I want to give a shout out to DUers who exemplify and defend honesty, reason, logic and fairness.

[Skip Intro]

I want to give a shout out to DUers who evaluate facts and form their own unbiased opinions rather than latching onto the witch hunt of the week.

I want to give a shout out to DUers who stand for reason in the face of intimidation and pseudo-peer-pressure.

I want to give a shout out to DUers willing to dig out the facts, the truth, and defend such against unfair attacks, even under threat of possibly having some dreaded label attached to them.

I want to give a shout out to DUers who value discernment and willful comprehension, yes, thoughtfulness, over a non-thinking, lockstep mentality.

I want to give a shout out to DUers who place honesty and fairness first.

[Bonobo]

1. Reccing for DU'ers who do not resort to dishonesty and tricks! nt

[BlueJazz]

2. I like to think that the overwhelming majority of DU'ers reach for those attributes

[The Doctor.]

111. I'd like to think that too.

But watching so many emotion-based reactions followed by abject derision posted day in and day out has really hit my 'disenchant' button too many times.

[SidDithers]

3. K&R...

DUers like ProSense.

Sid

[JI7]

8. yup

[hootinholler]

10. Lighten up Francis n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

11. You forgot to rec this thread. n/t

[sabrina 1]

36. I did it for him.

[SidDithers]

46. Thanks for the reminder...

Guess it didn't register the first time I hit it.

Sid

[LoZoccolo]

17. Woo hoo!

[Number23]

20. DAMN I was about to say the exact SAME THING

WTG, Sid!

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. Exactly!

[grantcart]

41. I like ProSense a lot but this continual fawning over her work

in repeated threads is becoming somewhat undignified.


We should show more restraint.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. I tell you this, GC, there are times when I agree with Pro, and still dislike her tactics

Also, during the 2010 election, my Rep DeFazio was facing down one of the most crazy GOP nuts in their drawer. Highly funded with out of state corporate cash.
DeFazio had done something that 'went against the President'. So Pro, when asked, refused to say she supported the Democratic candidate, DeFazio, when shown the information on the opponent, she still would not state that she's support the Democratic candidate. During a general election cycle.
Since that day, she does not get any respect from me. Support for the administration is only part of what supporting Democrats means. In election times, my support goes to OUR candidates, note that is true although those candidates tend to oppose my actual rights. Still, I find my way to support. For Pro, something Peter said or did made her tight lipped and refusing of support. My guess is that what he did was less personal to Pro than the opposition of my family rights is to me. Just saying. Some of us do need to find a way to support candidates who do in fact oppose our equality. And we do so. Yet others take some nit and pick it to pieces and then refuse to support a great Democrat against a nut of stark nuttiness and pure ignorance.
Just saying. Sure, she snaps and folks and promotes the President. I'm in a political Party, with many candidates, not just one. In my life, I go with the Democrats. Not just some. When it is a Democrat or a GOP Nut, for me, there is no choice at all, and my support goes to the Democrat. Any Democrat you nominate in your district, I will support. I expect the same from all in my Party.
Also, she is rude to me. She speaks to me in ways that I would not endure in real life. Answers questions with questions, says HMMMMMMM? Posts smiles that suggest laughing in your face. I don't do that to those I attempt to persuade, and I do not let others do that to me.
And as far as the recent fad of focusing on Ron Paul, I'm a person who has tried to enlighten others on Paul since the Clinton years. I do not recall any of the current people speaking against him at any time in the past. In the 90's he attacked my community again and again. There was scant opposition spoken outside our own community. For decades. So sure, suddenly, now, they are all the anti Paul army. Glad to see them snap out of it and say something. Not forgetting that for decades, they said nothing. Decades. I wish the more moderate types had joined us in opposing him decades ago. We tried to speak out. They did not care to hear it. For decades.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

125. One unfair assertion: "recent" derision against Ron Paul. To be fair...

there are a lot of folks who are learning more about Ron Paul and his positions on various issues. I believe--my opinion--that there are still many liberals/progressives out there who latch on to a few great ideas/positions that Ron Paul has and run with those, either not understanding or ignoring his more extremist philosophy.

Over the course of this election cycle, Ron Paul has gotten more exposure than he has enjoyed in the past. With that exposure comes a learning experience, and we here on DU pride ourselves as folks who know more than your average American voter does about political issues. It would seem to me that people would do more research on Paul's stances on various issues.

Like ProSense, I remain baffled--especially as a black woman--as to why any liberal would support Ron Paul given his stance on civil rights and his views on a woman's right to choose. But, my amazement is heightened by the fact that the Democratic party already has "Liberal Stalwarts" who have been speaking out on war issues, disparate treatment of blacks in drug sentencing, etc. for many decades!!

Why do liberals/progressives need to make leaps and bounds over their own party in support of Ron Paul when these heroes exist right here in the Democratic party?

On this, hats off to ProSense because she is speaking out on these issues and raising fair, appropriate issues with regards to Ron Paul.

And further, when folks here criticize Ron Paul on these issue and/or simply try to gain and understanding as to why liberals would even think of supporting a bigot like Ron Paul, it is they who are lambasted, accused of trying to "stifle dissent," or "throw someone over the bus." Just simply asking these questions or raising these issues lead to charges of attempting to shut off debate. It's unfair, and if you're going to accuse ProSense of this, then you need to hold others accountable for how they approach these issues.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

70. ain't democracy grand?

[patrice]

82. ! Have seen ProSense STAND under assaults around here that would wither other doughty souls.

[Raffi Ella]

93. Me too.

I kind of stand in awe of her confidence and courage under fire. We could all take lessons.

Just wanna give a shout out to OWS and the members holding President Obama's feet to the fire as well. You make us a better Party. Thank You.

[patrice]

94. Happy hands here on ALL of that.

[sabrina 1]

108. Lots of people here are attacked for no reason other than stating their

opinions and still they are here, not allowing themselves to be silenced. Frankly I rarely ever noticed Prosense or read her/his stuff as it was mostly prepared material without much input from her/him. But since DU3 there has been a bit more input and while I have disagreed with her/him on many issues, I do give credit for the fact that s/he did not resort to name-calling. Since most of us who frequent political forums like to discuss issues, I don't mind if someone disagrees with me so long as they can do so without personal attacks which are all too common on the internet.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

124. +1,000,000!!!

[DCKit]

4. Screw that shit. I'm just following the crowd.

[Motown_Johnny]

5. Yes, Here is to both of you !!!

[hootinholler]

16. Two do not a clique make

[whatchamacallit]

6. DU rec

[joshcryer]

7. Thanks

[opihimoimoi]

9. Tis The Season for Reason...Tis This YEAR....Common GOOD Trumps GOP

is Coming

[ooglymoogly]

100. ++++++++++++++++++++1....the perfect respose

The most beautiful response....Who remembers the fabulous guitar work thundering the point home?

[Deep13]

12. Um, thanks, I guess. nt

[hootinholler]

13. This should be enlightening

Or maybe not.

[one_voice]

14. And here I thought...

no one noticed.

K&R

[WonderGrunion]

15. Here, here. I too am tired of those who latch on to the Obama witch hunt of the week

It's not easy to stand up to the intimidation and peer pressure of the 'liberal purists' and 'real progressives' when they launch unfair and untrue attacks against the President and label his supporters "Rah-rahs' and 'koolaid drinkers'. Their non-thinking lockstep mentality to purity and thought policing can be so intimidating on DU sometimes. Thank you for giving a shout out to those of us who honestly and fairly defend President Obama not only against the onslaught of attacks from the right but the surprising and illogical attacks from the left.

Wait, that isn't what you meant, is it?

[Number23]

23. lol I'm not sure this is going the way the OP envisioned

But when you start with such melodramatic and bizarrely overheated "premise," there's really no place to go but downhill.

"Thank you for giving a shout out to those of us who honestly and fairly defend President Obama not only against the onslaught of attacks from the right but the surprising and illogical attacks from the left."

I'll drink to that, Grunion.

[Sheepshank]

96. I was hoping for an example of the posters OP had in mind

Lacking any, I think there is some hoping someone can actually find someone other than ProSense that meets this criteria.

We had a goodly few here in the past, but they have moved on...I miss them.

[Number23]

107. Very true

I think there is some hoping someone can actually find someone other than ProSense that meets this criteria

Haven't seen too many other names presented, but it was still a very valiant effort by the OP.

This OP saluting an anonymous group of DUers got almost as many recs as an OP saluting a sole DUer -- Prosense. I hope her slobbering detractors are paying attention.

[Sheepshank]

110. Ahh you just hit the nail on the head

Thnking back on all of those polls that show the nameless, faceles, generic Republican that could beat Obama in a run for the Presidency. That person didn't really ever materialize.

[sabrina 1]

116. You missed the examples people gave below. I would add KPete, Marmar

Catherina, Suffragette, she eg, is an excellent sleuth when it comes to digging up information on major stories in the news. I hate to make a list because I know I will leave out so many of those who make it worthwhile to come here.

EFerrari, Bluenorthwest, LouSlobs, among others. Maybe we should start some threads on some of DU's all time favorite members. Not all at one time, but since we started this, maybe one each month or so.

[AtomicKitten]

44. +

[SidDithers]

49. Well said...

Sid

[Wait Wut]

53. K&R

Wait...damn. +1!!!!

[MrCoffee]

103. Those who honestly and fairly defend the President are worthy of praise

Those who do not, are not.

What's the problem there?

[LadyHawkAZ]

18. At this point, I'd rather just shout

or scream.

[jberryhill]

19. Thank You!

[Saving Hawaii]

21. Drinks are on ProSense tonight!

[frazzled]

24. I wish I knew which side you think I'm on

Because I have a feeling that there are diametrically opposed views here of who is using facts, and which facts are "right"; what constitutes "reason"; "who displays "discernment and thoughtfulness," etc. Each side thinks theirs is the rational one.

I think I try, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who think I'm just full of shit.

[sabrina 1]

27. One fact you might want to comment on. How do you feel about the drone killings in

Pakistan? We railed against them under Bush, but under this President they have increased dramatically killing mostly innocent people, many of them children.

Why is this President doing this? What is the purpose of it?

[xiamiam]

67. yes..just one of the many questions that cannot be defended..nt

[quaker bill]

118. I somehow missed those rallies

The ones I went to were more general purpose, to generally oppose the war. There did not seem to be any sense to just protesting drones when we were also using tanks and missles....

[sabrina 1]

119. Well, the drone wars were not going on then. Now we are using drones to

conduct secret wars and the use of them has increased by huge numbers. As Hillary said, a more efficient way to conduct wars with no troops on the ground. We are now in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and who knows were else, engaged in low level covert wars sort of like Reagan's secret wars that the general public knew little or nothing about.

The US can now 'fight' wars in any country in the world, killing whoever they like with virtually no oversight. The press cannot get the administration or the military to talk about this new way of conducting war. Read Jeremy Scahill's report on our secret war in Pakistan.

During the anti-war Bush years this was not an issue. Drones were used sporadically and condemned by many human rights organizaitons. But had it been going on as it is now, there definitely would have been huge outrage over it. Maybe that's why they started under a Democratic administration.

What happened to the anti-war movement? They have us all figured out, too bad they are so right. I would love to prove them wrong, but, I guess we are so predictable. If they want to kill people the Republicans won't be demonstrating against that. The left are the conscience of the country, but apparently that conscience depends on who is doing it, and they know it.

[Bake]

57. One side raises legitimate issues based on FACTS.

The other one reflexively defends the President and ignores everything else. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

Defending the Lew appointment as Chief of Staff was the final straw for me.

Bake

[Bluenorthwest]

61. When you say 'each side' I feel compelled to state that I see people across the spectrum

of Democratic opinion here on DU who do exactly what the OP is lauding. I do not need to share an opinion to think of the argument as fair and honest. Additionally, I can agree with an opinion and also think the argument is unfair, dishonest and not to my standards. That is, the nature of the opinion does not alter or mitigate the nature of the tactics used to promote that opinion.
So for me, there is not one side that uses lousy tactics and another that does not. Specific posters of all sorts make use of tactics that are not honest, not good for discussion, that are offered with rude, snarky ways. The opposite is also true. Posters of many stripes make fair, honest statements of opinion or arguments. It is not my agreement or disagreement with an opinion that makes the tactics good or not so good. A lousy tactic or a rude comment is what it is, regardless of that which it claims to tout.

[frazzled]

65. I totally agree, but as you can see from the other responses to my post

More often than not, people think that only they have the facts (and this applies to both "sides" of any given argument). To tell the truth, in most cases, the facts are irrelevant: it's all about interpretation of the facts, counterfacts that can be found, and decisions about which facts you think are important. We live in the postmodern era, and all truths--aside from, say, the laws of gravity--are indeed relative.

Jesus, I'm staying out of threads like this here: maybe out of all threads.

[sabrina 1]

25. If that includes people who will never get on board with Imperial wars that kill innocent human

beings for profit and power, no matter which team is doing it, who continue to demand accountability for war criminals and Wall Street criminals, no matter what excuses are made to prevent it, then I agree. I so admire people who stand on principle and who don't believe we should remain silent while people die from our bombs and drones because to talk about it might awaken the conscience of a nation that appears to care more about elections, and when are we not in the middle of an election, than about human life. I'm not worried about 'labels' if those labels are an attempt to keep me silent about these crimes.

[SammyWinstonJack]

52. +100000!

[xiamiam]

68. I agree with everything you said

I can't support these policies no matter what party or administration is enabling. There is always money for weapons and destruction and yet no legitimate help to main street. I'm embarrassed for those who fall for the lock step and yet come to a site like this every day and have the facts available. I just dont get it.

[sabrina 1]

113. It's a matter of conscience. And when people are asked to abandon their principles, because that

is what is being asked, to support their party, then the question must be asked, 'what does this party stand for'? Those attempting to silence each and every person who has expressed disappointment with the leadership in this country and in particular the man so many hoped would begin the difficult task of restoring the rule of law, are the ones raising the question. I read the Democratic Party Platform and it has not changed. Maybe, if what we are seeing here is the New Dem Party, they should change it. But until they do, we have a duty to hold their feet to the fire.

I have always thought that I was supporting the Democratic Party by supporting those principles.

[whatchamacallit]

26. Now that your shout out has been co-opted by humor challenged bots

you should edit it to reflect reality

[sabrina 1]

28. Not necessary. Sometimes humor is engaged to cover embarrassment.

I think the OP was pretty clear.

[whatchamacallit]

30. :)

[sabrina 1]

31. One name that pops into my mind from this OP though, is H2OMan. I was just thinking of him

today and wondering where he is. I think he is one of the most honest DUers with such a wonderful way of expressing himself. I always looked for his posts as you just know when you see his name on an OP it's going to be worth reading.

[whatchamacallit]

33. Yeah he always seemed to be

keepin it real.

[hootinholler]

60. He decided to take a break

He's very busy these days working on fracking issues. I told he he would be sorely missed and it's nice to have confirmation.

[sabrina 1]

102. Thanks, I know he was involved in local political issues.

Hoping he finds time to post here again but I understand he is probably very busy right now. Another reason why I have so much respect for him, he puts his words into action.

[Tx4obama]

29. Thanks for the shout-out :) n/t

[MattBaggins]

32. You are most welcome

[ProSense]

34. I'm honored

I want to give a shout out to DUers who evaluate facts and form their own unbiased opinions rather than latching onto the witch hunt of the week.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/124020508

I want to give a shout out to DUers who stand for reason in the face of intimidation and pseudo-peer-pressure.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=142339

I want to give a shout out to DUers willing to dig out the facts, the truth, and defend such against unfair attacks, even under threat of possibly having some dreaded label attached to them.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002153853

I want to give a shout out to DUers who value discernment and willful comprehension, yes, thoughtfulness, over a non-thinking, lockstep mentality.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002153654

I want to give a shout out to DUers who place honesty and fairness first.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002135956#post19

We're Democrats, calling out Republicans comes natural. Criticism and debate comes natural.

Deep breath!

[sabrina 1]

35. Hey thanks for the kick!

[grantcart]

40. snort chuckle gasp forp

a whole cup of tea went into my lung.


that was priceless


and to think that some consider you humorless





brings a whole new meaning to the word 'richochet'.

[JackRiddler]

42. Cheeky.

[SidDithers]

48. ...

Sid

[lamp_shade]

51. Brilliant !!

[alcibiades_mystery]

54. Heh heh heh

Schoolin' them since way back, ProSense...

[Bake]

58. We're Democrats. Criticizing our own is not permitted.

Bake

[Sheepshank]

99. The boomerang effect....

as an Aussie, I can truly appreciate that

I hope everyone remembered to *duck*. Those things whop a pretty decent whollop.

[slay]

37. Indeed

just posting pro-Obama pieces constantly and fighting with anyone who is a well known progressive is not what DU is about - and for me it's not about trashing Ron Paul when he makes good points about SOME things either. ahem. what you wrote in your post is what DU should be - and often is - truly about.

[TransitJohn]

38. Those DUers have already all been purged. All that's left is us. eom

n/t

[sabrina 1]

39. Really? I did notice that there are so many people missing. I know some are still on DU2

[xiamiam]

69. i went to du2 yesterday

I'm sick of the k and r if you support obama threads at the top of the greatest page. This is supposed to be a discussion board, not a fan club.

[sabrina 1]

87. You're not the only one. It's hard to figure out what they are supposed to accomplish,

but from the results, it seems all they are doing is splitting this party in two when the goal should be to strengthen it and get every vote possible to ensure we have a majority in Congress with as many real Progressive Democrats as possible to back up those already there but who are in the minority and are unable to be heard until there are enough of them to be able to ensure that they have a voice on our behalf. People like Grayson, eg. But all this vitriol is likely to turn so many people off, they will simply give up on the whole process.

[ooglymoogly]

101. +1 nt

[Morning Dew]

43. REC

and Kick too!

[jsmirman]

45. When I first joined DU, I was scared I was too centrist for the site

I suspect that I have moved marginally from the center in these last (it's exactly five) five years, but I don't think I've moved that much.

I hadn't been back for some time, as things have been busy dealing with a devastating loss in the family, and on my return, I suddenly find that I'm apparently too far left to fit in here anymore?

It's just downright weird.

I also think I might be one of these Ron Paul-ites according to some? Either the world has gone mad or I have. Probably both.

[Fokker Trip]

55. Cognitive dissonance leads to rigidification of positions and ideas.

I believe that as Obama supporters see him doing things like signing the NDAA, they become more and more unable to reconcile the image they have of him with the reality of what he is doing/not doing.

This leads to cognitive dissonance and causes major defensiveness and eventually anger, etc. It also leads to a desire to circle the wagons and exist only in a group of other like minded people, that makes the discomfort of said dissonance less apparent.

I feel the same way you do about the site.

[JackRiddler]

59. I think you're describing the process well.

Chances are, sooner or later, they'll get their harmonious echo chamber. But the search for local scapegoats becomes an end in itself, and so the periodic calls for purges will continue to arise.

[jsmirman]

105. I think that's the direction I'm heading

I've discovered a new place, and if I can't post truly felt concerns and questions without being attacked for having some crazy ulterior motive (this is simply insane), what's the point of it all? As many of us head for the exits, the echo of the emptied room becomes more prominent.

[SwampG8r]

120. they have yet to figure out

that once we are gone they have to feed on themselves

[ClassWarrior]

62. I hear ya. Weird's not the word to describe it. But one point...

There is no such thing as "centrism." From 2007:

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas -- the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care...

Read the rest at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[jsmirman]

106. Interesting thoughts

seems like a bit of semantics along with some very useful thinking. I'll read it more fully later, and it definitely seems worth pondering. Thanks for the link.

[A Simple Game]

66. The DU mission statement is no longer true.

This is the first sentence of the DU mission statement from the About section. "Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

This is no longer a liberal web site. I accused a poster of being right wing a week or so ago and they were actually openly proud of it.

[a la izquierda]

47. K & R

This is a good post.

[lamp_shade]

50. Great post. K&R

[99Forever]

63. Agreed, with this caviat:

I reserve the right and duty to decide for myself who actually meets those qualifications.

[RZM]

64. I wonder

How many people reading this thread assume you are talking about them. I'm guessing a lot

[Hell Hath No Fury]

71. Folks like H2O man and Octafish --

MadFloridian, Symbolman and, back in the day, Tinoire -- those names especially jump out for me on keeping it real and expanding our knowledge base.

There are many others who are no longer with us for which Truth and Justice were more important than Party -- I respect them for their stands and miss their voices -- DU is worse for their absence.

[sabrina 1]

78. Yes, people who discuss things, think about them deeply and even if they disagree with

someone never resort to name-calling or accusations of 'disloyalty' but are willing to engage in further discussion. Because that is how people learn. I miss that kind of discussion which is what I liked most about DU when I first discovered it.

[Cherchez la Femme]

131. What happened to MadFloridian?

My fave poster

[racaulk]

72. I am happy to cosign this.

These are qualities that we should all strive for, IMHO.

[quinnox]

73. K & R, there are still many who believe in principle over party

on this site, and I enjoy reading their posts. While they seem to be drowned out many times by the juvenile yelling and distortions of a loud and seemingly blind faith contingent, they are much more appreciated and what keeps DU a worthwhile site to hang out at. An allegiance to a political party is fine and dandy, but it should never take precedence over the truth and the core principles of liberalism and the Democratic party in a historical sense. Going along with expanding the big brother society and building upon the foundation of the Patriot Act to continue to diminish basic freedoms is not OK or acceptable, even if it is "our" team that is doing it. I could go on about a flawed foreign policy and continuing destruction of our environment but I will leave it at that.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

75. "...even if it is "our" team that is doing it."

May I add especially if our team is doing it. I expect teh stuff you listed from GOPers, but from Dems?? UNACCEPTABLE!

[quinnox]

79. agree, that is better worded

I agree 100%.

[FredStembottom]

77. Thanks, q

Let's all keep in touch - even as we are shouted down.

[Raffi Ella]

74. K&R

[FredStembottom]

76. To those who don't make enemies out of vast portions of their own party.

aka: "witch hunt of the day"

[Maven]

80. K/R

[patrice]

81. MIC CHECK!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

84. MIC CHECK!

What kind of pie? Occu-py! Solidarity!

[patrice]

85. My experience is that the principles outlined in OP are partt of Occupy & ergo why I'm there.

[bvar22]

83. The simple Litmus Test.

Did you support Bush-the-Lesser when he did it?

Would you have supported Bush-the -Lesser if he had:

*Used the Bully Pulpit to campaign for a reduction in FICA Contributions and called it a "Tax Holiday"?

*Told you to Eat your Peas while extending a Tax Cut to Billionaires?

*Turned a Blind Eye to Wall Street Criminals,
and promoted them to powerful positions in his administration?

*Extended the Tax Cuts for Billionaires, but justified it by giving a one year extension to those whose unemployment benefits were about to expire?

*instituted Mandate to Purchase Insurance with NO Public Option?

*expanded the Drone War

*executed Americans without Due Process?

*Engaged our military in a Civil War in Libya without Congressional Approval or authorization?

*Signed NDAA?


Would you attack Glenn Greenwald (and others) for criticizing Bush-the-Lesser for signing NDAA?



Really?

There are those on DU who have remained consistent,
and those who simply follow the parade.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Hell Hath No Fury]

86. "...who have remained consistent."

That is my biggest buggaboo -- you cannot have spent 8 years angry at Bush, protesting him at every turn for such actions and then excuse/turn a blind eye when it is done by another politician. It is called hypocrisy.

Sorry, I don't do hypocrisy.

[patrice]

91. Truths ARE relative. The assumption that it's ALL 100%-hypocrisy is power-based VERTICAL,

absolutist, and anti-multi-_____________________________.

Some is hypocrisy and some isn't. The definition of which is which emerges from PERSONAL authenticity, not from the demand for conformity to the definitions of others.

[sabrina 1]

92. Shredding the Constitution is not relative to anything other than

the fact that if it continues without the people standing up for it, the very thing we were told 'terrorists hate us for our freedoms', won't matter to terrorists anymore. We are losing them and to deny that is simply to be willfully blind. The destruction of our Constitutional Rights began with the Drug War. Each day it seems we lose a little more and give more power to those who fear the people having rights.

I don't think anyone can dispute that fact.

[bvar22]

104. TRUTH is relative?

...only to those seeking to justify changes in values relative to which political personality sits in the White House.

Consistency is a hallmark of Truth and Honesty.

[sabrina 1]

109. How is truth 'relative'? Seriously, truth is generally based on facts.

So, I don't see how it can be relative. Old saying about why it's best always to tell the truth rather than lie 'the truth never changes'.

Unless you mean that our principles have changed, then I guess the truths we have been taught, that certain things are right and others are wrong, would become relative. But relative to what?

[woo me with science]

89. Thank you. nt

[patrice]

90. There is more than one definition (yours, btw) of support/non-support. If Chomsky means anything at

all, he points to each person's responsibility for articulating their own memes in one's own praxis.

If all of us make that honest committed effort, as independently/freely as possible, collective authentic support/non-support will emerge out of matches/non-matches in all of those EVOLVING EMPIRICAL subsets.

In short, you have your definition of the word support/non-support and so does everyone else have his/her OWN, NOT defined by you or anyone else. That's called freedom and what is authentically shared in any of it emerges from the bottom-up, not from (you or me) the top-down.

[sabrina 1]

112. + 10,000

I answered all those questions with a 'NO'.

[joshcryer]

121. One of these things is not like the other.

Progressive economists, even Krugman, backed the FICA tax break, even if it did disproportionately help the rich. Right wingers quickly started using it to try to weaken Social Security (there is no "general fund" distinction, since the unified budget, it's all one coffer). Some "progressives" followed, quickly, saying it was killing Social Security, while making the "general fund" (which is a misnomer) a sacred cow. A right winger wet dream!

The Bush Tax Cut Extension came with extensions in unemployment (protecting millions of unemployed), Alternative Minimum Tax (protected 21 million households from a tax increase), Child Tax Credit (benefiting 10 million low income households), Earned Income Tax Credit (benefiting 6 million low income people), American opportunity tax credit (benefiting 6 million students and their families), Small Business Jobs and Credit Act (benefiting small businesses, and reinvigorating loans).

Wall Street criminals did get a pass, partially because they effectively legalized their crimes through corrupt political practices, which American people apparently didn't care about for the past 30 years, financial institution prosecutions are at an all time low.

But, that doesn't explain this:



The public option, of course, was one of Obama's failings. He campaigned on a public option, but no mandates. Anyone could've seen the writing on the wall for that one. Mandates were necessary (Krugman agrees, and so too do many progressive economists). The public option, however, was sold down the river because Obama's original plan didn't have mandates, it was a weak bill to begin with, in my opinion. However, since states have the option to create their own public options (Vermont already has done so, and Oregon is soon to follow), it will be applied, so it wasn't that big of a loss, as much as those who bemoan the idea make it out to be. The insurance industry group pools can only go one way, it's economically infeasible for private-options to succeed.

Obama's targeted killing (Drone wars) was what he campaigned on. What? You think he wasn't going to use drones to "go after the Taliban" when Bush rendered targeted killing perfectly legal under the Third Geneva Conventions? The most immoral, unethical act that Obama has participated in was completely laid out by him throughout his campaign. And yet people still voted for him, and I don't recall anyone saying much about it then. I distinctly remember having furious debates that Obama's foreign policy wouldn't be different from Hillary's, ironically his choosing her as SoC guaranteed that!

al-Awlaki's killing due to Bush's expanded authority to instate targeted killing was a foregone conclusion. If you thought he'd respect "citizens rights" because of some sort of adoration for him before he was elected, you thought wrong. If he was to afford al-Awlaki he would risk completely demolishing the targeted killing approach, and he wouldn't be able to fire upon any terrorists who had citizens. And a President isn't likely to throw away power like that! Especially if it helps them get elected!

Libya was perfectly legal, and it continues to be misrepresented. And I expect to be flamed on that point, so since I spent a year covering it, and am as progressive as the next person here, I will not respond to comments slandering me or my position on Libya. A country, btw, which is doing better than anyone could've imagined. No Somalia 2.0 there!

Obama assures he won't implement NDAA on US citizens. I don't think he will, at least until he is reelected, then it's anyones guess. If you want NDAA revoked elected representatives that will revoke it, because I have no evidence that a Republican President wouldn't enforce it, while Obama at least says he won't.

I've never attacked Greenwald.

And I don't buy into false litmus tests that don't represent reality.

[bvar22]

122. The question was:

"Would YOU have supported BUSH is HE attempted to Reduce FICA Contributions?" (The Funding Mechanism for Social Security & Medicare)

The correct answer is that MOST Democrats would have been outraged if Bush had suggested touching the 3rd Rail,
and such an attempt would have been met with co-ordinated opposition from the Democratic Party.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[joshcryer]

126. The answer was supporting progressive stuff does not mean you support the authoritarian stuff.

You leave no room for shades of gray.

Thus your entire premise is not founded in progressivism.

[bvar22]

128. As usual, you response makes no sense at all.

You stated:

"You leave no room for shades of gray.

Thus your entire premise is not founded in progressivism."

Are you really that Irony Impaired?

Are there no mirrors at your house?

Do you appreciate how delightfully contradictory it is to put those two sentences together in the same Ad Hominem Fallacy?



The question you are too frightened to answer is:

""Would YOU have supported BUSH if HE attempted to Reduce FICA Contributions?" (The Funding Mechanism for Social Security & Medicare)

"The correct answer is that MOST Democrats would have been outraged if Bush had suggested touching the 3rd Rail,
and such an attempt would have been met with co-ordinated opposition from the Democratic Party."

Do YOU believe that FDR/LBJ would have supported a reduction in FICA Contributions?

Do you know WHY the "Democratic" creators of the most successful Social program ever
INSISTED on a funding mechanism that was separate and distinct from General Revenue?

Obama himself promised during Campaign 2008 that he would INCREASE FICA Contributions by Raising the Cap,
not cut them.

I realize you are very young, but that is no excuse.
The information on FDR & LBJ and the Cornerstone Programs of the modern Democratic Party is readily available.
I find it really sad that the History of the US is no longer taught with any depth in our prep schools.

Oh, and here is something else you should study:
Logical Fallacy: Ad Hominem
In fact, study the whole list.
You will find this material enlightening.








[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans."
[/font][/center]
[center][/center]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22 at the St Paul LABOR Day Picnic, 2003
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[joshcryer]

129. There is no contridiction, I gave you a massive post with shades of gray.

That post was a continuation and explanation, it does show that, while I contribute shades of gray, you insist on creating a black and white litmus test. Some people can be against the Bush tax cut extensions, while being for unemployment extensions. See how that works?

Your entire "litmus test" is not progressive.

[bvar22]

130. Another Smoke Screen & Run response.

You said"
"Some people can be against the Bush tax cut extensions, while being for unemployment extensions. See how that works?"

That IS another Logical Fallacy know as a Strawman.
Did you go study the material on Logical Fallacies that I recommended?

No where did I say that it was not possible to be against the Tax Cut Extension and FOR the extension of Unemployment Benefits.

I CAN and WILL say that combining the two into one package was a Sucker Deal for shallow thinkers that gained a crumb for a very limited number of Americans in order the justify a ruinous Windfall for the already RICH.
There is only ONE reason WHY these two issues were combined: To market it to The Rubes.

Fortunately, my father and his father knew better than to fall for Sucker Deals when they were fighting for Worker's Rights & UNIONS.
(BTW: Something else you should read up on: The history of the Labor Movement in America.)

I did NOT support this Sucker Deal under Obama which was nothing more than a contrived "Hostage Situation" in order to make the Tax Cut Extension appear less onerous,
and I certainly would NOT have supported it under Bush-the-Lesser.

The question you are desperately trying to avoid is,
Would YOU?





The direct question you are too frightened to answer is:

"Would YOU have supported BUSH if HE attempted to Reduce FICA Contributions?" (The Funding Mechanism for Social Security & Medicare)

Well?

[joshcryer]

132. No, what you do is invent mythical "support" for those things.

Your litmus test is the straw man.

Would I have supported Bush if he attempted to reduce FICA contributions? I would've supported FICA contribution reductions in a recession because I don't say that the general fund is a sacred cow. So yes. I would've supported a progressive tax cut if Bush did it. That does not mean I support Bush, nor does, in fact, my support for FICA reductions (again because I don't believe in the "general fund" sacred cow that is a lie) mean I support Obama. My support for a given politician is in the ballot box, not on internet forums.

There's no contradiction.

The point is that I support the FICA tax cut because it helps the poor in a recession and recovery. And you would've known this if you actually read my post. I gave you reasons progressives should support things, and I stand by those reasons, as they are legitimate, progressive, reasons to support some things while not supporting others.

Not because Obama does it.

Again, you are basing your entire thing on a false dilemma. You are acting as if people are "only" supporting these things because a Democrat is doing them, when it is patently false.

[Evasporque]

88. Whatever this is about I agree 100%

I don't want to be left behind to face ridicule from "them", no matter how vague, whatever it is that appears to possibly going on, it is probably wrong and I don't like that.

[Marrah_G]

95. i think this is something we can all cheer

Everyone might have very different ideas on who embodies those attributes, but they are none the less thinks we can cheer.

[snooper2]

97. Thanks!

[ooglymoogly]

98. KR and thanx for expanding on the fact that some "sense"

is nonsense, especially smarmy when it is exploded by cartwheeling locksteppers, sinking their fangs in deep... taking things over to their own ends...tripping, too often, the gag reflex.

[Jester Messiah]

114. I'd like to give a shout-out to OP's who speak clearly and don't rely on obscure subtext.

Unfortunately there don't seem to be any here.

[DinahMoeHum]

115. Amen to that!

[Remember Me]

117. I want to give a shout out to DUers

who value subjectivity and work to carefully nurture their own and others'.

I want to give a shout out to DUers who value intuition and try to cultivate it every bit as much as they value rational thought.

I want to give a shout out to DUers who understand that Life and the Cosmos are more than a conglomeration of material things to be pulled apart, poked, prodded, destroyed even in service to "studying" them.

I want to give a shout out to DUers who follow their hearts and the wisdom of their soul which the heart reveals.

I want to give a shout out to DUers who value Spiritual Truth even though at this point in our evolution they can't be "proven" (e.g., torn apart to be tangibly measured).

I want to give a shout out to DUers who believe in and work to cultivate and honor the Human Spirit -- in themselves and others.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

123. Much love to DUers who WAIT on the facts to present themselves before they launch

into knee-jerk, hyperbolic accusations or outrageous claims.

Big-ups to DUers who are not quick to insult others or issue ad hominem attacks because their criticisms or opinions differ from others.

Congrats to DUers who are fair-minded, weighing all opinions, respectful of those to which he/she doesn't subscribe.

[Number23]

127. And who don't run around accosting every person they disagree with

by tossing out such cringe-inducing inanities as "you are dishonoring the president" to damn near every single person that supports the president here. That is probably the weakest, most unconvincing and transparently stupid tactic I've ever seen here.

(And no, you don't do it. But I've noticed that this has been a tactic of the desperate and pointless for a while.)

[ProSense]

133. Shout

out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002184082