Please do not start threads and get into hissy fits based on rumors and anonymously sourced stories

[bluestateguy]

This is rant. If you are hypersensitive, saddle up, it's gonna be tough ride:

This is really wearing down my patience. People who have spent 8 years being justifiably outraged don't seem to know anything else. It's like they want to continue being outraged. So they get themselves into a hissy fit on the basis of a rumor driven, speculatory story in some rag or corporate media that reports a story based on "sources", who are of course too cowardly to go on the record. The "sources" tell us what Obama is "thinking about, considering doing", or who Obama "might" appoint to some job, and on and on. And then of course, you have the people here, with whatever their pet issues happen to be, they immediately rush to these piss poor pieces of journalism and being ranting and fulminating with rage.

Real men go on the record. Anonymity is for cowards.

Obama inherited one hell of a mess, and he needs to be given some space and flexibility to clean it all up. And in any event he has only been in there for 50 days. Critique him yes, but a little leeway please, and always consider the sources of these stories that you choose to get so outraged over.

[kywildcat]

1. Thank you for ranting-the hand wringing is really

getting out of hand. Your brave to stand up to it. Thanks!

[Louis-Emmanuel]

2. I disregard anonymously sourced articles

No accountability.

[katandmoon]

3. GMAFB -- the Obama administration is duplicating BushCo in enough respects to no longer be given the

benefit of the doubt.

[FrenchieCat]

15. GMAFB! Your assessment lacks any substance.....

which is exactly what the OP is about; folks like you.

[rhett o rick]

24. Please specify some "enough respects".Obama has been busy undoing bush's policies at a fast rate.nm

[Renew Deal]

54. Obama and Bush both lived in the White House

They are both married.
They both have two daughters.

It's clear that Obama is just another Bushco clone. The plutocracy lives on! :argh:











:rofl:

[rhett o rick]

58. Damn, you're right. nm

[Cha]

41. Bullshit..

put up or stfu.

[Baltoman991]

43. Really?

Some of you here spouting this kind of bullshit sound like you're right off of Fox News. And when asked for examples of being "Bush like" you run without response.

I don't post here often but read every damn day and it's the same old crowd spewing right wing talking points yet they have nothing to back up their spew.

Carry on with your hate of Obama. One day the candidate you support just might win and one of us will get the chance to spew inane hatred toward him/her even though facts won't bear out the hatred.

[tekisui]

47. That is absurd.

[Gman]

48. GMAFB! what dimension are you from??

or just trolling?

[Renew Deal]

53. lol

The crazy is contagious.

[Danger Mouse]

55. Your attempt at comedy was unsuccessful.

[vaberella]

59. Who's GMAFB?! The rest is false but common rightwing meme. n/t

[nxylas]

70. I had to look it up on urbandictionary.com too

Apparently it stands for "Give Me A Fucking Break".

[HamdenRice]

66. The bullshittines of your post is complete. It is total. It is perfect in its bullshittiness.

Congratulations. You have written the ur-bullshit post!

[PopSixSquish]

4. Damn Skippy!

The long-standing tradition in Washington is to go "off the record" or "on deep background" when it comes to administration officials and the press. Criticism and skepticism is good but out and out hysteria based on "maybe, possibly, might be" is a waste of time.

I've seen numerous threads on my years at DU in which the tumultuous uproar drowns out what was actually said and what eventually did happen...

[leftstreet]

5. It's not continuous 'outrage.' People are recovering from Bush Fatigue

The atrocities (stolen elections, fake Terror! Terror!, Occupation of Iraq, suspension of the Constitution, on and on and on) left most of the country completely fatigued and hopeless. Protesting and pushing back were made ridiculous by a complicit 'majority' Democratic congress.

Obama campaigned on CHANGE.

So, HE'D better 'saddle up' because it's gonna be a 'tough ride.'

[Runcible Spoon]

6. People should also not start provocative threads and then abandon them.

Tend your goddamn flamewars. Thanks.

[bluestateguy]

7. Fine

Filler........

[Runcible Spoon]

16. Just like your teacher rant last night, you refuse to add anything of substance

I guess you just like to pour on some fuel and watch it burn. Juvenile.

[Teaser]

39. You were schooled

and everyone here knows it.

[Runcible Spoon]

56. Snicker.

Care to elaborate? :eyes:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. 90% of stories about Bush that properly outraged people were anonymously sourced

There is a low-comedy fad around here of selectively dismissing the sources of stories one doesn't like while embracing others.

It's pathetic.

We had to put up with a month of morons saying Hillary wasn't the Secretary of State pick until they heard it from Obama's lips while the same people discussed identically sourced and obviously, to any long-time consumer of news, true stories about other picks as if they had been confirmed already.

What the OP boils down to is, "I have had a belly full of people saying things I don't like."

Hardly the first or last time that sentiment has been expressed on DU.

[jody]

11. Most organisms have an excretory orifice and some have several. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

18. Of the stories about Bush, in the first 5 years,

most were supportive of his view...in fact, I'd say most were written to assist him, not to discredit him. So I suggest that your analogy is unsound.

In addition, there has been many stories that ended up not being true. The only reason we remember those stories put out that turned out correct, is simply because they ended up correct. I remember vividly how Hillary Clinton was going to take her fight all the way to the convention, that Obama was and is a socialist, that hard working Whites wouldn't vote for Obama, and that the stockmarket downturn is Obama's fault. do you?

[amandabeech]

19. I agree with you completely.

I don't see anything wrong with telling the President that he's goofed.

If his friends can't tell him, who can?

[uponit7771]

9. AMEN!!! They are starting to sound freeper-ish IMHO

[Truth2Tell]

57. Are the freepers criticizing Obama for being too much like Bush?

Weird. I haven't seen that.

[liberalmuse]

10. Thank you.

It needed to be said. I'm tired of this shit, too. For example, people have been posting the same dubious story that President Obama is continuing Bush's torture policies over and over again. The same fucking story. Now we know President Obama has said he does not condone torture, so why not wait until he comes up for air and is able to address this himself, in his own words. I'm not trying to squelch valid criticism, but JEEZ. A little patience may be in order here.

[Wednesdays]

12. Not just "anonymous source" threads, but also ones that promote Repuke talking points

Whether by accident or by design, there have been several threads rising to the top of the Greatest Page recently, that get good DU'ers duped into rallying for a Repuke or Libertarian agenda. Simply because the poster takes advantage of the fact that most people do not (or are too busy to) read deeper into the subject at hand and really think about what it is that's being promoted.

:banghead:

The "You'll go to jail if you grow your own tomatoes" thread comes to mind. And there have been many others.

[masuki bance]

13. Unless I hear it from Obama or

his designated spokesman, I have trouble believing it.

[Two Americas]

65. ha

That is funny. Yes, who needs the press? Whatever the leader says, we believe. But nothing else.

Hasn't that approach to citizenship been tried before, and didn't it end badly?



...

[noamnety]

14. "Real Men." "Sexist bullshit."

First off, the real men angle you opted to bring here is sexist bullshit. If you are talking about integrity or courage, just say that. Don't wrap it up in coded language that reinforces the notion that positive traits are masculine.

Second, probably the best anonymous source we've had was Mark Felt - Deep Throat in Watergate. Was he a coward? If we'd all been dismissive of him because of his decision to remain anonymous, where would that have gotten us?

Finally, I would prefer to have advance notice on appointments being considered so we can voice complaints before the decisions are final. It's a hell of a lot easier to raise a fuss and be heard and change minds BEFORE something is put into place, than afterwards. I will never understand the logic of telling people they'll be most effective if they quietly wait til appointments are made or troops are deployed - and THEN protest.

[FrenchieCat]

20. I agree that "Real Men" was not useful in this rant, however......

I also believe that raising a fuss is not the same as writing off the President based on a New York Times article. The media has lied to us too many times before to accept their unnamed sources.

As for your comparison to Nixon's Watergate, those days when we had real journalists working in mainstream media and on the case are pretty much gone.

Here is a perfect example of OP's reason to rant: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x433340

[noamnety]

22. Well, I tend to ignore World Net Daily

and if the OP had focused just on not listening to right wing sources - especially ones that make drudge look like scholarly analysis - I'd have had no problems with it.

Not sure a separate rant was needed for that post, though - DUers seem to have done a fine job dressing down that poster in short order.

[FrenchieCat]

25. the term RW sources is relative....

As I'm sure you know.

If you don't know what I mean, read this: http://www.opednews.com:80/articles/Betraying-its-Pentagon-Pa-by-Robert-Parry-090315-219.html

[rvablue]

26. As to your last point. Many DUers need to school themselves on what a "trial balloon"

is, as the practice is employed by well-meaning politicians/administrations all of the time to see how nominations/policies will go over with the electorate.

[noamnety]

27. Agreed.

I thought about including that in my post, but didn't have a way to sum it up as well as you did.

[NYC_SKP]

17. Real Men and Women go on the record--and good posts include sources.

You're absolutely right. Far too many here are parroting negative talking points based on articles that themselves have no sources.

Links to a Politico article that turns out to be an opinion and include anonymous sources, for example, are not themselves evidence of anything of value, they are propaganda.

I'm as sick of it as you are.

Great rant!

Recommended.

[Blue_Roses]

21. well said!

:thumbsup:

[Life Long Dem]

23. Is this OP just a rumor?

Or what? :shrug: Because if it is a rumor...I'm on board on this one here.

I saw the meeting with Brazil's President and President Obama, where Obama put the reporter on the spot who drew his question from a source that Obama said doesn't know what he is talking about. Obama then told him because he nor the VP said any such thing. That's the stuff we need out there and not the BS we see, that they only use to manipulate the viewer audience.

[TexasObserver]

28. Disagree. I worship at the altar of "talk about whatever the fuck you feel like."

I have HIDE THREAD to get rid of threads that are so annoying I cannot simply ignore them as I peruse the board.

I have IGNORE to get rid of posters who start annoying threads, and thereby eliminate their threads.

I can simply not get my drawers in a bunch when I see threads that don't interest me. Hell, most threads don't interest me, so why should I care what they're talking about?

This simply isn't a real problem, because it is based upon your inability to tolerate the discussion topics of others. They are free to talk about, wince, overreact, hyperventilate, or throw hissy fits about any rumor or tall tale they want to. Why is it your concern? Why are you unable to grant others the same leeway they grant you? Your opinion about what matters is subjective. It's no more important or compelling than which dessert you prefer.

[Two Americas]

29. thanks

Well said.

We have at least one of these posts a day now from those with an "inability to tolerate the discussion topics of others" as you say.

[TexasObserver]

32. The censors make a daily push to limit speech.

It's like trying to talk sense to the uber religious. It never occurs to them that their firm beliefs are just opinions, and may have no validity at all.

[pnwmom]

30. Obama needs our thoughtful support, or sometimes our thoughtful criticism,

not hysterics over rumors.

I agree with the OP.

[TexasObserver]

31. Oh, so you're doing it for the good of Obama?

If you don't like a topic, use your HIDE THREAD, or better yet, show a little personal discipline.

You have a personal opinion. That's all it is. The topic you abhor may be right and you may be wrong. I know that doesn't occur to you, but that's how it is. Today's silly rumor is tomorrow's big story.

[pnwmom]

44. Why don't you hide this thread if it bothers you so much?

I agree with it.

[TexasObserver]

63. Because this thread interests me. As I said, I post on threads that interest me.

Anytime the board nannies whimper for censorship, it matters to me. That's why I post on threads which clamor for censorship, such as this one.

.

[Two Americas]

35. so say you

I say that no politician can be successful in a representative democracy without outside pressure, without the free and open exchange of ideas, without unfettered freedom of expression for all. As FDR said, "if you want me to do something, force me to do it." Good leaders welcome pressure, they thrive on it, it is the wind in the sails without which the ship of state cannot move forward.

I think the attacks on people - that they are "in hysterics over rumors" - is pure projection. The ones in a panic, the ones hyper-sensitive to each and every little rumor are those who are trying to enforce a very rigid and narrow idea of "loyalty" and "support" on the rest of us, who are completely intolerant of hearing any dissent or critical views because that disturbs the fantasy they have about the President. I am just about certain that they are getting this skewed view of reality, and so are being led to take all sorts of irrational and illogical positions, because they are watching too much TV and see everything in the way the MSM likes to frame things - horse races, all-or-nothing for-us-or-against-us rah rah team melodramas.



...

[pnwmom]

45. I see too many DUers jumping on Obama for every perceived wrong step,

exactly as if he had already proved himself to be just as incompetent as Bush.

[Two Americas]

64. whatever that means

You may be seeing what you want to see.

Who decides how many is "too many?" Who decides what should and what should not be pointed out? Who says it is about "competence?" Has anyone ever said that Obama is less competent than Bush? I doubt that.

Most of the critics are saying the same things they always said. They were promised they would be able to do that, once the election was out of the way providing they would agree to vote for the lesser of two evils, and support the leading candidate, and support the presumptive nominee, and support the President-elect, and now support our President. Once the election was over, them we were going to really dig in and talk about the issues. Remember?

How are these demands any different than what the Republicans were demanding for Bush?

Feel free to see this as all or nothing, for us or against us. That is your right. But you have no right to demand that everyone else do, as well, by misrepresenting them, impugning their motives, or making insinuations about their motives or agenda.


...

[Top Cat]

46. Thanks.... Kick

[BlooInBloo]

33. Why not? That's about the only way the ihateobama people can actually say anything.

Oh.... I get it.

:rofl:

[Two Americas]

37. no one here "hates Obama"

Why do you keep promoting that false and destructive idea?

[FLAprogressive]

42. It's a part of the "you're with us or you're against us" mentality here among some

especially those of the DLC persuasion. Any criticism of Dem pols here leads to snide comments and accusations.

[BlooInBloo]

49. As opposed to the ihateobama people posting world net daily links. RIIIIGHHT.

[BlooInBloo]

50. Or calling him a war criminal.

[BlooInBloo]

51. Or saying he's just like bush.

[BlooInBloo]

52. Or, or, or.

You guys are hilarious, though.

[Two Americas]

62. "you guys?"

I haven't done any of the things you mentioned.

[Jakes Progress]

71. It is their only political experience.

I think that most of the purity league only entered the world of politics and policy during the primaries. Most haven't been at it long enough to be nuanced. It is attack-all-comers, all the time. They lack the experience of watching an administration you fought for transition into power. They relish the visceral scrum of the primary. Hence so many who can't find anything really bad to say about bush, but still spit up the primary rhetoric as argument.

President Obama is a welcome respite from the 8 years of horror that we just had. I'm glad he's there. I will support him with my mind rather than my gut or loins. I'll leave his god-hood and dreaminess to them. I'll take and support the man.

[backscatter712]

34. Well said. I've been fooled a couple times, and posted some debunks a few times.

We need to stick to facts.

Now if someone would tell the MSM that. The TV talking heads are at least as bad as we are!

[firedupdem]

36. K & R! n/t

[Teaser]

38. Don't take my fun away, please.

I enjoy the shrieks and moans.

[vaberella]

60. Bwahahahaha!! n/t

[Peacetrain]

40. Its the three day rule bluestate..

Unless its a comet crashing into the middle of the country in 30 minutes,, I usually wait three days for a story to cycle through the digestive systems of the commentators in all of the medias..

[greguganus]

69. 3 business days? n/t

[vaberella]

61. K*R

:kick:

[raccoon]

67. Sure you're not Mr. Sullenberger? :silly: K&R. nt

[nichomachus]

68. Real men go on the record?

Really? Your ignorance of how the system works is breathtaking.

If journalists only followed stories where they had three signed affidavits, the fascists would be running the show completely.

What nonsense.