Time to cut the crap. Obama Derangement Syndrome doesn't really exist.

[last1standing]

I know there are those who really, really, really want to pin any disagreement with Obama on some little known ailment (vaguely connected to racism) that causes otherwise sensible people to froth at the mouth, scrape their knuckles on the pavement, and pine for Ole Dixie, but it doesn't exist.

It definitely doesn't exist on at Democratic Underground. The posters here who disagree with Obama do so because we believe that the policies of the center-right have failed, not because, after promoting equality and respect for many years, we found we can't stand seeing a black man in the White House. We objected when Bill Clinton moved to the right and we object when Obama does it now.

Even republicans aren't affected with ODS. I'm not saying many republican's aren't racist, we all know many are. But they aren't doing anything today they didn't try to do twenty years ago when Clinton held the White House. Does anyone remember how the right savaged Hillary during the health-care debate? Travel-gate? Whitewater-gate? Trooper-gate? Foster-gate? Monica-gate? The republicans tied up most of Clinton's agenda with phony scandals and controversies. They shut down the government. They impeached him. The only reason they didn't filibuster him to death is because they had the majority in both houses for nearly his entire tenure.

So let's cut the dishonest, race-baiting, crap over non-existent Obama Derangement Syndrome. When Democrats object to Obama's agenda it's because we don't agree with center-right policies. We've seen them fail under republicans and we've seen the fail under Democrats. We're tired of watching the same old schemes in which the government throws money at the 1% in the hopes that they'll give a little bit back fail. We're tired of invading every small country that hasn't figured out how to build a nuclear device. We're tired of privatizing essential services and we're tired of fighting to keep what little bit of security is still left for our seniors and disabled citizens. When republicans object to Obama's agenda they're doing it so that they can make him, and the party, look weak so they can win elections and get more campaign funds.

From this point it's important to call out the ODS smear for what it is. It is nothing more than a way for those who cannot defend Obama's policies on their merits to attack his critics as racists and that has no place at DU.

TL;DR: It's not about Obama, it's about his policies.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Oh, my. No such thing as ODS. So it's really all about reverse ODS.

Well, thanks for that.

[last1standing]

3. No. I don't need to make up imaginary mental disorders to make my points.

I can explain why center-right policies don't work based on history, economics, strategy and societal relationships. I don't need to call you a racist or insult because I believe in what I'm saying.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Pardon me, but when exactly did I call you a racist?

*checks recent posts*

No, I don't believe I did. What are you talking about?

[last1standing]

8. I never said you did. I'm responding to your claim that I accused others of "reverse ODS."

n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

15. That's pretty much what you are saying in the OP.

It's not that ODS exists, according to you. It's that "reverse ODS" as a tactic to blunt real criticism exists and up with which you will no longer put.

You are certainly accusing someone of calling you a racist and swinging that broad brush around in wide circles. I am glad to know you did not mean me.

[last1standing]

31. That's not setting up a new insult, it's only tearing down the original one.

The whole ODS myth is a way of claiming that there's no good reason to criticize Obama's policies from the left so we must be mentally disturbed - usually because we can't stand African-Americans. That's not only bullshit but it's also designed to make people afraid to express their opinions for fear of being called out for racism.

And no, I really don't mean you - if you haven't be spreading the ODS myth.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. But that is how the right uses the sham accusation of "reverse racism."

In order to deflect from their actual racist policies, they cry reverse racism and race card every time their racist policies are pointed out. There is no actual racism in America these days, they cry. It's all reverse racism, meant for political and economic gain.

And that is what you are doing here in parallel. (Claims of ODS are NOT equal to claims of racism, by the way. You are importing that.) By saying people who see ODS are the actual insulters, the actual fomenters of distrust and disharmony, and all for political gain, you are making a cry of reverse ODS.

What the heck else is the insult of Obamabot (used by others to be sure) meant to convey? Reverse ODS. It is exactly what you are saying here. The deranged ones - no, the diabolical ones - are the ones making a "false" claim of ODS.

[Laelth]

236. Astute observation.

Credit where it is due.

-Laelth

[Bradical79]

311. Racism is implied by those who throw around Paulbot accusations

because the term itself "Paulbot" implies mindless following of a well known politician who is considered racist by the majority of people here as far as I can tell. At least that's how I see it as a thinly veiled attempt to imply that Obama critics are right wing libertarian racists. Though the reality is that most of who criticized the president are closer to the opposite end of the spectrum (liberal social-democrats). It's not just insulting in it's implication of mindless obedience, it's also dishonest in it's attribution of affiliation. It's so intentionally dishonest it's very easy to think of people throwing around the term as unethical party loyalists who don't give a damn about real issues beyond party image.

[Bolo Boffin]

372. The Paulbot insult wasn't mentioned in the OP.

So you're moving the goalposts a bit. Can we also include the numerous insults and snide insinuation tossed by the Obama policy critics our way? It seems to me that you guys can't take what you love to dish out. For example: see your highly insulting, buzzword-laden post I'm choosing to respond to here. Boy, you guys love dishing out the insults in rules-friendly ways.

Let's face it: this is not your DU or mine. It's ours. Some of us are upset over Obama policies that seem at times to be more than just having to deal with a recalcitrant Constitutional system of government. Some of us are upset over Obama criticism that seems at times to be more like focused, unmitigated hate. For example, I myself was disappointed over Larry Summers being the presumptive nominee for the Fed chair. But he wasn't the Fifth Horseman. Even Krugman, no fan of Larry Summers, knew he was better by a long shot than a lot of people out there.

But Barack Obama supporters aren't leaving here and neither are Obama policy critics - especially since there are many people here in both camps. It's not a sign of a lack of ethics or morals to have the President's back. It's not a sign of a lack of loyalty or honor to criticize the President's policies. And until both camps stop framing the other side in these bullshit ways, the great DU Purity War of 2013 is never going to be resolved.

[intaglio]

181. No-one called you a racist

despite your claim they did.

Read Nance Rants and look at yourself and others

http://www.democratsforprogress.com/tag/nance-rants/

[last1standing]

362. No thanks. I had enough of her when she was here.

n/t

[intaglio]

364. You mean one of the most respected early members of DU

Someone who has been consistently Democratic. Someone with a deep moral sense and sense of the ridiculous. Someone who has worked as a campaign volunteer ...

Nice to see how inclusiveness and open mindedness seem to be beyond you.

[Enthusiast]

375. How does she feel about the TPP?

The proposal that we strike Syria? Chained CPI? Allowing the bank fraudsters to go untouched?

[intaglio]

376. Read her blog

Oh, and will you require everyone passes your personal purity test before they can post?

Divisive nonsense, what we all expect from the outrage junkies.

[Enthusiast]

412. Oh, they can post.

I just won't support or vote for their candidates that believe in things like Chained CPI, a strike in Syria or the TPP. And I will tell everyone I know that such candidates are not your friends, they represent the greedy corporations.

[awoke_in_2003]

382. That says volumes about you. nt

[RetroLounge]

436. Why read her?

Has she figured out what the word "apologist" means yet?



RL

[intaglio]

439. Have you?

Many people use the word inaccurately because they base their understanding in the English word and not the Greek root. Misuse of one word of allowable, misuse of intellect is another.

[RetroLounge]

441. ...

RL

[sabrina 1]

38. Do you have anything to say about the substance of this OP, such as

the fact, and it is a fact, that people have serious concerns about Right Wing Policies being kept in place and sometimes even enhanced by the Dem Party Leadership that they worked so hard to elect to do the EXACT OPPOSITE.

Can you explain why we have so many Republicans in a Democratic Cabinet?

Can you explain why Bush policies are still in place?

Can you put personalities OUT of your mind for a second and focus on what is important to this COUNTRY, not to any individual politician? Because here are the facts. The average American is too busy trying to put food on their chidren's tables to care much about any individual politician. What they care about is how to provide a decent living for themselves and their families.

I look forwar to some on topic, non personality based discussion.

[Bolo Boffin]

100. I don't find this OP, based as it is on horseshit, to have any substance.

The overreach is too egregious.

[sabrina 1]

110. I find plenty of substance in this OP. It is clearly pointing out that people are

genuinely concerned about issues that AFFECT THEIR LIVES and the LIVES OF THEIR FAMILIES and that when a Government is pushing policies that adversely affect them and their families, speaking out against those policies is the DUTY of citizens. And anyone who stupidly attempts to connect the genuine concerns of citizens to some kind of mental illness is simply deranged in itself.

Is this tactic supposed to win votes for Democrats? Slamming life long Democrats with riiculous nonsense that no sane person is going to believe, but which seems filled with anger for no obvious reason?

[Bolo Boffin]

131. "Slamming life long Democrats with riiculous nonsense that no sane person is going to believe"

Slamming life long Democrats with ridiculous nonsense that no sane person is going to believe, but which seems filled with anger for no obvious reason?

A better description of the OP I could not hope to make. Thank you, sabrina 1.

[Bobbie Jo]

266. +1000

[Dawgs]

346. Are you denying that many DUers have OFTEN called those critical of Obama policies racists? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

373. Are you denying that many DUers have OFTEN called people supporting the President center-right

infiltrators or mindless sheep?

[Dawgs]

413. I'll take your non response as confirmation of your ignorance.

Thanks for giving me what I expected.

And no, I don't deny that many DUers have OFTEN called people center-right or mindless sheep.

[Bolo Boffin]

423. Wow, your ability to avoid my point is circus-worthy. n/t

[Dawgs]

424. You answered my initial Q with a Q and you're accusing me of avoiding.

Classic.

[Bolo Boffin]

425. You asked a question for which you had no reason from my posts to ask.

Where in any of my posts do I say there are no accusations of racism here at DU? Nowhere. You're using a distracting tactic. And when I just sent it back to you, you objected.

[Dawgs]

426. In the post I responded to - that's where. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

427. This is simply false.

I do not say anything of the sort in the post you responded to. Your apology to me should be in your very next response to me.

[creeksneakers2]

394. I've never seen the racist accusation

I've lost count of all the persecution fantasy threads talking about regular Obama critics being called racist. I don't deny its happened, but its not many DUers and its not often. I've been called lots of names here by regular Obama critics. That's how the Internet is and its a waste of time and self respect to make a big deal about it.

[sibelian]

418. It was all over the place during the initial stages of the Snowden narrative.

Several of the BOG were responsible.

[intaglio]

182. Yup, unnecessary caps makes you right

You are so concerned that you ignore the actual benefits that the President has made available to normal people.

[LaydeeBug]

249. This might be the best post EVER.

I can't believe how people will insinuate that you are some sort of interloper just for trying.

[L0oniX]

277. +1

[Hydra]

288. Thanks for trying

But the belief is stronger than the facts.

[GoneFishin]

305. Very well stated Sabrina 1. +1000 nt

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

338. "Even Republicans don't have Obama Derangement Syndrome"

Bullshit. Post worthless.

[sabrina 1]

341. You know every Republican in the country?? I know Republicans who VOTED

for Obama and are quite pleased that they did. I know Republicans who are part of Obama's cabinet, quite a few of them actually.

So what is 'bullshit' about stating facts?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

342. The vast majority hate him

They think he's from Kenya, is a Muslim, etc etc....but no, I guess the polls that get released showing things like that are to simply be ignored.

The OP essentially stated all Republicans don't have ODS. Can't even admit a few do. Even saying Ted Cruz doesn't.

Worthless fucking post. I had to drive behind some asshole with a "I'm not a racist, I hate Obama's white half too" sticker the other day. Guess I should have just tried to have a meaningful conversation on the issues with the guy if I ever run into him, like all you naive types apparently do.

[last1standing]

363. I can't admit it because there is no such fucking disease. It's made up.

You're talking about racism but trying to obscure it with a different name. That doesn't help anyone.

The amazing thing is that so many here are demanding that the rest of us submit to believing in a mythological illness. If anything, that's an illness in itself.

[RedFury]

422. As do I....

although my main stomping grounds is the SDMB, I see the same thing happening there, what with hard core Republicans "crowing" about Obama's policies. Meanwhile many a liberal/Dem simply defends anything/everything Obama does on the grounds that he is a Democrat. And I mean things, that if done by Bush or his ilk would have them foaming at the mouth.

The recent and on-going Syria kerfuffle just the latest example. Just the spin on the whole issue gives me the vapors...

McCain and Obama almost hand-in-hand approach on how to deal with it (bombs of course. What else?) makes me sick.

[sabrina 1]

429. Good post. I think it's become clear that people on all sides are sick of the 'black and white'

rhetoric we've been subjected to over the past several decades and are now moving away from contributing to it anymore, as to be honest, I personally did at one time.

But then I looked around in RL and realized that many good people I know who were Republicans were just as angry at THEIR party as we were. To demonize half the country, which is what extremists do on both sides, isn't making much sense anymore.

IF Democrats had used their enormous poitical capital starting in Jan. 2009, this would be a different country today. But instead we watched as the old Bush policies we voted against, remained in place. If the Dem Party doesn't take the disillusionment of millions of Democrats seriously, I don't know what the result will be over the next decade. But one thing is certain, things WILL change because for far too many people around the world, the status quo just isn't working.

[Mellow Drama]

411. I agree to a point, but there IS a larger picture

We need to ensure the progressive nature of our society is advanced, and in some ways our families must adapt. Too often heretics like the republicans bleat that the government is affecting their families with policies, but keep in mind these policies are directed to the greater good, and must be a major factor in consideration.

[Scuba]

200. +1,000

[grahamhgreen]

240. Yup

[JoePhilly]

2. So we've invaded a few small countries huh?

See, when you make a false claim like that one, some might question your motives.

[last1standing]

5. Are Libya and Yemen small enough for you?

When calling someone a liar, perhaps you should know what they're talking about first? I also wasn't speaking only of Obama but of the many countries we've invaded since Reagan started us on this love-affair with the center-right.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

10. But the topic is Obama isn't it.

[joshcryer]

16. We invaded Libya and Yemen?

Fascinating.

[last1standing]

25. Yes. We did.

n/t

[joshcryer]

30. In what bases are our occupying forces, might I ask?

[last1standing]

34. In my opinion, drone attacks count as invasions.

As does launching missiles from ships. You don't have to agree on that but I hope we can agree that two people can see things differently and yet neither of them be racist or mentally disturbed.

[joshcryer]

40. I absolutely agree that drone attacks would be illegal internationally.

But since the states in which they are operating appear to be complicit no charges have yet been filed.

I do not consider operating in concert with US interests "an invasion."

[dkf]

188. What is the "US interest" pray tell?

No threat to us that I could see ergo no "US interests".

[joshcryer]

190. Whatever states agree to allow US drone attacks.

That is US interests. I do not say that US interests are moral or even legal. I merely point out that those states are aligned with US interests, ie, CIA, NSA, drone attacks.

The International Criminal Court would be open to allegations of war crimes, but Yemen or Pakistan doesn't ever bring those charges.

I wonder why? Maybe because both states allow US bases to launch the drones to begin with?

[dkf]

191. We are not participants in the ICC.

Moreover Obama want to shield Bush from the ICC.

Obama DOJ Asks Court to Grant Immunity to George W. Bush For Iraq War

In court papers filed today (PDF), the United States Department of Justice requested that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz be granted procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law.

Plaintiff Sundus Shaker Saleh, an Iraqi single mother and refugee now living in Jordan, filed a complaint in March 2013 in San Francisco federal court alleging that the planning and waging of the war constituted a “crime of aggression” against Iraq, a legal theory that was used by the Nuremberg Tribunal to convict Nazi war criminals after World War II.

“The DOJ claims that in planning and waging the Iraq War, ex-President Bush and key members of his Administration were acting within the legitimate scope of their employment and are thus immune from suit,” chief counsel Inder Comar of Comar Law said.

The “Westfall Act certification,” submitted pursuant to the Westfall Act of 1988, permits the Attorney General, at his or her discretion, to substitute the United States as the defendant and essentially grant absolute immunity to government employees for actions taken within the scope of their employment.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-doj-asks-court-to-grant-immunity-to-george-w-bush-for-iraq-war/5346637

[joshcryer]

399. We don't have to be.

If the crime takes place in a territory of one who has signed or who agrees that the ICC has jurisdiction (this means that even the middle east states that haven't signed can still give the ICC jurisdiction).

It doesn't happen because those states are complicit, simple. The drones can't fly very far and can easily be shot down. The states in question are allowing them if not actively working for them.

[dkf]

404. The hypocrisy stinks.

It's too much for me.

[joshcryer]

407. Some Pakistani politicans want to shoot them down.

But the idea doesn't have traction with the armed forces there.

So not everyone is hypocritical.

[Cali_Democrat]

365. No we didn't

That's utterly absurd. I was opposed to US strikes against Libya, but that was no invasion.

You're being extremely dishonest.

[intaglio]

185. No invasion, so that is a lie

Libya strikes helped get the nasty little dictator Gaddhafi out of power whilst the Yemeni government supports the drone strikes against persons they regard as insurgents.

Of course if you are a supporter of Gaddhafi you will be very upset.

[last1standing]

220. dfk proved you wrong about this so will you apologize for calling me a liar?

n/t

[intaglio]

321. There was no invasion

Therefore your observation about an invasion is a lie.

If you wish to include airstrikes within your definition of invasion please inform me if you think that the UK was invaded by Germany in 1940.

Do you think that Japan invaded Hawaii in 1942?

Do you also believe that al Qaeda invaded the USA on 9/11?

If you wish to include special forces and terrorists as being an invasion then why is it the invasion of France occurred in 1944 when both British and American special forces as well as the Maquis were present 2 years prior to D-Day.

Invasion require occupation and control.

The word redefinition project of the outrage junkies continues apace - or should we call it "Newspeak"?

[JoePhilly]

216. We didn't invade either of those countries ...

and what does Reagan have to do with ODS?

You conflate, mis-characterize, and attribute to Obama the actions of Reagan.

Thanks for making my point.

[last1standing]

223. Blind anger seems to have impaired your reading comprehension.

My comment about invading small countries was directly tied to the failed policies of the center-right, not specifically to Obama.

Perhaps Obama Derangement Syndrome is real but actually affects those who refuse to hear criticisms of the guy.

[JoePhilly]

225. So you admit ODS exists.

That's the first step.

[last1standing]

227. So you admit that you misread my OP and became needlessly beligerent about it.

That's a first step as well.

[JoePhilly]

244. Your OP claims ODS doesn't exist ... it does ... and you now admit that.

And my pointing out a few of the false things you claimed in that OP isn't belligerent, its direct criticism.

[last1standing]

247. Why post fabrications to win internet points?

My obvious joke about ODS was not an admission but your negligent reading and inability to comprehend that I was writing about center-right policies in general in that section of the OP does indicate that you can't take in information that doesn't first agree with your mind-set.

[JoePhilly]

248. You claimed that we invaded countries that we did not invade, and your OP

intentionally suggests these invasions were started by Obama.

Now, you are back-tracking.

You are angry at Obama for things he didn't actually do.

You can't say you are angry at Obama for center right policies like "X, Y, and Z" if he didn't actually do "X, Y or Z".

[last1standing]

250. As others have pointed out, Obama has invaded countries.

However, again and for the last time before I give up on trying to explain it, that paragraph as about center-right policies as a whole, not about Obama specifically.

While I don't believe in your mythical ODS, I do believe there is a problem when people obstinately refuse to comprehend. If you want to continue this discussion you must comprehend that basic fact. If you can't then I can't waste more time typing the same words over and over.

[JoePhilly]

255. We have not invaded any other countries, unless words stop meaning what they actually

mean.

Which I suppose is useful, when one wants to hold a particular belief, no matter what the reality happens to be. Just create new definitions to fit the distorted view of reality.

And you can continue to claim that in your OP about the non-existence of ODS, you suddenly went from the specific, to the general, and did not actually intend those items to reference Obama, or his presidency, specifically.

You started that paragraph with the following ...

So let's cut the dishonest, race-baiting, crap over non-existent Obama Derangement Syndrome. When Democrats object to Obama's agenda it's because we don't agree with center-right policies.

And now you claim what follows really isn't about Obama.

Um, ok.

[last1standing]

257. Ok, we're done.

bye now.

[Laelth]

260. The OP is talking about center-right policy since Reagan.

Reagan invaded Grenada and bombed Lybia. Bush I invaded Panama and Iraq. Clinton had troops in Somalia and Bosnia. Bush II invaded Afghanistan and Iraq again. Clearly, center-right policy has led us to invade a lot of small countries (even if Obama hasn't invaded one yet).

Is this not clear from the OP?



-Laelth

[JoePhilly]

261. Then why mention Obama in the first sentence of that paragraph?

The OP is about ODS.

That paragraph starts by referring to Obama specifically. And then includes reasons to be critical of Obama.

And you are claiming it's ok if that list includes things that Obama didn't actually do.

Or, are we just blaming Obama for what other President's did, while not naming them.

The OP is intentionally conflating unrelated events to demand that he and others not have their motives questioned.

That's why at the same time I'm typing this, the OP author is working to re-define what it means to invade a country up this same sub-thread.

[Laelth]

265. Evidently it was not clear in the OP. Fair enough.

From the OP: "When Democrats object to Obama's agenda it's because we don't agree with center-right policies."

The OP goes on to list "invading small countries" as one of those center-right policies to which those of us on the left usually object. True, Obama has not yet invaded a new small country (although we got really close earlier this month), but if he did invade a small country, those of us on the left would probably object because we object to center-right policy NOT because we have ODS.

That seemed perfectly clear to me when I read the OP.

-Laelth

[questionseverything]

357. so if current admin pays to do the

invading like in syria(turns out the cia is training and paying the "rebels&quot

or in the somilia/kenya thing...

my question is do proxy wars count?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

7. Yep

[dkf]

29. Libya

[intaglio]

183. Nope

No invasion, drone strikes yes but no invasion.

Oh, and would you rather that Gaddhafi was still in power?

[dkf]

184. Wide array of U.S. warplanes used in Libya attacks

Washington (CNN) -- Nineteen U.S. warplanes, including Marine Corps Harrier jets, Air Force B-2 stealth bombers and F-15 and F-16 fighter jets, conducted strike operations against Libya Sunday morning, according to Lt. Cmdr. James Stockman of U.S. Africa Command.

It is the next phase in Operation Odyssey Dawn, which began about 3 p.m. ET Saturday with the launch of more than 110 Tomahawk Cruise missiles from U.S. and British warships and subs.

The U.S. Navy launched four Harrier "jump jets" from the USS Kearsarge, an amphibious assault ship now in the Mediterranean Sea. The Harriers "conducted strikes against Gadhafi's ground forces and air defenses, joining an international effort to halt an offensive against the Libyan populace," said Navy spokesman Cmdr. Danny Hernandez.
The U.S. Navy also flew EA-18 Growlers, which are special versions of the F/A 18 fighter designed to jam enemy electronic signals, such as targeting radar from enemy air defense batteries, Hernandez said.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/20/libya.planes/index.html

[intaglio]

186. My error, but would you rather Gaddhafi was still in power?

and were there any US or British or French ground forces involved?

[dkf]

187. It is none of our business and only creates more hatred towards us.

If that left Gaddafi in power so be it. It sure sounds like more of a hellhole now than it used to be.

[bvar22]

278. It is.

Al Qaeda is now in control of Libya.

Sharia Law has been declared.

Weapons that we gave to the "Rebels" are being used against US troops
in other areas of the Middle East.

” For all his dictatorial megalomania, Gaddafi is a committed pan-African - a fierce defender of African unity. Libya was not in debt to international bankers. It did not borrow cash from the International Monetary Fund for any "structural adjustment". It used oil money for social services - including the Great Man Made River project, and investment/aid to sub-Saharan countries. Its independent central bank was not manipulated by the Western financial system. All in all a very bad example for the developing world.”

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD27Ak01.html

[intaglio]

329. al Qaeda controls nothing

It does not have a central organisation dictating policy.

There are Islamists in control of Libya and some areas have kept the elements of Sharia law that Gaddhafi had allowed them anyway. What has gone is:
1) the resettlement and extermination of the Berbers,
2) the massive secret police apparatus,
3) the looting of the countries treasury by the Gaddhafi family and clan.

If the USA had invaded do you think for one second that the Islamists would be unopposed?

[dkf]

189. We are about to make a habit of shock and awe and you don't even realize it.

Syria was that close and so is Iran.

My country scares me.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

199. Can we mark you as pro-Saddam Hussein?

[brooklynite]

6. Anyone is entitled to disagree with the President's policies...

...but when the words "warmonger" and "liar" start to get used freely, and when anyone who disagrees with the progressives is cast as a "DLC/Third Way" supporter, I think we're moving out of a simple disagreement in policy.

[last1standing]

13. The insults have gove both ways.

For every "warmonger" there's a "fucking retard." For every "DLC/Third Way" there's a "leftist loony." The insults aren't good but they're not an indication of derangement or racism unless the majority of DU is under its sway.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. And in a country with proportional representation

We would belong to different parties.



And we need to evolve that political system.

[brooklynite]

22. All you have to do...

...is convince some people to form a grassroots third party, and then convince people to vote for them.

Until then it's just a pleasant fantasy.

BTW - that would likely result in a large centrist party and smaller progressive party.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Nah, what I want requires an amendment

You see, it means the end of winner take all. Why do you think newer democracies said no to that starting with John Stuart mill? Free clue, DC right now is exhibit A. Exhibit B, more relevant to JSM was the US Congress Circa oh...1858.

[brooklynite]

47. Assume you have proportional representation...

...you'll have a small progressive party, a small Tea Party, and a larger centrist party.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. You'll have more parties than just that

Use your imagination. And it will be healthy for democracy. And as to the centrist party being the biggest, no, not really. We know the country is far more progressive. A corollary to proportional representation, just as hard of a nut, is the end of gerrymandering. It makes no sense to have more people voting for democrats for Congress and have a Republican house.

[brooklynite]

84. No, we don't...

The country is more Democratic than Republican, but not necessarily more liberal than conservative, and not more liberal than moderate. Most votes are bunched in the middle.

[quakerboy]

138. But there are different middles

There are as many "middles" as there are issues. A different system can give a grid of options, instead of a simple spectrum or dual option. You can be in a party that is pro gun, but antiCorporate. Or a party that is anti tax, but pro choice.

Its not as simple as a massive middle and fringes. On any given issue you have a majority and minority position, but the people on each side are not necessarily the same people in each argument.

[nadinbrzezinski]

291. Which is why it would be good

Brooklinite believes in his heart the current center is status, and it's not. This would be an infusion to democracy, and will increase the number of players. In such a system Kuch and Lieberman would not belong to the same party, and congress would be forced to ENNACT the art of the deal.

[TreasonousBastard]

82. It's been done several times...

Teddy Roosevelt may have had the best shot, but there were several other attempts to build a Progressive Party, along with other parties. LaFollette should have had a decent chance with his Progressive Party, but they destroyed him and it. Henry Wallace, the same.

Here's a fairly comprehensive list of all the parties people have tried to get going, and still we have but wo serious ones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

Between the bicameral legislatures and the Electoral College, I suspect there's some statistical law that prevents the multiple parties most other counties have.

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. It's not statistics

It's the winner take all system enshrined in the Constitution. When we have more or less stable times it works well. It has failed when we get lack of cooperation between the two parties. It depends on compromise. Once it failed spectacularly, to the point that it led to a shooting civil war. It also led to the death of a hyper Conservative party and the rise of republicans, who were rather progressive. Yes the party of Lincoln was progressive.

Why Mill looked at that and decided it needed to be improved. Mind you, his system of proportional representation has been improved upon, but the US adopting that system would be a huge improvement. It would short circuit some of the dysfunction we currently suffer. If this system fails in an 1860 spectacular fashion again, I don't think the country will survive. I hope the successor state I live will remain a democracy, and will adopt a more modern way of electing legislators, and will remain secular.

[TreasonousBastard]

154. I don't entirely buy Mills' concept since...

we've got that bicameral legislature.

Splitting both the House and Senate into more factions can't possibly help here-- it's bad enough with just two parties trying to get legislation passed in each house and then jointly. In a parliamentary system where only one house has the power to legislate it could work, and does work reasonably well in other countries.

The bicameral legislature was an ingenious solution to the battle between the Jeffersonians who believed the common man (by their definition) was wise enough to make major decisions and the Hamiltonians who thought the common man was often enough a drunken asshole and should be kept at bay.

So, we don't have a democracy, we have a republic-- and a very shaky one since we went from 13 states to 50.

[nadinbrzezinski]

290. Look at Mexico. It's a bicameral system

It works, and not just in parliamentary systems.

Mexico has implemented something else in extremis, due to her history, that other nations have also implemented in a less radical way, term limits. I think three senate terms and the equivalent in the house would be rational. California is too short.

Newer democracies look at us and go no thank you. Again, Mexico is a good example, the 1824 Constitution was the US constitution with a tweak here and there. In Mexico it failed spectacularly, for solid reasons. And yup, the winner take all led to the rise of two parties, when it worked. These were the Conservative and Liberal Parties.

The 1917 constitution is a collection of lessons learned in blood mind you.

[brooklynite]

105. Those are exactly the reasons a Third Part fails...

...when they're focused on a Presidential candidate. The closest thing to to a successful third party movement was the People's Party in the 1880's, which elected a significant number of House and Senate members before looking at Presidential candidates.

As for why we don't have multiple parties, it's because we didn't start with a Parliamentary system.

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. Wrong, your neighbors to the south do not have a Parliament

They have a system very close to the American system, but they have proportional representation, and have three major parties and four minor ones. The minor ones have enough members in both houses that you are forced to work on alliances to get votes through.

[TreasonousBastard]

162. Those Populists weren't all that successful, being big...

in only a few states and having to form coalitions for that.

When Bryan ran on the Peoples/Populist ticket, he got a lot of votes because he was, well, Bryan, but the party didn't do so well. Populist leaning Progressives didn't really like much of the platform over there, and Wilson and other Progressives went in other directions. The Populists joining up with Debs didn't help their cause and caused big names to scoot for safer waters.

Historians are still arguing about that period.

Anyway, the American political landscape is littered with New Alliance, Dixiecrats, Communists, Nazis, and others who had no hope or just couldn't cut through the stasis of our two party system. For some of them, like the American Nazi Party-- thank God or someone they couldn't.

[cstanleytech]

136. No, no need for a new party but people should treat others opinions as they want their own to be

treated.
Of course thats probably not going to happen but hey I can hope.

[treestar]

292. That is what has to be done

Complaining that the current Dem leadership is not doing one's bidding is silly - that's what self government is, getting involved. There are too many who want the pleasant fantasy without the work.

[Rex]

9. K & R

This will piss off all the RIGHT people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Kick and recommended

[xfundy]

12. You can think whatever you want. This is America.

But, IMO, you're very wrong.

BDS was an invention of the turds on the "right."

It's a fact that some portion of Americans hate the President because he's black. It just is.

So, again, think whatever you want. I know better.

[last1standing]

18. Anyone who hates Obama for being black would also hate him for being a Democrat.

And there certainly isn't a contingent on DU that falls under that category.

[LadyHawkAZ]

91. Seriously? You think there are no racists in the Democratic party?

Having less of them, or having them be less blatant, than the GOP is not the same thing as them not being there. Racism is pervasive, and we're not free of it by a long shot.

[last1standing]

108. I think there is prejudice everywhere but not much actual racism in the Democratic party.

At least on the national level. Obviously, there are vestiges on the local level where many who should be considered republicans run as Democrats because it is the dominating party. In fact, I've seen that in my city council. So no, I'm not claiming that absolutely no Democrat is racist. I'm claiming that racism isn't a problem of any size at DU. We occasionally get trolls who try to worm racist comments into the conversation but they get weeded out, just as most homophobes do.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

206. There's racism right here on DU, my friend. I've witnessed it firsthand.

During the 2008 primaries, many working class white Democrats admitted that they voted for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in states like West Virginia and Kentucky SOLELY due to his race. You are incredibly naive if you think there are no racists in the Democratic Party. I feel the sorriest for you. Homophobia and sexism exist, too. To deny those facts is to be incredibly ignorant if not just naive. You have a lot of waking up to do.

[G_j]

270. I don't believe that. nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

315. You not believing it doesn't make it false. You just don't believe it.

The problem with this society is that it simply refuses to believe that we still have major problems with race. The problem with the Democratic Party is the same--its denial that racism exists within it; that sexism and homophobia are issues. Not believing it doesn't make it disappear.

[G_j]

344. This on DU??

" many working class white Democrats admitted that they voted for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in states like West Virginia and Kentucky SOLELY due to his race."

That is what I don't believe. I never said racism does not exist among Dems. I think most humans struggle with at least some vestiges of racial fears etc., as it exists in most cultures in some form.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

347. Yes. I have personally witnessed racism on DU. Are you a person of color?

How can you say it doesn't exist if you don't experience it as a person of color?

[G_j]

359. people on DU said

they voted for Hillary solely because Obama is black? Nope, I don't believe it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

367. No, not in that specific case. I'm referring to general instances of racism that exists here.

Some subtle forms, some a bit more explicit. Not that explicit, however. Coded language moreso than anything else. You do believe that racist sentiment doesn't have to be explicit to be considered racist, right? Even more subtle forms of racism do exist and are legitimate.

[G_j]

369. for sure it does

I was simply taking what you said about what people here at DU have said literally.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

374. Oh, sorry for not being clearer.

[awoke_in_2003]

383. I was a moderator during that time...

if any one here said they didn't vote for Obama in the primaries due to his race it couldn't have happened much because I would have remembered such things. The post would have been eliminated pretty quick, and it would have been likely the person would have had their posting rights temporarily suspended or they would have been tombstoned.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

384. And that's not what I said. Read again. Go ahead. I did not assert that someone here on DU said

that they did not vote for Obama due to his race. I said that there was more subtle forms of racism here on DU. I said that voters in certain states like WVA and KY explicitly told exit polls that Obama's race played a factor in their vote for Hillary Clinton. Please re-read what I wrote. Thank you.

[awoke_in_2003]

387. It is heavily implied...

First you say you witnessed racism on DU first hand in the title line, then follow it up in the message block that you know of people who said they didn't vote for him due to race. You may not have intended it to sound like you saw that here, but it is very easy to think that is what you are saying. Maybe if you had said that you know of people off forum that did that it might have been less confusing.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

389. Really? Does it matter? I mean, why is it that people are always attempting to diminish others'

experiences with racism, sexism, homophobia? These are our experiences!! Please stop being so insensitive to that. If someone is explaining their experiences, you have no right to question them as if they are lying or exaggerating. I feel like I'm being questioned in court on the witness stand.

Listen, we will never get past race in this country, or sexism, or homophobia if we don't start confronting it head on; or, if we attack those or question those who experience these things on a daily basis.

While I understand that I could have been clearer in my writing--and I admitted upthread that I could have been--why do I feel like I'm being targeted or jabbed at?

These are my experiences. Please do not insult me. If you have a problem with this, report me. Ban me. Do whatever you feel is necessary. But you have no right to dismiss those experiences that are unique to me and many other people like me.

Racism comes in many different forms. Just because someone doesn't use the N-Word doesn't mean that more subtle forms of racism aren't apparent.

Yes, Democrats can be racists. Yes, there IS racism on DU. Yes, there have been subtle, more discreet forms of racism right here on DU, expressed by DUers themselves. Yes, there is sexism and homophobia right here on DU. Yes, it has been expressed in subtle forms right here on this very forum. Shocking? Not really. Why? Because we're all human. We all have prejudices. We all suffer from those prejudices. DUers are not exempt from this. Our job is not to sweep it under the rug as if it doesn't exist. Racism, sexism, homophobia DO exist!! And we need to confront and fight every day of our lives to eradicate these disgusting diseases.

But you can't sit here and insult me and act as if these diseases do not exist just because this is DU. That's ridiculous! And it's irresponsible. Rude. And insulting.

Stop dismissing my and others' experiences just because you may not agree that they exist. Just because YOU may not see it doesn't mean that it's not there!

[awoke_in_2003]

391. Well since you think I am targeting you...

I will make this the last reply I ever give to you.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

392. Not just me. Open you eyes. Open your mind. Listen to anyone who tells you that they have

to deal with racism, sexism or homophobia--either is explicit or subtle forms. Don't dismiss them or question them. Don't insult them or question them. Listen to what they have to say.

That is all.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

431. Here's an example of a thread that I believe is quite sexist...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023738335#post42

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

205. You're fucking out of your mind! There are indeed racists in the Democratic Party!

To think otherwise is just plain silly.

[cui bono]

120. But the people being accused of "ODS" have usually given thoughtful criticism of policy

and then are dismissed by those with a no criticism welcome policy as having ODS. That is the issue. I doubt you will find any people on DU who hat the president because he's black. I doubt you would find more than one or two who actually hate him at all. Mostly people hate his policies and appointments.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. That is the point

1.- Make it a psychiatric issue, medicalizing the other is propaganda 101.

2.- since they are crazy, you don't need to listen to the criticism.

I know you know this, but it is so damn basic

[cui bono]

127. Exactly. Plus...

3. It excuses you from having to actually defend anything with critical thought and allows you to be intellectually laze with an air of false superiority

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. Yup

[joshcryer]

14. Obamacare is not Romneycare.

Bush didn't get us out of Iraq.

The Republicans weren't responsible for overturning DADT.

Obama didn't cut Social Security, invade Syria, invade Iran.

What the deranged don't know or appreciate is that Obama said everything was on the table with regards to Social Security, that Obama voted for FISA-2008 (telecom immunity, retroactive and going into the future), called for a reduction of the deficit in his very own nomination speech, called for offshore oil drilling (which means that once keystone was submitted he'd be for it and in the 2012 election he championed finishing up the pipeline).

Obama has not, in fact, "moved to the right" since the beginning. If anything he's moved to the left as he's become more progressive on social issues like gay marriage and his DOJ is more progressive on marijuana in states that have legalized it (even as the DOJ is headed by a numbnut).

The deranged are those who thought Obama was a leftist to begin with.

[ProSense]

20. Exactly. n/t

[last1standing]

21. I'm not claiming that Obama has done nothing good.

I'm claiming that this ODS bullshit is no more than a way to call DUers racists without getting banned. If a person believes in the president's policies then they should be defend them without resorting to making up imaginary mental diseases as a way to dismiss criticism. If that's all there is, then the policies can't be that good.

Also, Obama has absolutely moved to the right since his first campaign. He's even moved to the right from his second campaign.

[joshcryer]

27. No, your claim is Obama is "moving to the right." Your words.

That's your claim, it's a bullshit claim, and it is the whole origination of the ODS term to begin with.

Obama is center-right politically and was a centrist socially until 2012 when he moved center-left socially. This means that Obama has become more progressive.

[last1standing]

51. Hold on a second. Are you claiming that Obama hasn't moved to the right since his campaigns?

Again, I'm not claiming that Obama has done absolutely nothing good or progressive. I'm very happy for his eventual repudiation of DOMA and DADT, however long it took, but there are many issues in which he has repeatedly moved to the right such as support for chained CPI, permanent tax-cuts, not prosecuting wall street, (until last month) raiding medical marijuana repositories, healthcare mandates, not reigning in prescription drug prices, free trade agreements, etc....

Yes, he has also led a good foreign policy campaign overall, come to the left on drug raids and LGBT rights, and fought against some of the worst abuses proposed by a radical right congress. I give him credit for all of that but he has definitely moved to the right since his campaigns.

[joshcryer]

73. I'm saying he's been mostly consistent.

He did fail to renegotiate NAFTA which one might say is a "move to the right" or it could simply be a foreign policy failure, I can't say that, sometimes you win some sometimes you lose some. TPP and the KORUS free trade agreements could be something that one can legitimately argue he was against but flipped on. Except, when you read his statements on KORUS it's actually pretty appalling that he's all about supporting FTA but only if it's done "smart."

"I believe in free trade." - Obama 2008

I don't think he's "moved to the right."

[last1standing]

86. You see, I don't agree with you but I can see where you're coming from.

When we discuss issues we can either come to agreement or at least part knowing that each of us has at least a reason for their beliefs. When we use "ODS" to dismiss contrary opinions as racism or mental disturbance, we lose respect and we lose allies.

[joshcryer]

116. I never saw ODS as racism or mental disturbance.

I see it as people who want to shit stir and detracting from Obama is super easy and you get lots of outrage when you do it.

Obamacare as Romneycare got hundreds upon hundreds of posts. I personally invested at least a hundred or two hundred explaining why the Heritage Foundation's "mandate" was not the same as Obamacare / Hillarycare's "mandate." And those saying Obama didn't believe in mandates, he actually proposed a mandate for all children in his original proposal, and he never ruled out mandates completely, because he's Obama.

[last1standing]

122. "Derangement" is in the name so they're definitely calling it a mental disturbance.

You can disagree about the racism part but I've read too many posts to believe that it's not tied in.

Of course, as for shit stirring, there's no lack of that on the other side of this conversation. Stirring shit may be pointless but at least it doesn't have the effect of making people afraid to express their opinions, which is what these broad brush accusations do.

Obamabot, leftist, fascist, hater, etc... they're all attempts at bullying others into agreement and I wanted to call out the latest attempt for what it is.

[joshcryer]

125. That's the most negative definition.

Derange is actually more nuanced than that. "I became deranged by the bright lights flashing all around me." That doesn't mean I'm literally insane, it means I'm lost, unable to figure out what is going on.

Likewise I think ODS means people trying to muddle issues. There are already people in this thread saying the stuff I mentioned (which, btw, really has saved me from having to look up those posts; the people just come to it and defend it).

[last1standing]

133. Based on the context of the posts I've read I have to disagree with you.

Context is everything and those posters who constantly fall back on the "ODS" insult are not claiming that those who criticize Obama are merely muddling the issues, they are claiming that we are bad people.

You don't have to agree with me but I think that most people on this board would.

[joshcryer]

135. I'm not defending others' use of the word.

I can only defend how I view it.

I didn't say the ODS accusing side is free of nasty folk.

But if I were to use it it wouldn't be intended to call someone mentally ill or racist.

[last1standing]

142. I know.

And I appreciate it. We see things from different angles and that is going to color our interpretations. But I do believe that if you used the term, you wouldn't mean to use it to bully others.

[last1standing]

145. By the way, this is the insinuation in context I'm talking about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3719951

[Laelth]

246. Calling something a "syndrome" definitely has medical connotations, no? n/t

-Laelth

[Bluenorthwest]

212. You call it 'Hillarycare/Obamacare' but here is Obama in 08 explaining why he oppposed

mandates and why his plan was better than Hillary's plan for not having mandates. Here is what he said. Not what I am saying, what Obama said, how he got my vote:
OBAMA: Let’s break down what she (Clinton) really means by a mandate. What’s meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she’s suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.

Here’s the concern. If you haven’t made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.
---------------------------------------------------
That's what the man said to get votes. He did not say 'my plan and Hillary's plan have the same sort of mandate!!!'
He said what he said.

[joshcryer]

403. Yeah, and I remember the Harry and Louise ads.

Obama's program always had a mandate for children, though, so it's not like he was completely opposed to mandates.

The reason Obama accepted mandates is mainly because Jonathan Gruber's research suggested it was necessary to keep costs down.

I agree what Obama said at the time was very enticing, but I think it was misleading and a political gimmick.

[creeksneakers2]

397. Obama didn't support chained CPI

He offered it as a bargaining chip to Republicans in exchange for increased corporate taxes. Since the GOP will never agree to increase corporate taxes, there never was a serious threat of chained CPI.

If Obama wanted chained CPI he could have gotten through the GOP house instantly. He might have even gotten it through the Senate.

[joshcryer]

401. And it always came with a poverty threshold.

So the odds of it passing were nil, which I told people then, and people were freaking out on a daily damn basis about it.

I agree if he simply wanted Chained CPI he could have got it.

[MannyGoldstein]

36. It's RomneyCare with some accoutrements

Just look at United Healthcare's stock price... The tail of the (ticker)tape...

[joshcryer]

42. Romney vetoed "Romneycare."

[MannyGoldstein]

44. He vetoed the whole thing?

Really?

Might you want to amend your claim?

[ProSense]

60. What

do you think he vetoed: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023715400

[MannyGoldstein]

62. Wait... do *you* think Romney vetoed the whole thing? nt

[ProSense]

70. He vetoed eight sections, including Medicaid, dental benefits and health coverage for seniors

Are you denying that he vetoed significant parts of the law: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023715400

[MannyGoldstein]

76. But he didn't veto the essential parts. nt

[ProSense]

78. LOL. He vetoed the most significant parts of the bill added by the legislature

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023715400

[joshcryer]

92. The public health council and its power is HIGHLY essential.

[joshcryer]

63. He vetoed the bits making it look like Obamacare.

Otherwise it was just a health insurance mandate.

[MannyGoldstein]

66. Hmm... What bits did he veto?

Thanks in advance.

[ProSense]

72. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023715400

I notice you're avoiding that thread.

[joshcryer]

85. The main thing was the public health council which acts as an HHS of sorts.

And it's led by local university leaders and researchers.

He vetoed that because it made the bill administrative as opposed to executive and it completely made him and the profiteers lose all power over it.

Just like HHS is going to mandate public non-profit exchanges by 2017, even though the public option isn't in there, the public health council is able to do the same in Massachusetts.

[ProSense]

96. The non-profit plans are effective in 2014

The 2017 date is for waivers http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023715400#post10

[joshcryer]

109. Nah, different thing, it's going to come in waves.

Multi-state plans must be made available in part or all of at least 31 states in 2014. Multi-state plans would have to be made available in 35 states by 2015, 43 states in 2016 and 2017, and all 50 states by open enrollment in 2017. Because multi-state plans have the ability to operate in only part of a state, there is some concern that insurers may target the healthiest areas in order to keep costs low. To alleviate this concern, the OPM has the ability to review and approve the plans for expanding into additional states. Further, ACA requires that OPM contract with at least two multi-state plans, one of which must be a non-profit entity.

http://www.bcbsnc.com/assets/hcr/pdfs/multi_state_plan_spotlight.pdf

Heyo, we got a public option, people just had their heads buried in the sand and don't realize administrative law. HHS is extremely powerful. They mandate multi-state plans, and then they mandate that at least one of those plans must be a non-profit, ie, a public option.

[ProSense]

115. I see, those are the Multi-state plans.

True, one must be a non-profit, and the Multi-state plans have a ramp up period.

My point was that the non-profits are being created now.

New Loan Program Helps Create Customer-Driven Non-Profit Health Insurers
http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Grants/new-loan-program.html

[joshcryer]

118. Understood.

Just saying how it was legislatively as opposed to what was happening on the ground. I admit I was ignorant of the new non-profit insurers. I think that they want to group pool everything though, big time. Either way we get a non-profit option, whether the people do it or the HHS makes it required.

[Skraxx]

316. This is the Hiddent Backdoor to the Public Option

[Capt. Obvious]

217. Yeah, I must have missed that too

[joshcryer]

410. Love that picture of Ted Kennedy.

You can tell that he's just giddy because the idiots in the room don't know what they just signed off on.

But Ted knows. It's a great picture.

Here's his wife at the signing of the ACA:



She knows too, even though Teddy didn't live to see it.

[KoKo]

371. When a President & Handlers and Dem Party...Allows "Obama Care"

to be taken over by the RW Rabid Repugs....because his Incredible Marketing Team didn't get out there and REBRAND it the "Affordable Care Act" we knew something was getting worse. Instead of Single Payer or Public Option ...that Obama himself never was in favor of this and only pushed it forward after election because to get Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy Family's Endorsement for him...that he promised he'd push Ted's legacy through. Maybe Ted told him to go for "Romney Care" and revise it later and Ted was so ill with his brain tumor he thought it was the best he could do.

BUT...whatever happened between Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle and Obama pushing for this so hard after he was inaugurated.....SOMETHING WENT WRONG...

We ended up WITHOUT...Single Payer (maybe to come later) but even without a STRONG Public Option. THE ACA has dogged Obama and I don't think he ever believed in it and the Repug Rabid Dogs sniffed it out and therefore went after that vulnerability. Obama then turned to Foreign Policy, Drones and Manipulation...because he had no room domestically since with the ACA...and dealing with Wall Street Meltdown and the destruction of our economy he was left beholden to the Wall Street Crowd that he was "TOLD" to install in his Administration to "Manage" what THEY had created.

Then DLC Clinton and the rest took over. He's been on Auto Pilot since then...with the exception of his "Foreign Policy/War Policy" which was in place...but that he thought he might be able to change with "tinkering" and using Drones to save US Service Women and Men....by doing a "Take OUT" with just "Collateral Damage."

Whatever.....

[JackRiddler]

69. Bush made the deal that ended Iraq.

Obama lauded the "surge" and tried to extend the occupation. As Bush or McCain doubtless also would have.

[joshcryer]

79. McCain would have renegotiated SOFA during the 2009 bombings.

Don't be silly. Oh wait, Bush got us out of Iraq, sorry, I must tow the ODS line.

[truebluegreen]

252. That's "toe" the line, like a runner lining up for a race...

and yes, Bush negotiated the SOFA and Iraq wouldn't modify it when Obama wanted to (sticking point was, as I recall, immunity of soldiers from Iraq's laws although of course there were others).

You seem to suffer from another version of ODS.

[joshcryer]

406. You can read McCain's comments on SOFA.

He would've renegotiated it and even possibly ignored it completely. He completely bashed Obama's desire to get out of Iraq with timetables.

I'm on record saying that Obama's desire to get us out of Iraq was the easiest commitment he could make.

You'll note that Obama said he would responsibly leave Iraq.

We'd still be in Iraq if we elected McCain.

[JackRiddler]

281. Your wish to falsify history...

is the obvious "derangement" here. And what you are displaying is not a syndrome - I have no need to characterize those with whom I agree as diseased. It's just plain old sophistry on behalf of a political partisanship. Dishonest thinking? Certainly. Shameful misrepresentation? Yes. A mental disease? Not in itself.

The deal with Iraq was made by Bush because the Iraqis wanted the US out and by the opposition to the war was great. I'm sure they would have tried to extend the occupation if they'd stayed in power, but they didn't, so your what-if is irrelevant. The one who tried to extend the occupation was Obama.

[joshcryer]

408. If Obama wanted to be in Iraq we would be in Iraq.

The SOFA negotiations were to help train Iraqi troops. Iraq declined when the US wanted immunity. Had the US not wanted immunity for the trainers there would probably still be a training force there to this day and Obama would say "I said I would withdraw responsibly, that means leaving behind a robust trained force."

Obama listened to the Iraqi's.

Nevermind that there are thousands of US contractor mercenaries there to this day...

[JoePhilly]

219. Bush adopted Obama's Iraq timeline

Obama proposed it in Dec 2007, Bush opposed any timeline right up until July 2008, adopting Obama's time line in an effort to take Iraq off rhe table as an election issue for McCain.

[creeksneakers2]

400. Obama only wanted a smaller number

of troops to stay in Iraq for training Iraqis. I wouldn't call that an extended occupation.

[chervilant]

193. Why resort to name-calling?

" The deranged are those who thought Obama was a leftist to begin with."

What is the point of calling people "deranged"? Isn't "deranged" a derisive, delimiting insult?

I get the OP's point, and it's reinforced by many of the responses I can see (I have some of the worst offenders on ignore, so I don't have to tolerate the verbal bullying).

Calling those of us who criticize some of this administration's policies "deranged" is wrong on many levels. And, it won't sway me--or dissuade me.

[JackRiddler]

285. Bullying is his main thing.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

207. Whoop, there it is. Moving to the left? I have more examples...

...not enforcing DOMA; going after minimum drug sentencing; leaving states to themselves when it comes to marijuana laws; tightening rules on carbon emissions.

Yes, he's worse than Bush, alright!

[ProSense]

19. "We objected when Bill Clinton moved to the right and we object when Obama does it now."

And "we objected" when Obama reversed Bill Clinton's policies.

"We objected" to health care reform: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023715400

"We objected" to Wall Street reform: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023716332

When everything Obama does gets labeled "center-right," and everyone who supports him and these policies is ridiculed, ODS is not a myth.

I remember when he deserved to be "dumped," unlike Clinton.

[MannyGoldstein]

39. Um... That "Wall Street Reform" link says the opposite

of what you'd like it to say.

It's that difficult woman again, my Senior Senator.

[ProSense]

45. Here is what it says:

We all remember the darkest days of the financial crisis five years ago.

Credit dried up. The stock market cratered. Millions of people lost their jobs. Billions of dollars in retirement savings disappeared.

There were legitimate fears that the dominos of our financial system would never stop falling, and we were heading into another Great Depression.

On many of these fronts, we've made real progress. The Dodd-Frank Act was the strongest financial reform law in three generations. If I had been in the Senate three years ago, I would have voted for it proudly.

Dodd-Frank put in place the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has made serious strides toward leveling the playing field for families and increasing transparency in the marketplace. Thanks to the CFPB, I don't think there will ever again be so many lousy mortgages to threaten our families and our economy.

[JoePhilly]

245. Oh no ... they got to Eleizabeth Warren too!!!

[Rex]

300. You will have to excuse them, they suffer from ODS.

How ironic.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Time to cut the crap. The "center-right" doesn't exist here at DU.

And it's insulting to say that it does, as insulting as you consider an accusation of ODS to be. As outraged as you are about that accusation, you sure do like to sling the insults in the other direction.

[Bonobo]

46. Yes, it sure as hell does.

When Bush was in office you couldn't find anyone supporting bombing the shit out of people or adjustments to SS or defending marijuana raids, etc. etc.

[Bolo Boffin]

55. No, it sure as hell does not.

Not "center-right."

Yes, we have center-left folks here, and have had since the beginning of Democratic Underground. But right-wingers of any stripe, center or otherwise, have never established a foothold here. It's just not true.

Be as polarizing as you like. But you're wrong.

[joshcryer]

126. LOL, only 6% supported it here.

Despite what innuendos one would want to be spread, only a very small percentage supported it.

[last1standing]

57. LOL! You hate this thread so much you had to comment on it twice. :)

But the center-right absolutely exists on this site which is why we have a poster called "Conservative Democrat" and other who proudly claim to be centrists. There's nothing wrong with that and I respect them being upfront about their beliefs as much as I disagree with the policies they promote.

[Bolo Boffin]

61. Yes, I do hate threads that divide DU based on horseshit.

I hate them with every fiber of my being.

[last1standing]

93. But dividing DU by claiming over half the posters suffer from ODS is a good thing.

Got it.

[Bolo Boffin]

106. The division there comes from the posters who seem to suffer from ODS

who can never be pleased with anything Obama does and who constantly berate him here, regardless of what he does or what he accomplishes or what he winds up doing; who constantly give elbows and sneers to those they deem "obots" and "BOG people."

After all that, no one gets to call people who say ODS six years later dividers.

[Hissyspit]

164. There was no such thing as Bush Derangement Syndrome.

And there's not such thing as Obama Derangement Syndrome.

[chervilant]

195. O, goodie!

Another "bot" stomping his widdle feets because someone dissed hims fearless leader!

See how that works? See how offensive that is?!? Can you not empathize with those who find accusations of "ODS" just as offensive and stultifying?

I find it sad that there is so much derision and verbal bullying on DU.

(Attention, potential alerters: the first sentence herein above is hyperbolic to make a point, and is not intended to insult the DUer to whom I responded.)

[Bolo Boffin]

202. I have a window to understand how insulting ODS accusations can be.

Being called "center-right" here at DU.

Over ten years of debunking 9/11 CTs here and being accused of inflating and helping Dubya cover up his part in those crimes.

Yeah, I can empathize with you there.

[Hissyspit]

163. Oh, really? You hate threads that divide DU based on horseshit?

Like this one?: http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3707888

[Bolo Boffin]

166. Your recent attention to my posts is touching.

Maybe you should step away from the keyboard.

[Hissyspit]

177. Kindly refrain from giving me any advice, thank you.

[Bolo Boffin]

178. OK. But people will say you're in love. n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

210. I don't see how that divides DU. It brings up very legitimate points. There is indeed

a very large contingent here on DU that attacks Democrats FIRST and never goes after what Republicans do. I do believe that there is a very large contingent of Democrats who want everyone to be purely ideological and if anyone deviates from liberal purity, they are then accused of not being a true Democrat. That is divisive, in my view. So they attack other Democrats, especially the president, for not being pure enough rather than attack Republicans for being obstructionists. This is a legitimate debate to have, in my view. Not divisive.

This thread? Divisive...and STUPID, I might add.

[Laelth]

283. Assuming you're right ...

... that there is a large contingent here that attacks Democrats first, that's probably because a Democrat (the President) is in charge. Why should people attack Republicans for something a Democrat is doing? That would make no sense.

Liberal policy wonks (like the ones you find in abundance on this site) are going to attack anything to which they are opposed, and they could care less which party is doing it. By now, that much should be clear.

-Laelth

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

318. O.K., whatever. I don't mind disagreeing with the president on policy decisions

he has made. Sigh (I'm fucking sick of saying this shit over and over again; I shouldn't have to). It's not the point. The problem is not allowing for a fluidity of different opinions and thoughts. That "contingent" should have done its research and should have known that the president wasn't some liberal purist. I blame them for that. But here on DU, it should also be accepted that there is a variety of opinion--not all of us are 100% ideologues, so of course, we'll have our arguments. I just simply do not see the fight against the Republicans as much as I see us attacking our own. That's all. I don't see the passion on our side in terms of standing against the people who are really destroying this country and they are the Republicans, not the Democrats. Yes, there are really bad apples in the Democratic Party. The corporatists, the "Third Wayers," the cowards. I get it. Yes, there are those in the party who have done such a disservice to it. Sure. But, by and large, we are STILL Democrats. And we still support this party. It simply does us no good to bash Democrats day in and day out. It is demoralizing and off-putting. We should challenge our leaders to do better. That's fine. But that's not what I see here on a daily basis. I see bashing. I see sick ad hominem attacks and childish name calling. And yes, some of that I've been guilty of in the heat of whem embroiled in the heat of silly arguments. I guess I'm just tired. If we're going to unite as a party, I think it's time to do that now. We have a pivotal, very critical election coming up next year. Again, either we are going to unite or we'll just let the Republicans have everything and stomp off, sulking into the night.

It's our choice.

[Laelth]

333. I don't think we'll see a Republican President for several cycles.

Congress is another matter altogether. I am just not that worried about Republicans at the moment. They're not in charge.

That said, I understand that you're frustrated (with liberals, not Republicans), and I will leave it at that.

-Laelth

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

334. I'm frustrated with all of it. ALL OF IT! I hate fucking Republicans, but I'm angry

with us liberals. I think we're not thinking rationally. I think we're too emotional at times and aren't as practical as we need to me. Let me explain: The Teabaggers have been out there recruiting wingnuts for state leven offices and judgements and yet we sit here arguing amongst each other and whining about our unpure our leaders are. We're not out there fighting like our counterparts on the right are. Instead, too many are threatening to stay home because they're mad at Obama or whoever. It's so fucking frustrating. I just wish we would all just wake the fuck up! We have so much work to do!

And I disagree wholeheartedly. I think the Republicans are likely to take the Senate. Polls are showing that Americans now trust Republicans to do a better job both on the economy and on foreign policy. Republicans could take back the Senate, retain the House and maintain a stronghold on state legislatures and governorships, not to mention judgeships all over the country.

It is so very frustrating for me. Very!

I don't think Hillary Clinton will run. And if she does, she will lose to Chris Christie. Too many Democrats are being duped by this guy, and I'm hearing too many of us here don't see her as ideologically pure enough, so there's that.

Sigh...

[Laelth]

339. Interesting.

First, let me thank you for the reply.

Second, let me thank you for acknowledging that your frustrations are not solely focused on liberals. That makes me feel a lot better.

Third, I agree that there's a chance the R's will re-take the Senate. Not sure what to do about this, but I doubt that DU debates and discord will affect the outcome. It's tempting for those of us on the left to argue that, had President Obama decided to govern as a liberal, we wouldn't be in this position, but who knows? Perhaps we would be. Perhaps not. Impossible to say.

Fourth, as for Hillary, I think she will run. Whomever we nominate, however, has a very good chance of winning in 2016. The electoral math simply isn't there for the Rs--not unless something dramatic and unexpected happens to change the dynamics (and this is possible, even if it's not likely).

Finally, I am glad we're on the same team. I too am frustrated, by a lot of things, not the least of which is that I do not feel well-represented by the Democratic Party (at the national level, in any event).

Cheers!

-Laelth

[Hissyspit]

353. Then you didn't read the thread or you're seeing what you want to see.

It's full of logical fallacies: straw men, loaded question, mirroring, projection; calls DUers wing nuts (!), and is written by someone who calls themselves a conservative on a liberal board. And that's just for starters. It's clearly intended as flame-bait.

Give me a break. Someone who claims to hate decisive threads to the fiber of their being shouldn't have rec'd it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

354. O.K., I'm going to read it again, then I'll come back. I'm going to be fair.

But when I come back, I'm going to give you an earful. Now, don't get too pissy because I'm not one for backing down easily.

[Union Scribe]

87. Buuuuullllllshiiiiiiittt.

Some are so proud of their conservatism they put it right in their friggin' user names.

[Bolo Boffin]

102. Yeah, like Third-Way Manny, right?

More "right" on the scale than you or I isn't necessarily center-right.

[Union Scribe]

113. If your contention is that those people

are also being satirical, like TWM, then I'd say they've gone way overboard.

I don't know how else to characterize the individuals I've seen promoting centrist/conservative ideas and prejudices. Anti-union shit. Free trade shit. Calling a transgender person "it." Virulently anti-left, pro-drone pro-DP, on and on. I'm sure as hell not going to call those people liberal.

[Starry Messenger]

119. Um, right.

Oh yes, the center-right exists here at DU. LOL. That's not an insult, it's a political designation.

[cui bono]

147. The center-right most certainly exists here. I have seen defense of drone strikes,

wiretapping, data mining of US citizens, Republican and Wall Street admin appointments, Monsanto appointments to the EPA... that is center-right at best. And that term is a description of policy stances, not an insult.

[Bolo Boffin]

148. So does ODS. n/t

[cui bono]

149. Okay, so you concede there are center-right on DU.

Now let's move on to ODS. Please show examples of it on DU. It has to be pure dislike of Obama, not based on his policies or actions, because that would simply be criticism, not derangement. It has to be unsubstantiated.

[Bolo Boffin]

151. No, actually, I don't.

A little more rightwing than you isn't center-right.

[cui bono]

153. Okay, I thought you did since you said something like "there are also".

So, you don't think drone strikes, assassinating American citizens, data mining American citizens, appointing Wall Street execs to cabinet positions, offering cuts to SS are center-right?

Also, do you have examples of ODS on here? You claim it exists, so I need to see it to believe it.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

173. Since some of you are referencing me, let me put in this...

"Center-right" depends on where you define "Center".

There is a "center-of the Democratic spectrum, to moderately right of that" on the DU. Maybe a tiny handful of us.

There is absolutely no a "center of the American electorate, to moderately right of that" on the DU.

I do my best to keep my 50/50 democratic/republican friends from reading the DU lest they never vote Democratic again. (I do remember one coming to me after I suggested he research both positions saying he found this "DemocratUnderground" site, and asking me somewhat perplexed, "Do they like their own guy as President?!?" - the answer, of course, is no). I do point people to the Free Republic, especially the "Texas should secede" and "Shutdown the government" threads - more or less the GOP equivalent of the things you see written by the screamers here.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[WCLinolVir]

279. Look who calls the kettle black.

Quote-"the GOP equivalent of the things you see written by the screamers here".
"I do my best to keep my 50/50 democratic/republican friends from reading the DU"- Why don't you go find a new site since you hold this one is such low regard? What is your motivation to post here?
I personally don't feel that you add anything of value to the discussion with comments like these.
Widdle dee, widdle doo, let it all come back to you.

[Rex]

317. How could he disrupt so well if he was not on DU?

Personally, I don't believe one word from said poster. I think they are here just to stir the shit, like so many others.

[WCLinolVir]

396. I agree. I'm just hoping this personage

takes my suggestion to heart. All that hypocrisy topped with self-aggrandizement just leaves a rancid taste I could do without.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

393. I don't hold Skinner's site in low regard...

I certainly don't hold the silent majority of Democrats in low regard.
I don't even hold Democrats with whom I may disagree in low regard.

I do hold people who are counterproductive screamers in low regard. I outlined the objectionable behaviors in a recent post, received considerable support from many DUers, but was also attacked using some of the exact same behaviors I called out.

I feel that counterproductive screaming is bad for Democrats, and bad for the D.U. If you can't actually defend your point of view, but instead have to fall back on screaming epithets and making appeals to tribalism, then you aren't adding anything. Hell, the people who do that actually embarrass those who agree with them more than they do me.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Laelth]

309. Two things.

First, I think it's cool and admirable that you posted in this thread. We are, indeed, talking about you (obliquely, at least).

Second, I find it interesting that you tell people to avoid DU. We are quite contentious here, and we are not unified. We don't stay on-message. We are quite combative. Of course, each of us has a certain level of tolerance for discord amongst our allies. If your tolerance for discord is low, you will not like DU, and you are probably wise to steer potential Democratic voters away from DU if you believe they have a low tolerance for dissent and discord. On the other hand, if you want my honest opinion, this is what democracy is supposed to look like. People disagree, and they fight for their families and their beliefs ... with words.

That's DU in a nutshell, and that's a good thing, isn't it?



-Laelth

[ConservativeDemocrat]

386. You ask several good questions...

...let me see if I can answer them.

First, the vast majority of people are not looking for dissent and discord. Many of the worst look only for validation, and you can see this both in Republican and Green hardliners. Tellingly, many on this site wax rhapsodic over the halcyon days of yore when the D.U. was a pure echo chamber of their views (a rose-colored fantasy about as true as the rest of their assertions). This is absolutely not the kind of place you send an actual centrist or even moderate Republican who is, shall we say, Dem-curious. Not if you want to keep them.

Let me give you a real life example. I have a friend who is a pro-life Catholic. She also happens to agree with the Democrats on every economic issue under the sun, and probably could give Manny a run for the title of most-economic leftist (including things I see as completely unrealistic, but I digress). Anyway, despite her other views, she still had a lot of trouble supporting Democrats until she met one of the political directors of Planned Parenthood, who explained to her all the things that they were doing, and were in favor of, to make sure that women did not get into such a terrible situation in the first place - the vast majority of which were completely opposed by their counterpart Pro-Life group (because about 50% of Pro-Life supporters in lOregon are also against contraception as well). This helped her move fully into the Democratic camp, since contraception is one place where she is fully opposed to the orthodoxy of the Church.

Had I, instead, sent her to post her misgivings about abortion on the D.U. (which would have immediately made her the target of the counterproductive screamers here as they insulted her every way under the sun) it is highly unlikely that she would be voting for Democratic candidates right now, and Oregon needs every Dem vote it can get, at least on the east side.

In short, there is a reason why politicians "stay on message". This is because it works. At least for people who are reachable.

Now, as a side point, let me put in an addenda about people who are not reachable. In general, you need to recognize that when someone has become so emotionally invested in hatred that they invent conspiracy theories, create strawmen, make comparisons of people they purport to "support" politically to NAZIs, and/or feel entitled to just make "facts" up, you are never going to persuade them of anything. However, pointing out lies and logical fallacies is still useful. Others read it, and facts do matter.

Still, the DU is entertainment, not activism. All the armchair "activism" in the last 10 years on the D.U. hasn't flipped the election of so much as dogcatcher. Whereas I can tell you that in some elections I personally made more voter contacts than our margin of victory in Democrats getting into office, which is a good feeling even if you know you weren't the only one pitching in.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[YoungDemCA]

172. The center-right doesn't exist here?

[Laelth]

275. The OP didn't say the center-right exists on DU.

Generally speaking, I agree with you. There are centrists here, and this is splitting hairs a bit, but I'm willing to concede (for the sake of argument) that there's no center-right here.

That said, we have seen a whole range of policy positions coming out of the White House during Obama's tenure--some left, some right, some center-left, and some center-right. It is these center-right policy positions (and some pure-right policy positions) coming out of the White House to which we progressives and/or liberals object. That's not accusing anyone on DU of anything, is it? Admittedly, you might take some flak for defending a pure right or center right position here on DU, but that is to be expected. This is a fairly liberal message board.

The OP argues that it does not require a medical condition in order to disagree with certain policies of the Obama administration. That makes perfect sense to me.

-Laelth

[Rex]

298. That was some strong projection by the BOG host.

IMO.

[Rex]

297. Sure it does! They live in the BOG and you are their leader.

Sad really.

[Bolo Boffin]

368. I am their leader. You flatter me.

But you really have no idea what you're talking about.

[sibelian]

419. Certainly does.

Look no further than the Gungeon.

[Octafish]

24. Labels are handy.

Instead of actually justifying policies like fascist domestic spying and illegal wars for profit, the use of the ODS phrase helps deflect discussion to the person wondering why a Democratic administration pursues such conservative policies.

[grasswire]

50. ^^^^ nt

[Oakenshield]

90. Hit the nail right on the head!

You might get a small grumble out of them by voicing those protests, but you'll get little else. So they deflect.

[woo me with science]

112. This is the correct answer.

[840high]

314. +100 and 1

[indepat]

320. Moreover, the extremely conservative wet dream of burgeoning income inequality has raged

un-ameliorated by any significant change in tax and other fiscal policies.

[jazzimov]

26. .

Yes, it certainly does exist. You may not be guilty of it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And I have seen many examples of it in both Republicans and right here on DU.

[tkmorris]

43. You used a ROFL smiley. Your argument is invalid.

[MannyGoldstein]

52. That album is so #%^*ing awesome

Strangest thing, thought - the song "London Calling" is my least-favorite on the album. Still great, thought.

I still have the LP!

[cui bono]

150. Please show examples. Thank you. n/t

[quinnox]

28. I think there is an ODS, but it is on the right

Not the left side. I agree that the vast majority of Duers are not suffering from this malady. They simply have a problem with Obama's tendency to push centrist and mushy middle policies, instead of liberal (or progressive) ideas.

The Obama derangement syndrome is suffered by the Neanderthal right wingers.

[Rex]

35. I agree, I don't think Dems suffer from ODS.

The GOP adds ODS to a number of other issues they suffer from.

[quinnox]

37. The GOP adds ODS to a number of other issues they suffer from.

Ain't that the truth!

[Rex]

168. After thinking about it more, I believe BOG members suffer from ODS.

I know...sounds crazy but why the 124 bans? I doubt even Obama would think that is fair or right. No other group even comes close to that kind of censorship.

Kinda is funny really, the group that created the term suffers from it most imo.

[joshcryer]

49. This is my all time favorite example of ODS:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=185005

[quinnox]

64. and that person who wrote the OP was tombstoned

as well.

[joshcryer]

132. I'm linking to a subthread, the OP is irrelevant.

One poster in that sub-thread in fact was a very well respected, universally respected poster here, who was here since the start of DU. She doesn't post anymore (she wasn't banned, she just quit posting). The poster who made the original claim is still around.

[gordianot]

53. Case in point "birthers" who in the same breath ignore Cruz is a Canadian.

Even if Barack Obama were born in Kenya he would have been a natural born American citizen. Barack Obama was clearly born in Hawaii. Ted Cruz for that matter is also a natural born American Citizen he had dual citizenship. That is a primary symptom of Obama derangement syndrome.

[quinnox]

59. No question, "birth-ism" is a prime symptom

of this malady.

[last1standing]

95. We used to just call that racism.

n/t

[gordianot]

155. Yes, racism describes it well.

The birthers I have spoken to have all denied racism figures in with this peculiar belief. "It has nothing to do with him being black". This denial is a dead give away for their primary motive as a "birther".

[last1standing]

71. Republicans may suffer from DDS and BDS but not likely ODS.

I don't think this is personal against Obama with most republicans, at least not on the Hill. Ever since Reagan took office, republicans have acted like they own the White House and any Democrat in there is an usurper to the throne. They may well suffer from Democratic Derangement Syndrome.

Meanwhile, there are many republicans who can't stand the thought of a black man as president because they're full-fledged, mouth-breathing, haters who consider anyone not just like them to be emissaries of Satan and proof that the Second Coming is imminent. They likely have Black Derangement Syndrome.

Really though, I think most republican politicians know that playing to the mouth-breathers get them elected so they do it.

[quinnox]

80. Well, trying to figure out the various afflictions of these republican bozos is probably a waste

of time anyhow. Not to mention an unpleasant exercise. By and large, they seem to be deranged, and there is no cure.

[last1standing]

114. We definitely agree on that.

In the OP I was trying to point out that there isn't some sort of personal vendetta against Obama. The republicans who hate him hated Clinton and will hate the next Democratic president.

[TheKentuckian]

398. They hate, hate, hate them some Jimmy too.

Obstruction? See Iran hostage crisis where they took it to full on treason.

Tried to run a coup on FDR.

The Reich wing hasn't been even publicly civil in twenty years and have been up to beyond ruthless shit in the background for years.

Of course many or even most of them are racist (at least in the base, the pols are just circus barkers at this point probably some rebs among them like Wilson but mostly it is transactional) and it adds that particular element to their wide spectrum hate but they will hate any Democratic President in their own specialized way, for their own particular yet insanely phony ass reasons.
Hell, the racist would even be racist in unique ways for different black Presidents and sexist in various ways for each woman President and they will certainly continue to be absurd and wickedly hateful to any white, Protestant, male Democratic President.

They are stuck by the tool of their ascendancy, the wicked southern strategy. They must play to the American Taliban and the yahoo segment or they don't have any numbers sufficient to have real pull, even to obstruct. They just pretty much have to ride their demographic into the ground and it is going to be a rough ride and paying much mind to to them or coddling them won't help.

[lunasun]

33. Qoutes Goering 'nuf said

No racism with Obama elected
Nope haven't seen any of that

[cherokeeprogressive]

41. It's a rhetorical construct intended to inhibit conversation.

No different than hater. One can find things like that here every single day.

Consider this: An avowed Conservative who voted for Reagan can post 20 outright lies about other DUers and get almost a hundred recs. Study the list of who rec'd his bullshit post and you'll find a list of the posters most likely to use the terms ODS and hater.

[JackRiddler]

74. +1

[last1standing]

101. That's exactly what it is.

Make people afraid to express opinions that could be construed as racist. That's what "haters" did and that's what ODS does now.

[markpkessinger]

165. Precisely! n/t

[winter is coming]

218. To me, "hater" and "ODS" are flashing neon signs reading: Don't Take Me Seriously.

That's what happens when you scatter labels like confetti, without considering whether or not they actually fit.

[sibelian]

420. Of course it is.

It's nothing more than a wilful communication block.

[rury]

54. Total bullshit OP.

Severe Obama Derangement Syndrome exists and you and everybody else are fully aware of that!!

[Union Scribe]

88. Another one awakens. Lol. nt

[cui bono]

174. Awakens?

Would that it were so.

[Fumesucker]

196. Reanimates would probably be a better term

[L0oniX]

280. Must have escaped from the ignore dungeon.

[Laelth]

295. I think "escaped from the drawer" is more likely. n/t

-Laelth

[last1standing]

97. Well if you say so....

Don't bother with facts or psychological studies. Just call my OP bullshit and tell me I'm part of a cover-up. That should do the trick.

[TreasonousBastard]

56. Oh yeah?

If it's a policy disagreement you have, then you have to be specific about the policy's failings and about a realistic solution.

"Obama fucked this one up" does neither.

The circumstances around the policies under fire are usually too complex for a chessboard and a Go master would have an interesting time maneuvering through them.

Case in point would be the chained cpi where Obama has been regularly trashed whenever it comes up. And it often seems to come just because there's nothing else around to bash him with. According to the hair-on-fire crowd we're all going to die if this goes through, but I've done the calculations, and we're not all going to die. I might get a $7 increase instead of a $10 one, and that's about as bad as it gets. But, none of us knows fully what kind of sausage was made when that deal was struck and maybe 600 or so people in DC were involved in the negotiations. We have no idea how bad it could have become when the asshole Scrooge contingent were using cutting the actual payments as a cudgel and threatening to shut down the airports back then.

Now, we just saw how we had to cut food stamps out of the farm bill to get a farm bill. And, in retrospect, a lot of people are saying we needed a farm bill like another hole in the head in a year when farmers showed record returns while poor people had even less to eat but they get their food stamps cut. So, considering all the power bases with input, just how would the hypothetical "You" handle this for the ideal outcome? Next best outcome? Barely tolerable but at least passable outcome? Just put out the damned fire outcome?

Just what is the decision making process when the Syrians are gassing people, Kenyan shopping centers are being terrorized, 30 or 40 Republicans are saying "So fire me-- I don't give a shit because my voters are fucking idiots and I don't like this job anyway", a couple of thousand Americans are being randomly shot every year, the Post Office is being put out of business, cable TV and the internet have given us more talking heads than brains to go in them... I could go on, but you all know the rest.

So, without the classified knowledge in the White House, without the experience and contacts of the regular DC press corps, and often without the other half of our brains, we sit here and pontificate on earthshaking events when we barely hold on to our own jobs in the 7-11.

Yeah, I do it too, but I try to not act like a wounded bear when it's pointed out. I have mirrors in my home.

[last1standing]

83. Your criteria for expressing an opinion would shut this site down in 24 hours.

People disagree on politics. If we didn't there would be no DU. Many of us, you and me included, are not fully informed on the details of every policy and we don't have the resources or experience to develop alternatives. Yet we still know when we believe something is wrong based on what knowledge and experience we do have and should be able to express our opinions without being called leftist racists or right wing fascists.

If you (the generic 'you,' not you personally) have more knowledge than me then prove it with facts, not smears and insults.

[TreasonousBastard]

98. That's pretty much what I was saying, although...

I've seen things coming close to blows when two guys argue slogans in a bar.

A discussion should be to gain knowledge and insight, not see who can shout the loudest.

Again, the internet has given every asshole a microphone, and damned near every asshole is using it.

[Number23]

179. "And it often seems to come just because there's nothing else around to bash him with."

Didn't somebody just put up some moronic OP just a few days ago about how SS doesn't affect the deficit that was so full of logical fallacies ad blathering misinformation it was almost kind of funny?

It was almost as if that person was thinking, "wait, it's too quiet. We don't have any LEGITIMATE reasons to bash this man for the 3 millionth time so I'll just pull out the overused canard that everyone except the most unhinged stopped listening to five years ago."

Between that OP and the "Defend this, defenders!" taunting BS from a few days ago, how ANYONE on this site can type with a straight face that there is no hate for the man is simply astonishing. And these are both just from the last 3-4 days.

[Phlem]

58. K&R!

-p

[cynatnite]

67. Was I the only one who thought it was satire? n/t

[SunSeeker]

68. The OP just demonstrated ODS exists. nt

[last1standing]

75. And your post just demonstrated everything I wrote about.

n/t

[SunSeeker]

81. Goody. Maybe you'll get quoted on some radio show. nt

[last1standing]

89. So long as it's not Stephanie Miller I'm good with that.

I'd like to think that however trite my contributions are, they deserve better than being wedged in between fart jokes.

[SunSeeker]

156. Figures. You're good with Limbaugh but not Stephanie Miller. nt

[last1standing]

157. LOL! You can't even troll well.

n/t

[SunSeeker]

160. Calls pro-Obama Dems trolls. Check. Fake laughter. Check.

Hates Dems more than Republicans. Check.
Repeats right wing talking points about Obama. Check.

Nancegreggs nailed it.

[last1standing]

253. Grief! How much will you change this post before you're satisfied?

n/t

[madrchsod]

77. you should read some of replies on my facebook page

there`s a whole lot of people suffering from ODS.

[last1standing]

94. That may be what I usually call old fashioned racism.

n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

99. K&R Nice try, thank you for the effort.

But as your thread here clearly demonstrates, they are determined to continue to be wrong and continue to be assholes.

I saw another thread a little while ago wherein the poster is begging people not to stay home in the next election. We all know what's been done, by and for whom, and those of us that do not define ourselves through this site also know what the likely consequences will be. Once again the authoritarians have screwed the pooch and will seek to lay the blame anywhere but with themselves and their support for, almost comically bad ideas, even as the rest of us will have to pay the price for their selfishness.

[DeSwiss]

103. K&R

- The truth of the matter is, those making such claims, I have found, simply can't argue the point. So as is the wont of those trying to defend the indefensible, they go after the messenger since they can't deal with the message.







You can thank Al Capone for 'sell by' dates.

[BuelahWitch]

111. Thank you!

It's bullshit how people try and shut down others by screaming "ODS!" and "racist!" when they disagree with Obama's policies!

[JoeyT]

117. It's a derailment tactic.

Can't defend the position? Scream about haters and ODS. You're not going to win anyone over to your position, but you will get pats on the back from the other faithful, reinforce your position in your own mind, and completely shut down meaningful discussion by turning whatever thread you're in into a shitflinging rage fight.

[ProSense]

121. "Even republicans aren't affected with ODS."

Ted Cruz?

Really?

[last1standing]

130. Cruz doesn't hate Obama, he hates what he thinks Obama stands for.

He may hate African-Americans as a whole but that doesn't make it ODS, that makes it racism. And he may hate Democrats as a whole, but that doesn't make it ODS, that makes it DDS, if anything.

You minimize the importance of racism and the disease of blind hatred when you try to make up some silly acronym to jumble good Democrats who stand for progressive values in with spiteful, bitter republicans like Cruz who revel is the suffering of others.

You want to say I'm wrong on policy, great. I'm sure there are many things I'm wrong about and I'd love to hear about them. If you have facts that prove my opinions wrong then let me know, but you don't have to call me a racist or say that I'm mentally disturbed because I disagree.

[ProSense]

134. Oh please.

Republicans are making fools of themselves, saying some of the stupidest shit.

Any group that basically says if he's for it, we're against it, is suffering from ODS.

You're trying to make Cruz out to be a reasonable person who simply differs on policy. That's nonsense.

Even some Republicans are starting to call out the lunacy.

[last1standing]

137. Every now and then I try to have a rational conversation with you.

And every time you twist my words and make shit up out of whole cloth.

Since I never even insinuated that Cruz is a reasonable person who simply differs on policy, I have to believe you either cannot read above a second grade level or you want to create a strawman that you can then knock down.

Either way, I'm done.

[ProSense]

140. This is becoming parody

"Since I never even insinuated that Cruz is a reasonable person who simply differs on policy"

Previously: "Cruz doesn't hate Obama, he hates what he thinks Obama stands for."

[laundry_queen]

204. That you think those 2 statements are the same says it all. nt

[ProSense]

224. Enlighten me.

"Since I never even insinuated that Cruz is a reasonable person who simply differs on policy"

Previously: "Cruz doesn't hate Obama, he hates what he thinks Obama stands for."

Are you implying that the second statement means Cruz in unreasonable, but he "hates what he thinks Obama stands for" doesn't apply to policy? He just "hates" him for some unknown reason?

Explain how that statement reconciles with this: "Even republicans aren't affected with ODS."

Explain how he "hates," but is also unreasonable means anything but ODS?

[laundry_queen]

251. Not worth my time

Until you are able to separate being unreasonable and hateful with hating a politician personally there is no point. It's clear from your post you still have that mental block.

[ProSense]

254. Well,

"Until you are able to separate being unreasonable and hateful with hating a politician personally there is no point. It's clear from your post you still have that mental block. "

...I knew you couldn't elaborate. I mean, the hilarity here is watching people try to portray "hate" as something other than "unreasonable."

It's not "ODS"! It's not "unreasonable"! It's "hating a politician personally" or, as indicated in the OP and throughout the thread, "racism."

Wouldn't want to confuse that with being "unreasonable."

[laundry_queen]

262. I'm sorry your brain cannot grasp the concept. Really, I am. nt

[ProSense]

263. I sorry that you believe you're smarter because you think "hate" is reasonable. n/t

[laundry_queen]

267. I'm sorry you feel the need to put words in my mouth and lie about what I said. nt

[ProSense]

268. You attempted create a distinction between "hate" and "unreasonable"

You did. I maintained that "hate" is "unreasonable" and you are challenging that assertion.

[laundry_queen]

269. You still don't get it. It's sad. nt

[ProSense]

273. Get this:

Rubio's cravenness on proud display
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023721075

False: "Even republicans aren't affected with ODS."

[laundry_queen]

308. ooo a linkie! To try prove something I never asserted! nt

[uponit7771]

388. +1

[cui bono]

124. I learned today that it originated as a right wing meme against Bush critics.

Now I think we can all agree there was plenty to criticize about Bush, yet the right wingers came up with Bush Derangement Syndrome to discount anyone who criticized Bush. Now we have the same thing being done by those who can't stand to hear any criticism of Obama. Rather than argue the merits they see in his policies/actions, they use the term ODS. I presume it's for the same reason the RW used OBS. They don't have a defense or they're just intellectually lazy.

[markpkessinger]

169. Quite correct . . .

. . . about the provenance of the "______ Derangement Syndrome" meme, and about the way it was originally used (i.e., to disparage Bush critics). And that is what makes its use by the palace guard all the more ironic -- and pathetic.

[Bluenorthwest]

215. It goes back at least to Bill Clinton, CDS was Clinton Deragement Syndrome

And here are a couple of cites for that...
November 12, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

"CDS....Question of the day: Why is Andrew Sullivan reduced to a state of semi-coherent frothing when the subject of Bill and Hillary Clinton comes up? I wouldn't bother asking except that over the past week or so this question has been the subject of numerous emails, listserv conversations, and even on Andrew's blog itself. It is a mystery.

I don't know the answer, but here's what seems most mysterious to me. Obviously lots of people suffer from Clinton Derangement Syndrome. That's not news...."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_11/012491.php

Saturday :: Nov 17, 2007
Clinton Derangement Syndrome = CDS = Clinton Double-Standard

by eriposte

"Nothing is more "entertaining" these days than Recommended Diaries at Daily Kos by "progressives" opposed to Sen. Hillary Clinton. Here's one of the latest:

Clinton News Network = CNN (Yes, Updated)

The author, Icebergslim, has this extremely profound Straight-Talking Reality-BasedTM summary:

When you own the media, call in favors, plant questions, what else can you conclude?

A perfect example of CDS. "
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011361.php

Not the 'Reality Based' meme and other retread rhetoric.

[G_j]

274. the sad part is that the RW was not expounding that crap

right HERE within this forum,
but now..here it is.

[madamesilverspurs]

129. Sure it does.

So do a lot of other things that aren't listed in behavioral journals.

For example, there's not really a crime called "driving while black", but the phrase conveys the context of some stories quite accurately. It's an application of informed shorthand. Same for ODS. And yes, it most certainly does exist on DU, sometimes appearing within seconds of a post.

[Hekate]

139. +1, madamesilverspurs

[ProSense]

141. There is a lot of pretending going on

It appears some guilt absolving too.

[last1standing]

143. Hey folks, look! ProSense is insinuating that we're "guilt absolving."

Gee, makes you wonder what she means by that, doesn't it? I'm sure she's not trying to imply that we're racists or anything. She'd never do that, would she?

[ProSense]

146. Damn right.

As the poster states, it happens sometimes within the first post of a thread.

I've seen responses to Obama statements met with "baby killer," Republican bootlicker" and worse, and that's in a positive thread.

[DevonRex]

180. Right HERE you blatantly tried to get others to come bully ProSense.

It was SO blatant that nobody took you up on it. You had to bully her all by yourself. And if this gets juried, just look at his post above. He says, "Hey folks, look! ProSense is insinuating that we're "guilt absolving."" If that's not calling everybody to pile on I don't know what is.

[Bobbie Jo]

198. Strange

The mob didn't swoop in for a meal?

[Rex]

144. It is a term created by those that cannot stand any kind of criticism.

Check out the BOG for further examples.

[Drunken Irishman]

152. LOL! Just like there isn't any racism on the right, right?

Give me a break. There are a handful of liberals whose sole intent is to attack Obama at every turn. They're the same assholes who won't give Obama credit on anything - and guess what? Many post on here. They're the bullshitters who said Obama doesn't deserve a lick of credit for overturning DADT or called him completely political when he came out in favor of gay marriage. They're the same twits who will post a hundred anti-Obama posts and then go quiet the second he does something worthy.

They exist. If you can't see 'em, it's your own damn fault. Open your eyes or stop playing dumb - there are a good number on the left who will attack Obama for swinging his golf club to the right.

[last1standing]

158. "I'm not saying many republican's aren't racist, we all know many are."

That was in the OP.

And since you couldn't see that, I'm not about to take your advice on what else I should be seeing.

[Drunken Irishman]

161. Right...it just furthers my point.

Get the right to admit they're racists. They won't. Just as many on the left won't admit they suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome...even though they do. They're purposely blind to their own flaws.

[99th_Monkey]

159. Thanks for clearing that up.

Now I can cancel that appointment I made to go see a shrink,
thinking ODS was real. What a relief!!

[6000eliot]

167. Horseshit. It's about his race, and everyone really knows it,

whether they admit it or not.

[markpkessinger]

170. Yeah, right . . .

. . . that's why most of us here, even those of us who have been quite critical of this President on certain subjects, voted for the man TWICE. Get effing real already!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

214. If it doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you, but to deny that it exists...

...well, again, is to either be (1) willfully ignorant or (2) a fucking liar. Don't be either.

[YoungDemCA]

171. Believe what you want to believe

[sibelian]

421. Yeah, and opposing Anne Coulter is misogynist.

Get. Real.

[Hobo]

175. The haters are going to hate........eom

Hobo

[Th1onein]

176. Kicked and rec'd.

[cali]

192. Aaargh! Make it stop. Make all this suckass moron fucking self-righteous

dog shit boring sniping stop.

[reddread]

228. interesting attempt.

seems like the fundamental problem is the real effect of repellant memes.
DOES NOT INCITE SOLIDARITY.
which only helps who?
seems pretty obvious who benefits from snarky disrespectful blanket condemnations.
It isnt the Democratic Party, assuming their agenda is dependent on votes and a majority presence in the houses.
Who will have the bigger tent, and who will lose support in the future?
Not the most effective strategies being employed by supporters of each and every policy practice,
especially distressing when the Bill of Rights is in flames before us.
the strangest thing of all, to me, is the sense that much of the defensiveness is based on some
notion that Obama's third term is at stake?
heaven forbid the loony left should assert pressure or petition grievances.
Obama 2016?

[whistler162]

194. Me thinks thou doth protest to much!

or just haven't read every other thread.

[B Calm]

197. I don't see DUers calling other DUers racists?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

213. It doesn't happen. I find it interesting, too. It's the same knee-jerk argument

that wingnuts use against anyone that has a legitimate concern about those who attack the president. "You're calling me a racist because I don't agree with the president." No, I'm not. I want to have a thoughtful dialogue with you. I don't want to hear you calling the president names, telling me that he's worse than Bush, rejecting everything he does, not giving him credit no matter what he does. You know how it goes. I could go on and on. But no one has called anyone a racist in this thread or otherwise and yet I notice that it happens all the time here on DU where someone will resort to that line. It's lame and tired.

[BeyondGeography]

201. We've had people here piss on Obama for being photographed with kids

So, um, nice try.

I think ODS is well-named, because it has nothing to do with race most of the time, IMO. It's the too easily deluded emoprog puritopians who typically suffer from it. Or those who have concluded in their self-righteousness that Obama is an easily-dismissed sellout. Or those who despise his "cultish" supporters.

Many of these folks suffer from other maladies that veer into ODS, like having a deep-rooted hatred for this country and, therefore, anyone who would defend it. Or a teabaggish aversion to compromise that would have made him a one-termer.

You're the one invoking race as a way to maintain the high ground. "I'm not racist, therefore I'm right. Obama just sucks." Nice try.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

203. Again, to pretend that there is no difference between sincere expressions of

disappointment regarding Obama's policy decisions and downright disgust for the man himself is to either be (1) willfully ignorant or (2) a fucking liar. Stop pretening that (2) doesn't exist, here at DU or otherwise. It does. There are people here who do have legitimate disagreements with this president. I know I do.

HOWEVER, stop also pretending that there aren't people who genuinely hate this president on DU and elsewhere. THERE ARE!!!

[Bluenorthwest]

222. Shouting and CAPS TYPE are not nearly as persuasive as supporting one's assertions with

verifiable facts and cites. Your post is passionate, but it lacks any support for your rather extreme assertions.
I see folks who throw the word 'hate' around casually to be generally protected from actual hate in the world. If you have seen a loved one hospitalized because of an attack by a hateful bigot you simply don't run around shouting 'hate' at political opinion.
Spoiled brats who have never faced a real enemy, so they shout at the neighbors ad preach about the sinners they see everywhere they look, all around are those who are simply not as good as they are!
Now go back to your previous finger pointing and shouting routine. It looks good on you!

[last1standing]

226. +1.

n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

235. Make your own arguments. What was extreme about what I wrote?

It's your OP. Defend it if you can.

[last1standing]

237. When you can post in this thread without the hyperbole and ALLCAPS!!!111!!!, I will.

Until then, I'll support anyone else's comments to you that I like, thank you very much.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

239. LOL! Your OP is nothing but hyperbole. But, I get it. You have no arguments to

put forth. That's o.k. I passionately disagree with you. And I think you're incredibly naive to believe that racism, sexism, and homophobia do not exist within the ranks of the Democratic Party or even here on DU. That's amazing and you have a lot of waking up to do.

I wish you well.

Trashing thread.

[last1standing]

243. Yep. Those are the kinds of comments you'll have to leave behind if you want to discuss this with m

Thanks for pointing them out.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

234. My extreme assertions? What do you mean by extreme? I think I made myself very clear

and very reasonable:

There is a difference between disagreeing on policy decisions versus expressions of hate and derision.

How is that extreme?

You and I have had our differences. We have had very thoughtful exchanges on policy and disagreements with regard to Obama's choices. That's very different than the shit I've seen on here regarding the name-calling re: Obama being like Bush or he's evil and other nonsensical, ad hominem attacks.

It's not the same. You're telling me that it is? It's not.

[rhett o rick]

361. I am curious why The Group seem to avoid posts like the following

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023720841

Do they have no opinion about the TPP?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

366. Where was this posted? I don't visit the BOG often. Was this posted there?

Also, admittedly, I'm not privy to this story. I have to read it first.

[ananda]

208. ODS does exist!

I know people, even close relatives, who have it!

[Arkana]

209. Actually, it does--on the right at least.

[Marrah_G]

211. ODS doesn't exist on my DU

I have all the people who use such arguments on ignore.

[99Forever]

221. K&R

[scheming daemons]

229. birtherism is proof ODS exists

You can argue that there isn't ODS on the left... But you cannot successfully argue that ODS doesn't exist on the right.

That's a laughable assertion.

[last1standing]

231. Birtherism is old fashioned ignorant racism, nothing more or less.

Just as BDS never existed, neither does ODS. There are real problems that cause blind hatred but mythical mental illnesses is not one of them.

[scheming daemons]

230. Support for the ACA is 10% higher than for "Obamacare". This is proof of ODS.

ACA is Obamacare.

In polling, ACA is 10% more popular thn Obamacare.

The very act of attaching Obama's name to something causes its popularity to drop.

That drop is is ODS quotient.

[last1standing]

233. Or it could be a sign that republicans like the policies but don't like Democrats who propose them.

Correlation is not causation.

[Laelth]

232. Agreed. An ODS accusation is a lazy way to avoid discussion.

That said, I can see why it's popular to accuse people of ODS. For liberals and moderates alike, many of Obama's policies are nearly impossible to defend.

-Laelth

[ProSense]

238. Like "paid shill," "Third Way/DLCer" or

"sock puppet": http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358242

Was that a celebration or what?

[bobduca]

241. Clearly you don't need to call people names to dodge a question, that's clear.

Direct questions about your intent or your opinion are like kryptonite to you.

[Laelth]

256. Those labels may be accurate, for all I know.

Paid shills are real. Accusing someone of being one, while rude and possibly a violation of DU's rules, is not necessarily a lazy way to avoid discussion. It might be an actual accusation. The accusation may have some merit.

Likewise, the Third Way is real, and the DLC was real. Pointing out that a person or poster holds such beliefs is a far cry from diagnosing a medical condition. As far as I know, being a Third Way DLC Democrat is not a syndrome. Those of us on the left can't dismiss and ignore the Third Way/DLC Democrats because they control the party (from our point of view, at least), so calling someone a Third Way/DLC Democrats is not, in fact, a way to ignore or dismiss various posters points of view. Instead, it is a useful way to understand where various arguments are going and from where they come (whether we like those policy positions or not).

Similarly, sock puppets are real. Accusing someone of having a sock does not allow those of us on the left to ignore whatever the alleged sock said. Making such an accusation is not, from what I have seen, a lazy way to avoid discussion.

In fact, none of the above are lazy excuses to avoid discussion. They are all very real phenomena that we occasionally discuss on DU. ODS, on the other hand, is not real-- not until the AMA says it is, anyway. Thus, I conclude, an accusation of ODS is merely a lazy way to avoid discussion. It's a means of avoiding having to defend the indefensible on a liberal message board.

Just my 2 cents.

-Laelth

[ProSense]

258. "In fact, none of the above are lazy excuses to avoid discussion. "

Right: The "labels" you prefer are "accurate," not "lazy." The only "lazy" label used to "avoid discussion" is ODS.

This whole who-is-the-paid-shill witch hunt is disruptive nonsense.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=2716

[Laelth]

264. I never used the word "only" in regards to lazy ways to avoid discussion.

There may be more, but I think lobbing out an ODS accusation is pretty lazy (or cowardly, if you prefer), because its use supposedly relieves its user of any responsibility for addressing the argument in question.

As an aside: I agree with Skinner that a paid-shill witch-hunt is disruptive. It's also a waste of time. I doubt they could be stopped. That said, the relevance of the link you posted to the discussion at hand escapes me.

-Laelth

[bobduca]

272. It's relevant

That blue link shows that the site owner supports her efforts.

[Laelth]

276. I appreciate the many informative OPs Pro has given us over the years.

In that sense, I too support her efforts. Not exactly sure what point you're trying to make.



-Laelth

[bobduca]

302. Trying to make Pro's point for her

The "paid shill" insults that are totally unfair are an example of how she bravely endures here and still just keeps giving selflessly 24/7 with no expectation of special treatment by DU'ers!

[Laelth]

307. I hear you.

I find her to be an asset to this site (though I admit I prefer her OPs to her responsive comments). She has undoubtedly been the object of some unfair attacks, and I understand her objection to those attacks.

That said, I still agree with the OP that it is less-than-useful to accuse DU posters of suffering from ODS.

-Laelth

[RetroLounge]

438. she bravely endures

RL

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

345. I don't "discuss" things with people when they use terms like "death panels"

Sorry. I know lefties don't, but don't tell me fucking Republicans don't have ODS.

[Laelth]

349. Hmm.

It is very tempting for me to believe that many Republicans do, in fact, have ODS, but, if I'm honest, what I think they have is DDS, i.e. Democrat Derangement Syndrome. I don't think their belligerence and obstruction have anything to do with Obama. It's the fact that he's a Democrat that bothers them.

-Laelth

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

351. I certainly agree they hate all Democrats

But most of all, they hate successful Democrats. And right now Obama leads that pack.

[Laelth]

352. Indeed. n/t

-Laelth

[BootinUp]

242. Don't piss down my back and tell me its raining!

The constant negative posts (by some) equal something closer to the piss as far as I can tell. If these folks were really interested in gaining support for their views they would take a less negative approach on occasion. Cya.

[stevenleser]

259. Agreed. The premise in the OP is easily disproven by looking at page one of GD. Trashing thread. nt

[magical thyme]

271. thank you. +1M. nt

[Nitram]

282. You are dead wrong, Standing

There has never been opposition to a president that compares with that which Obama has faced. 'Repealing' Obamacare over 40 times? Proposing bills and then opposing them when Obama supports them? Criticizing Obama for not attacking Syria and then opposing an attack when Obama takes it to Congress? Wake up, dude, the wingnuts have set a new standard for insanity in politics

[Laelth]

287. True, the Rs are desperate and increasingly shrill and obstinate.

But the same will be true for the next Democratic President. I don't think that has anything to do with Obama.

Hope I am wrong, of course, and that the Republicans will be more cooperative with our next President, but I doubt it.

-Laelth

[WillyT]

284. Thank You !!! - K & R !!!

[JackRiddler]

286. You've obviously done very good work.

It's brought out the biggest bullies on this board with the most bluster in response. I see a trifecta, in fact.

[ProSense]

293. Agree with this:

"It's brought out the biggest bullies on this board with the most bluster in response."

Yup "biggest bullies" are represented: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023087676

[JackRiddler]

324. Did you hear yourself called by my comment?

Happy to give you one of the 3 spots, if you like.

[Rex]

299. I agree and I cannot stop laughing at their hypocrisy.

nt.

[SunSeeker]

319. +1

[Zorra]

330. It appears that the overwhelming majority of posters claiming that some DUers

criticize the President due to a fictitious cognitive disorder they refer to as Obama Derangement Syndrome have never even once questioned or criticized the President for anything at all in any of their posts here on DU.

This type of blind allegiance is frightening to most democrats, who understand that the questioning of leaders, and all authority in general, is vital to the preservation of democracy.

Now...I know that the republicans, and the Third Way (despite the fact that he is generally considered the founder of the Democratic Party) pretty much hate Jefferson and his radical ideas regarding liberty, authority, and democracy, so I figured I'd post this Jefferson quote that seems so appropriate to the occasion:

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

[JackRiddler]

340. You'll never believe the jury I got last night...

Someone wanted to hide a post because it sarcastically said something about some people acting as if Obama was on the cover of Tiger Beat. This dude says it's inappropriate to mock the President (capital p) in this way. But the jury went 6-0 to "leave it," for a small relief.

[Zorra]

358. I believe it. The problem we progressives have is that, when Obama said "make me do it"

we took him literally, and we try to push him do the things that most Democrats want him to do. However, there is a certain faction among Democrats who will go along with anything and everything that Obama does, without question, even if they really don't believe in their hearts that something that Obama does is the right thing to do.

In doing so, they take away some of the power of progressive Democrats to "make Obama do it". For instance, these Democrats caved on universal health care because Obama did it. These Democrats went along with the Bush tax cut for the wealthy because Obama did it. If Obama wants chained CPI, these Democrats will want it as well. If Obama wants to go to war like Bush did, these Democrats will want it as well. If Obama wants to appoint Pat Robertson to a high level cabinet post, these Democrats will want it as well. etc.

When Obama was on the fence about LGBT rights and equality, these Democrats were on the fence about LGBT equality. They told the LGBT community to STFU repeatedly. When Obama came out for LGBT rights, they came out for LGBT rights

These Democrats are selling us, and our country, down the river. Selling us out. Selling us out by not pushing for the things that really need to be done. Selling us out by insisting that we are deranged because we criticize the Ppresident and continue to push Obama for universal healthcare, taxing the rich effectively, LGBT rights, Democratic cabinet appointees rather than republican appointees, peace... When we progressives were screaming for a diplomatic solution to the chemical weapons attacks in Syria, pushing Obama for peace, we were told to STFU, because Obama was so much smarter than us. When Obama decided a diplomatic solution was best, these Democrats marveled at how wise Obama was for devising such a brilliant plan to gain a diplomatic resolution.

Houston, we have a problem.

How to Push Obama
By John Nichols, January 2009
snip---
The point won't be to teach Obama about single-payer. Less than six years ago, he told the Illinois AFLCIO: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody . . . a singlepayer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."

Since then, Democrats have taken back the House, the Senate, and the White House. The man who set those prerequisites in 2003 will sit in the Oval Office in 2009. But change didn't just come to Washington. It came to Barack Obama. His statements, his strategies, and his appointments evidence a caution born of the political and structural pressures faced by Presidential contenders and Presidents-elect. Whether the previous, more progressive Obama still exists within the man who will take the oath of office on January 20 remains to be seen. But the only way to determine if Obama really is the progressive he claimed as recently as last summer to be is to push not just Obama but the public.

Franklin Roosevelt's example is useful here. After his election in 1932, FDR met with Sidney Hillman and other labor leaders, many of them active Socialists with whom he had worked over the past decade or more. Hillman and his allies arrived with plans they wanted the new President to implement. Roosevelt told them: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."
snip---
It is equally reasonable for progressives to assume that Barack Obama wants to do the right thing. But it is necessary for progressives to understand that, as with Roosevelt, they will have to make Obama do it.

Tiger Beat.

[bvar22]

380. CENTRISM!!!!

[font size=3]...because its so damned EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who DO!![/font]

[Laelth]

350. +1 for your post.

Another +1 for your sig. line.

-Laelth

[leftstreet]

289. DURec

[Pretzel_Warrior]

294. Bahahaha! Funny post.

[Hydra]

296. I've been ignoring the latest and greatest smears

Ever since they called the Left "racists" and "ratfuckers" and then demanded we vote for their people.

Even so, good OP for calling out bad behavior. The President is making the choices he is making. No amount of cutifying is going to make the results other than they are.

Btw BOGers, Bill Clinton was just as reviled as President Obama and just as obstructed, and had his own bag of bad things he did in order to be inducted into the 1% as their useful lackey. This is not a remarkable moment in history...but it could have been.

[Cryptoad]

301. Meanwhile back on the Farm,,,

the GOP continues to destroy this country and not a peep out of the Obama Haters! But you can call it however you like!

[beerandjesus]

303. ODS is real.

It motivates the Republican party in general and the teabaggers in specific. I tried really hard to believe that it wasn't about race, but after all the insane, fucked-up shit that's gone on over the last few years, I'm forced to conclude that racism is at least a big chunk of it. It's true that there was some degree of CDS, but not to anywhere near the same degree that ODS afflicts today's bagger nuthouse. Yes, I remember the impeachment, the shut-down, and all that crazy shit. But I also remember how they managed to work with Clinton on things like welfare reform and "financial sector modernization"; today's crowd couldn't even do that, as they've repeatedly demonstrated by opposing Republican policies simply because it was Obama proposing them (most notably Obamacare, as we all know).

Therefore, to paint someone who attacks Obama from the left as suffering from ODS is to dismissively lump them in with the most retrograde, nasty, and frankly fascist elements of today's political environment. It is tantamount to an accusation of racism, since racism is probably at least 60% of real ODS; I similarly doubt that anyone would buy it if I called someone on here a Nazi, but then said, "oh, how could you think I was calling you a racist? I don't mean the racist kind of Nazi!"

Therefore, "ODS" is a particularly obnoxious charge to level at leftists who are disappointed in Obama. There's a world of difference between DU's "Obama haters" and the actual ODS crowd, and to pretend there isn't is not only dishonest, mean-spirited, and divisive, but insulting to our intelligence and our morals.

If the Obama defenders on here get sick of arguing their positions, I understand. Sometimes I think you're clearly and obviously right; other times I think your positions are completely incoherent. But please stop slinging around that "ODS" bullshit. Call us Obama-haters, call us wingnuts, call us moonbeams, call us "impractical".... but don't call us racists, and don't call us Nazis. That's exactly what you're doing, whether you mean to or not.

[heaven05]

304. So, I take it

you fail to understand that it's not the policies of Obama that are failing, but the Democrat Party that is weak and failing with the likes of Reid and Pelosi guiding our legislatures/Senators. I feel general run of the mill Obama hate from your OP. Yes he has policies that I disagree with, yet if the bluedogs hadn't created problems and denied him the votes he needed for some of his attempts at bettering the lives of seniors and the disabled along with weak leadership mentioned above, we would be better off. Better start laying the blame where it really belongs. Your blame is just not well placed. And oh yeah, along with racist republicans, my POTUS has had to deal with racism in our own party. You cut the disingenuous crap. ODS is present in both party's with no excuse for the lack of backup from members of his own Party. Yeah, let's cut the crap!

[beerandjesus]

326. Um....

"the Democrat Party"?


Really?

[heaven05]

377. okay

democratic party. my take lately because we're all allegedly democrats. kind of dumb I know. Never denied it.

[AlbertCat]

306. "Does anyone remember how the right ....

... savaged Hillary during the health-care debate? Travel-gate? Whitewater-gate? "

Does anyone remember how the right circulated pics of the Clinton White House with a water mellon patch in front, or Clinton with a bone in his nose? Does anyone remember the right showing up to Clinton rallies conspicuously armed with hand guns and rifles... before he had even enacted or done anything? Does anyone remember the right insisting Clinton was not an American Citizen?

"So let's cut the dishonest, race-baiting" .... and realize it's out and out RACISM on a huge scale.

[Laelth]

312. The Rs were not kind to Clinton.

But I'll agree with you that they have been worse to Obama. Personally, I think they are simply desperate. While many of them are racists (and racism still exists, obviously), I have no reason to believe that they will behave any better with the next Democratic President. I hope they're more cooperative with our next President, but I doubt they will be. In that sense, I don't think their obstruction has anything to do with race.

And accusing DU posters of racism or ODS or both--just because they dislike some action taken by the President--is less-than-useful, don't you think?



-Laelth

[reddread]

325. Impeach Clinton bumper stickers were circulated before his inaugural

But never mind that, go back to the Carter admin. Despite replacing the stumbling Warren commissioner, he was subject to the most ridiculous low level attacks, as well as the most heinous high level treasonous acts.
But what took him down?
I shouldnt have to ask a question that Im certain no one is prepared to answer, but lets have a little truth-

TED KENNEDY. His ambitious, selfish and failed efforts paved the way for John Anderson's candidacy and the sort of blame games
that Bush/Reagan benefitted from.
SO, if we choose to follow some of the conventional insanity that blessedly seems to have faded from prevalence,
Naderizing someone would actually be Kennedy-fying.
All of that has NO BEARING on a sitting President in his final term.
Any criticism of him at this point means much less than it might have two years ago.
Ya all might want to lower your weapons and do some real organizing, some real activism within the party.
Circle jerks are hardly the stuff of long term progress.
Lets get secure in our persons again, habeas corpus or bust.
Privacy, freedom, security from those who would invade us in our homes.
set some real goals.
the mess this country is in merits much more than a little pointless back and forth.

[Laelth]

335. Welcome to DU.

I appreciate the historical perspective you bring to this discussion.

Be careful with that broad brush, though. Many of us are far more active in "real activism" than you acknowledge in your post.

-Laelth

[reddread]

343. thank you

that was a broad brush swipe.
not intentionally, but there does seem to be an active discussion about what is and what is activism, vis posting, etc.
myself, ive been just involved enough to realize how truly involved many people are not.
not a judgement, really, just an observation.
in my world, everyone is free to do or not do what they want.
"activism" should focus on bringing the Democratic Party ship back to what the citizens need and want, and the big money contributors
can suck eggs.

[Laelth]

348. No doubt.

We Americans are noted for our failure to participate in politics, and this hurts us all. I am convinced that if 90% of Americans voted, the Democratic Party would be our conservative party, I'd I'd be a proud member of a different party to the left of our Democrats.

I agree that we need to strike down the body of case law that says "money is speech," and that, therefore, political contributions are protected by the 1st Amendment. It will take a succession of Democratic Presidents nominating liberals to the SCOTUS to achieve this, but it can be done. I don't see the Rs re-taking the Presidency for several electoral cycles. There's hope yet.

Cheers!

-Laelth

[JackRiddler]

327. They called Clinton a commie agent

who organized demos against America in London in his youth. They called him every name that could have conceivably fit. If he'd been black, they'd have attacked him for that, but they attacked him for being friendly to black people (as if). Their racism expressed itself as virulently, but didn't have a black man to attack. That's the difference. Otherwise, hello, impeachment for lying about a blow job, remember?

[Liberalynn]

331. I got called a Commie Pinko

for voting for him by my boss.

[AlbertCat]

414. They called Clinton a commie agent

But these accusation, as dumb as they are, were not RACIST.....

And they call Clinton a "queer"... my father had Clinton 3 dollar bills. Then they spent millions "investigating" his womanizing. Supremely stupid. But still not racist.

They did call Clinton "the 1st black president"...remember? Now that was racist...but nothing like the blanket coverage we see today.

[JackRiddler]

417. Well, obviously!

They fit the bullshit to the person. Their racism was as virulent, but it didn't have a black man to target like now. Otherwise the strategy is identical.

By the way, the first person to call Clinton the first black president was doing so in praise: Toni Morrison, if I'm not mistaken.

[AlbertCat]

432. the first person to call Clinton the first black president was doing so in praise

Which just proves my point.

There's an intensity to the racist crap Obama puts up with that is very different than the Clinton hatred....tho' both are ridiculous.

[YoungDemCA]

409. Two words: Arkansas Project

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Project

[AlbertCat]

415. two more words

not racist.


The examples I site in my initial post were clearly racist in origin. That was my point.

It's not just because Obama is a Dem.

[Orsino]

310. Faulty logic...

...unless you're claiming to speak for all ant-Obama posters, some of whom do appear deranged.

[840high]

313. K/R

[JackRiddler]

322. It's telling that the concept is from Krauthammer...

the all-time sophist and bully, who devised "Bush Derangement Syndrome" as the supposed explanation for why people outraged over the Bush Regime's dismantling of the republic and declarations of war were actually sick, compulsive "haters" of Bush the person.

Not the only way in which the Obama years have mirrored the Bush days.

[Liberalynn]

323. This is how I look at it

Every President so far and every President of the future is fair game for criticism no matter what letter is behind their name and regardless of race, creed, color or gender.

If you apply that criticism even handedly I think that's fair. For instance whatever a Republican criticizes President Obama for, he/she should have done the same for any similar policies Bush enacted.

The reverse is also true as a Democrat I feel if I criticized Bush for it, I better be prepared to criticize President Obama for similar policies he enacted or enacts.

Otherwise its hypocritical.

I know I am biased but I tend to see more Democrats who are willing to be even handed, than Republicans. For instance when I said to a Republican, "why if you are so concerned about the national debt now, weren't you concerned when Bush was racking it up?" Their response "Quit living in the past,Obama, is President now and the debt is his." Like the debt Bush ran up just magically disappeared when he left the White House?

Also while some Republican critcism may be based just on the fact that Obama is a moderate Democrat and not a radically conservative Republican, I also think part of it is due to racisim. I'm sorry a lot of the Republicans I've known have been racist, not all but a good number of them. Plus there are a number of Republicans who still try to claim he is a Muslim not born in the United States.

I am not saying that no one can disagree with his policies, I do that myself sometimes. I just don't like when the PUKES make up crap about him personally and spread rumors that he's trying to enact some bizzarre evil policy that is totally pulled out of the Puke's arse.

[Rex]

328. It does for the GOP, ODS is a spot on to describe them.

Strangely enough, I have to take back what I said and DO see some here suffering from ODS - just not the ones you would think of.

[OregonBlue]

332. I disagree with the poster. I think ODS does exist here. There are days when I have to do a double

take to see if I somehow got redirected to Red State or Townhall or one of those TeaParty sites.

People are trying to make the argument that if you disagree with the president you have an obligation to criticize him and I agree. However, there are people here who post daily or even hourly about how he is betraying the country and he's Bush light, etc.

I think the president has done a lot of good things in the face of overwhelming problems. I don't like the fact that he didn't go after the banksters and the war criminals, and I don't like the fact that he's been willing to negotiate on health care and social security, etc. I am to the left of the president.

I do however believe he is a very smart, very pragmatic guy and I believe he is doing a good job in the face of unprecedented opposition. I believe he has more information and sharper, more informed, advisers than I do.

I'm 64 and have been a Democrat my whole life and I have never seen so much bile directed by other Democrats at a Democratic president. It often goes beyond criticism and approaches GOP levels of ODS.

[grahamhgreen]

336. Not true! I have it!!! I tried to get it cured but

it wasn't covered under my private crapsurance policy

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

337. Unrec

Republicans are fully engorged by ODS. If you don't think that, seriously....GTFO.

[ColumbusLib]

355. I disagree

That is all.

[last1standing]

390. And I respect that.

n/t

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

356. Hmmm

[BlueStreak]

360. I have never criticized his center-right policies. I only criiticize his extreme right-wing policies

If we criticized his center-right policies, we would be criticizing about 80% of what he has done.

I stick with the most extreme, insanely right-wing positions, like:

1) Trying to name a person like Summers as Fed chief

2) Unilaterally invading Syria in lock-step with McCain and Graham

3) Offering significant Medicare cuts before even exploring the obvious solution of raising regressive the income cap

4) Throwing the IRS under the bus when they were actually acting responsibly

5) Doing everything in his power to protect the S-I-C.

These are positions to the right of most of the Republican Presidents since Nixon.

Obama has done some good things. and I think we are all willing to give him credit for that. But the balance is not what any reasonable person should have expected.

[KoKo]

370. last1standing...Applaud your Reply!

[Scurrilous]

378. LOL

Deny it all you want, it exists, and this place is rife with it.

[certainot]

379. bullshit. ODS is just another term for "the idiot whining left ignores talk radio" same as

been for 25 years, since the right bought up and subsidized a 1200 radio stations, many piggybacking the state funded college sports teams they broadcast for.

the collective left never got obama's or clinton's back. 1200 radio stations lie about and attack obama all day long to 50 mil a week as scripted and coordinated by the RW think tanks and no response from the left.

there is NO challenge to the right's best and most effective weapon the last 25 years. don't expect shit until the 'left' pulls their ipods out of theirears.

considering the time lost on global warming, ignoring talk radio is the biggest political mistake in history.

ODS is real, but like the tea party, the left has no idea where it comes from.

[Skittles]

381. Obama himself would find them utterly ridiculous

[Rex]

395. About ignoring them?

I took your advice. Almost looks like the original DU3 without the Usual Suspects.

[Skittles]

405. I keep a couple off Ignore for entertainment purposes

but yes, it does wonders to restore DU back to the semi-rational state it was in before the crazies took over

[Rex]

416. Oh same here! I just blocked the hatemongers from the BOG

mostly. Since they contribute ZERO to GD, I'm just sad that it took me this long to figure it out.

[baldguy]

385. .

[Tigress DEM]

402. They went nuts because Michelle Obama is urging people to drink more water.

There are legitimate disagreements. I hear what you are saying.

But there are also people who are just rabid if you mention Obama.

[Taverner]

428. Truth be told, Obama and his admin had the best of intentions

But to me it is proof the system can't be changed - not this system, not at this time

So I guess we will just have to wait for the whole thing to implode before we see any change

[SidDithers]

430. Nope, no ODS from the left at all...

Top 45 Lies In Obama's U.N. Speech
http://www.alternet.org/world/top-45-lies-obamas-un-speech



Sid

[last1standing]

434. So all you have are insults but I'm the one who's deranged.

You keep thinking that.

[PowerToThePeople]

435. I agree with you

The ban stick cometh though. We must all conform and get on the 3rd way bandwagon. No more calling out right wing politics when we see them. Nope, our team is never wrong....

[RetroLounge]

437. Well put...

K&R

RL

[AgingAmerican]

440. It isn't a literal ailment lol

It's a state of mind. Tea Partyers are definitely afflicted with it.