you, rather than change the subject? Those who write false information about very important issues are liars. To say DOMA is no longer enforced is a full tilt lie, a huge fabrication told to an agenda, that agenda included questioning the honesty of others. Just as you are doing here to me. I call out the falsehoods in the OP and you ask me to be honest? The irony is thick. The standard so doubled that it seems to indicate a deeper agenda, the high emotion of the author as he types false information also suggests that he has a bee in his bonnet of some kind.
Calling out a liar with a lie just makes two liars. So if you think you have some group to 'call out' for lack of veracity, try doing so with truthful, factual, accurate information. It might work magic for you. Unless your objective is just to make trouble, it seems that the basic facts should be facts, and if they are not, there should be apologies, not more mud flung at those who point out the actual truth of the matter.
The civil rights battle of our time, and this author claims it has been won when it has not been won. What do you think his objective is in doing that? Or was it just sloppy, careless work, is that what you think? To me, it sounds like he wanted to rationalize his own petty anger, and said whatever he thought would play.
He claims to be upset that no credit is given for something that did not happen at all. Thus, his emotions are not truthful either. Does he think we should use a time machine travel to the future, see DOMA repealed, come back and deliver 'pre praise'? Or what? When some twerp claims the only way to be a good Democrat is to thank people for things they have not done, what is the agenda there? A Catch 22. Lie with me or you are disloyal.
Be honest? I am honest. The OP is not, not even close, it is dishonest about deeply important matters, if the author does not know the facts, he should not be reacting like this, nor even writing on the subject at all. One assumes, JD, that the author has the Google.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Bluenorthwest]

36. I don't talk about the mods nor do I point out deleted posts

as I have been told that for at least some of us, that is against the rules. Also, questioning the motives of other DUers is allegedly against the rules as is 'discussing DUers instead of issues'.
The fact that the OP article includes false statements while accusing others of the same is my entire point. When a person resorts to falsehoods to sell some political point of view, that is wrong. There is entirely too much of that on DU. It destroys all chances for common ground, for actual discussion. We have to start with honesty and truth. I'm sure you would agree with that. Perhaps in future there might be some consideration for veracity before posting? I am fairly sure that you are aware that DOMA is still the enforced law, so either you let that slide or you did not read the piece well. Either way, we need to cease with the hyperbole and also with the mendacity. Look at the thread. There are arguments being made that DOMA is no longer the law. And who corrects them? Who should correct them, once the meat is on the table?

[Jakes Progress]

63. "seem to be"?

What kind of shit is that? Shame.

[jefferson_dem]

66. Oh please.

Get a grip. Shame on yourself for concocting some bullshit innuendo to stir up shit.

[Jakes Progress]

67. Shame goes the other way.

I didn't concoct the innuendo. You wrote it. Why did you decide to say the poster "seemed" to be disgusted? You could have said "I would be as disgusted as you" but you had to demean his position and show doubt as to his motive. You even start out by suggesting that he is not telling the truth when you headline your post "Be honest".

Suppose I ask you to be honest and fess up to your shoddy words. You could apologize to the poster and say you thumb slipped and that you did not mean to question his veracity. Words matter. You chose the ones you wrote. If your words are just haphazard and have no real meaning, why write? The shame and bullshit are in your court.

[jefferson_dem]

68. While you may be happy to ascribe attitudes of "disgust" onto others, I am not.

It's not his motives I am questioning.

[Jakes Progress]

71. Say what? Nice bit of babble there. I was using your own words.

They are the words you chose to write. Here again you love being cryptic. If you weren't questioning his motives when you said he "seemed" to be disgusted, what were you questioning?

Look. You got caught speaking your mind. The fact that you seem ashamed of what you were thinking is the first step towards getting better. The next would be to not dodge, duck and twist what you said to avoid accountability. Just fess up and apologize.

[jefferson_dem]

72. Hey...

Again, you are projecting your shame my way. Not interested. Thanks anyway.

Here. I will provide a bit of emphasis so that, hopefully, you will better understand my point. "It's not his motives I am questioning."

[Jakes Progress]

73. Duck and dodge your own words if you feel the need.

You told Bluenorthwest that you "would be as disgusted as you seem to be"

Do you need emphasis to show you what you yourself said.

There is no shame here. I'm asking you to apologize toe Bluenorthwest for your disgusting and shameful statement. You don't have to apologize to me for playing word games and trying to duck responsibility for your own words. I'm happy to help you see your behavior in the light of real language.

[intaglio]

22. Call these fools what they are - Catspaws

They are playing the game of the big corporations who know that the only way Obama and the Democratic party will loose the next election is if the Democratic vote is suppressed.

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. +1. That's exactly right. I've always suspected that FDL's mission is to

take out Obama (from the left). The good news, however, is that Hamsher's reach is very narrow. But, by the same token, she can create the illusion that all of the left is disillusioned with the administration, and that's all the M$M needs to create the narrative.

[baldguy]

35. So, what are people supposed to do when their supposed leader doesn't go where they want him to go?

[phleshdef]

38. Jane Hamsher has that mean spirited, fact ignoring, Coulter quality that progressives should reject.

[Zenlitened]

40. So does "Bob Cesca," whoever the hell he is. Why is his garbage being posted on DU? - n/t

[johnaries]

50. "Cesca writes weekly columns in The Huffington Post, which he has written since August 2005

About Cesca, Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks has said that "Bob's writing is totally fearless. That's what I love about it."

-Wikipedia

[southernyankeebelle]

45. I saw Chio's reaction at Neetroots. I was very disappointed in him. He

acted totally like a child. Shame on him.

[alcibiades_mystery]

48. Hamsher is a Clintonite idiot

The bottom line for her is this: Obama "stole" the nomination from her hero Hillary.

Everything else she says is just a way of "punishing" him for doing that. She has no substance other than that. She is like many other people we see every day in that respect. Whatever she happens to be saying on any given day, its real and ultimate translation is "Obama stole the nomination from Hillary."

It's precisely the reason she - and her imitators elsewhere - can't be taken seriously.

[jenmito]

51. It's hard to understand how she could've supported someone less liberal than Obama. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

52. +1

:applause:

[Bluenorthwest]

54. This article falsly claims that DOMA is not enforced.

The article poses a lie, then feigns amazement that there are no celebrations of this event that has not happened. The entire premise of the piece is fake, the key point he makes is not true. The end of DOMA is the goal and while it is still enforced, to say that it is not is about the worst sort of lie that can be told. To tell that lie while shouting 'horse shit' at others is stunningly self serving.
DU rules allow people to post without veracity and it is up to the members to point out the lies. This lie is being pointed out. DOMA is still enforced and anyone who says otherwise is not being truthful, nor are they respectful of the issue at hand.

[jefferson_dem]

60. Yes, we know.

That much has been stipulated. I realize that you are totally captivated by that one word ("enforce" :scared:) ... while conveniently side-stepping the thrust of the OP.

What about the mega-derangement that exists full-scale at FDL, and what about the *lies* and hyperbole routinely promulgated by some of Obama's most rabid (supposedly "progressive") detractors? What about the fact that the Obama Administration will not *defend* DOMA? What about the other accomplishments...and those who refuse to acknowledge they exist and that the only way we advance the agenda further forward is by re-electing OBAMA next year? Hmmm...

[Whisp]

55. it seems you can't refer to any list of accomplishments that Obama

has made for LGBTs. Some people here think it's a homophobic insult to do that.

figure the fuck that one out.

==
on edit:
''has made for the LGBTs.''
I changed and took out the 'the' because I think that may offend someone for some reason. Be careful what you say.

[Zenlitened]

59. No, it's the homphobic insults that people think are homophobic insults. - n/t

[banned from Kos]

62. Great! Just the use of the term "firebagger" is a no-go

on some sites I will not mention!

Thanks for the distinction/honesty/warning!

[cecilfirefox]

65. President Obama is a GREAT President- who has helped our community immensely.

I, for one, support him 100%.