What's with the glee over another DUer's wife's (possible) suffering?

[cui bono]

So it turns out Pitt found a workaround, but what's with the call out threads and insensitive posts?

The man's wife is suffering from MS and lashed out at the president and some of you are taking it so personally you are gleefully attacking a person who was concerned that his wife wouldn't be able to get meds for her MS. And now some are posting/reccing/supporting a thread about how that poster's gf got meds fine, so there. Naner naner naner.

Have you lost your hearts and souls? That is a real person you are talking about. A real person with a real medical affliction. Defending a politician by rubbing something like that in the face of someone whose wife is suffering from MS is about the most callous thing I've seen on DU.

Politicians are public figures. What they do will get lauded or criticized. That's part of the deal. You may not like the criticism but to take your defense of a particular person this far is just cold hearted.

Get a grip people. You've forgotten what the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for.

[CJCRANE]

1. What's better...offering positive solutions? Or commiserating and giving up?

A lot of DUers offered positive office to actually resolve the issue. I think that's better.

Others just gave up and used it as political point.

[Lars39]

2. What's going on now goes beyond making a political point.

[CJCRANE]

3. I understand Will's anger

but he was on the verge of giving up due to the advice of some unnamed person.

Some DUers commiserated with him and agreed with his political point, others actually gave positive advice to DO something and RESOLVE the situation.

All the rest is just DU noise. Let's get the situation resolved.

[Aerows]

8. Being ugly for the sake of it

because someone disagrees with you politically solves nothing, gets no votes and does nothing but leave hard feelings.

Apparently there are some folks around here that have forgotten that. They think it is better to leap on anyone having trouble under the ACA and beat the pulp out of them instead of listening to their concerns.

I know, it's novel to actually discuss things on ... a discussion board.

[CJCRANE]

11. Will made a political piont in the middle of an ongoing situation.

The people who agreed with him on the political point were mostly the least helpful.

The others gave him advice to resolve the situation.

It's nice to make a political point but it's even better to actually do something.

Let's pull out all the stops to help Will's wife, then all the political back and forth can begin.

You shouldn't give up in the middle of an ongoing situation.

[cui bono]

26. But what I'm seeing is like spitting on someone just because they took his lashing out personally.

And then the rest of the club comes in and applauds the callous post.

That is inexcusable and not at all in line with how people in the Dem Party should behave especially on a political message board dedicated to that party. Dems are supposed to be better than that. And these posts are not coming out of emotional anger at one's one desperate situation, they are coming out of taking an insult that was made at a political figure personally. And they are gleefully poking at the suffering fellow DUer because they are too emotionally attached to their political figure. Perspective is needed.

[CJCRANE]

27. He criticized

the Dem President in a vile, profane way.

Of course some Democrats are going to be majorly annoyed about that!

But even through all that most DUers gave him good advice.

He made his wife's problem into a political issue, and brought the President into it, before it was even resolved.

I didn't criticize him at the time, I just offered my advice that he should keep going and use the energy and expertise of the DU community to do his best for his wife.

[cui bono]

202. And you think that justifies someone throwing it in Pitt's face that his gf got her meds fine.

So there. ?

That was the gist of that OP. There was no good advice there. The only purpose of that OP was to be mean.

It's great that there was good advice given to Pitt in his thread. That's not what I'm talking about here.

[RobinA]

147. He Criticized

the Dear Leader in a fit of pique, thus invoking a storm of outrageoholics who apparently manage to be completely circumspect every moment of their lives, including when family members seem to be threatened, and expect others to do so as well. So of course, his lack of circumspection then became the story rather than the situation with which he was dealing. Life in the new millenium: style is everything, behavior dictated by the most outraged.

[cherokeeprogressive]

188. The human mouth is not capable of making sounds that aptly describe

the bare naked enormity of Will Pitt's transgression.

Mr.Pitt foolishly allowed his love for a woman to come between himself, his party, the Affordable Care Act, and worst of all, his President. Tortured souls the world over are crying out in anguish for justice.

When the Inkeeper's disease riddled mattress destroys the lives of all who rest their weary bones upon it, action must be taken. The mattress must be burned to ashes and those ashes must be buried so deep as to shield society from their presence.

I fear Will's path to redemption also involves fire and ashes. The difference is Will's ashes must not be allowed to mingle with the soil, lest they germinate and give rise to a whole new generation of vile hatred such as his.

When otherwise good human beings stand idly by and allow the disparagement of the Most Righteous among us without taking action, they abdicate their place in the tribe. I will not allow that to be said about me. So...

You grab him, and I'll light the fire. Together we shall rid the world of this turbulent man.

[Aerows]

258. When I pleaded for civility

in another thread, you should have seen the things that were said about me. I was compared to a birther. And I am not even kidding.

[Lars39]

261. Don't forget the latest charge...

of being xenophobic.

[Aerows]

262. Oh, yeah

I forgot that one. Oh well, since I put all of them on ignore, I don't have to see it anymore.

[Lars39]

263. Sometimes that's the only thing to do.

[cherokeeprogressive]

270. Oh I totally believe you.

I posted last night about my feeling that he made the OP out of despair and frustration. I was roundly trashed. 11 replies. Some of my OPs don't get that many LOL.

When the Lone Ranger Brigade rides to President Obama's defense they run roughshod over anyone and anything in their path.

[5X]

329. Got any more stories? That was a good read. n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

332. Hundreds.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

310. I just found the "callous post." It's the same DUer who stroked his gun...

right after Newtown, to the point Skinner weighed in. Definitely an ugly pattern with that one...

[lostincalifornia]

309. Calling the President a "POS", and "FU President" is what caused the diversion. It wasn't the

criticism, but the way it was done.

If it was done in a more professional way, I would venture that there would have been even more helpful comments then there were.

[treestar]

76. It is ugly to use personal things

There could have been discussion about a case in the news where that happened. But the point of that post was to enrage us all and in such a way we can't fight back if we don't agree the ACA is trash and the President is a piece of shit. It was to let a sentiment like that stand on a Democratic board.

Just to get personal sympathy, the stuff about Obama could have been left out. That post was expected to get a lot of personal sympathy. It would have had it just been about difficulties in getting the meeds. But it was to use that situation to call out the ACA's supporters. That's why the part about Obama was added.

If you put it personally then you are setting yourself up to use any disagreement as "oh how can you be so mean to me." That's not fair intellectual debate, which is what the board is for.

[VanillaRhapsody]

127. you don't call saying "Fuck You President Obama" "you piece of shit car salesman" ugly?

Do you suggest this DU'er retract it?

Then you are defending it....and it IS ugly.

[Lars39]

132. What's ugly is placing hurt feelings over a politician over a human life.

That is ugly.

[VanillaRhapsody]

134. NO one did that!

He brought his wife into it by the way.....no one mentioned nor would have if he didn't mention her first. If a Republican came here and said those words he would be instantly banned. He should retract....what he said was insulting to those of us who were boots on the ground working to get that ACA passed that he and his wife are about to benefit greatly from....it saved him from COBRA...

It was vile and would be a bannable offense if a newbie came here and said it and YOU know it...

I quote:

"Fuck You Obama" "you piece of shit car salesman"

P.S. NO healthcare system covers every drug....and that DU'er knows that...and even now...still hasn't retracted.

[Lars39]

140. Your insistence does not make it so.

[VanillaRhapsody]

145. So you believe a new member came to DU and say..."Fuck You President Obama" and

"you piece of shit car salesman"

And not get banned?

You would say it was fine with you? Good to know...

[Lars39]

148. Given the circumstances of his wife's condition, No.

It's called compassion and empathy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

151. and he has been proven wrong and never retracted....

there was plenty of empathy on that thread...he rejected it out of hand...

and STILL he hasn't retracted it...and here you are still defending that.

If a Republican came here and said that....no matter what he said his circumstances were ....he would be banned and you know that!

Where is the retraction of those words? He is going to now benefit from what MANY of us worked our asses off for he and his wife. Where is the gratitude for our hard work to do that for him?

[Lars39]

158. No, you do not know for sure that a newbie with the same level of circumstances and ignorance

would be banned.

[RobinA]

154. This Being

a liberal board, I would expect people to be able to say what they want about the President of the United States Unless it was threatening. Of course, my expectations turn out to be too high, but sometimes it's just fun watching so-called liberals act like the wingers they think they are different from.

[VanillaRhapsody]

156. What does being a Liberal have to do with it?

so any Republican can come and Rant all they want because this is a Liberal board? Is that what you are defending here....

If Sarah Palin came here and posted "Fuck You President Obama"....

You think they shouldn't be banned because this is a Liberal website? That makes no sense at all...

[Boudica the Lyoness]

184. It makes perfect sense.

The first amendment comes to mind and the right to an opinion. Also I understand the love a man has for his wife/mother of his child, and the frustration and fear he feels.

If you were to ban everybody that doesn't conform to a narrow way of thinking and approved behavior, you end up with a DU that looks like a liberal version of the Bush administration.

BTW, I'm having a bit of a chuckle at your multiple repeating of, "Fuck you President Obama...." Yes, he said it. Lets move on now.

[VanillaRhapsody]

219. Apparently you do not understand OUR 1st Amendment...

Free speech is free from govt interference in your speech. It doesn't apply to a privately owned website...

That's the facts you fail to understand...

so YOU move on.

[theboss]

157. You can have your own opinions but not your own facts

That's the problem here. That's the only problem.

[stevenleser]

278. That's usually the problem with the President's critics. Manufactured facts, manufactured outrage

This OP and many comments herein are perfect examples.

[brush]

284. Ahhh . . . Pitt's original op could have been on Freeperville . . .

if you wanna start talking about wingers.

And why would we want and defend right wing ammo posted here on DU?

You can bet some repugs will be running quotes from that post in their 2014 campaign ads.

[bluestate10]

314. The aggressive, angry, name calling behavior of the person in question deservedly

drew return fire. The poster could have detailed what was happening and asked for advice like other posters have done, but he came out insulting the President and calling the President a name. The poster also took a poke at anyone who may not have agreed with his point of view. A lot of people carry burdens, I recently lost a Sister after she went through a long illness, but I never would insult anyone about the administrative hurdles my Sister and the rest of my family faced.

[Aerows]

315. DU isn't a perfect community

because we are all imperfect human beings. What else is there to be said?

[Lars39]

9. And hopefully helped others in the same boat.

Thanks for the encouragement.

[Aerows]

5. It truly does

It has reached the point of cruelty for cruelty's sake because someone disagrees politically.

[VanillaRhapsody]

133. it was NOT JUST a political disagreement....that is disingenuous for you to keep whitewashing that

if a Republican came here and called Obama a "piece of shit car salesman" he would be banned immediately and YOU know it.

[treestar]

69. They would only be happy with every responsive post

agreeing and agreeing to blame Obama. Nothing less than every BOGGER saying, "oh, how awful. We change our minds. Obama is horrible and so is the ACA. So is the Democratic party. You are all right, we should elect only real progressives and support only candidates who would pass nothing if they didn't get single payer with no restrictions on drugs."

[CJCRANE]

89. I think there may be

some people who want to make DU a mirror image of FR where you have the whole "true conservatives" vs "RINO" feud, which is now writ large in the Tea Party vs establishment GOP primary battles coming up.

The Kochs/Fox/GOP inflicted that on themselves. They may well try to initiate a Democratic equivalent.

DU is seen as a liberal focus group (even though it represents nothing but itself) so they may try to create the perception here (and at similar blogs) first.

(FWIW I'm obviously all for pushing progressive ideas, but not of the "all or nothing" / "divide and conquer" variety).

[Skidmore]

93. Agree.

I think some of the hyper "progressive" rhetoric is over the top and meant to fragment because it appears to be aimed and whipping flames or denigrating others without proposing solutions or seeking common ground.

[CJCRANE]

123. I also wonder

if there is an attempt normalize profanities directed at Dem leaders on DU.

I also noticed one prominent poster trying to normalize violent metaphors.

It's hard to tell what a poster's intentions are...but when their posts are divisive and pit one group against another, the results speak for themselves.

[Sheepshank]

206. absolutley! n/t

[cui bono]

210. You know what I notice?

That any and all criticism of the president is attempted to be ridiculed rather than rebutted.

That people who post valid criticisms of the president are labeled as "haters" or as having ODS with no rebuttal of the criticism.

I feel that is pitting one group against another - using the old you're either with us or you're against us meme. That's not what a discussion board is supposed to foster. It's supposed to foster discussion, something that's getting difficult to find here lately.

[CJCRANE]

252. That's fair enough. I don't do that. But you're right, both sides of the DU divide do.

But some people seem determined to make everything about the President or Democrats with little criticism of Republicans or RWers.

[cui bono]

255. I honestly wish juries were done away with and there was very strict moderation.

Any and all name calling gets hidden post and time out of a day or week or something after a couple warnings. Third time you get a time out.

Same with any taunting posts that have no content, posts that are just about another poster, the piling on posts.

Basically, if you're not discussing the issue and it's about another DUer the post is hidden and you get a warning. End of story. Also if it's a general snide remark about "other DUers".

I'm sure we're all guilty of this to some degree, some more than others, so we'd all have to modify our behavior and watch our "tongues". But if everyone posted as if they were having a conversation with their colleague the tone would be much better. As it is it's turned into cliqueish behavior. There are "teams", which is exactly the problem outside DU as well. That shouldn't happen if we are to really work together to accomplish anything or to try to figure out how to accomplish something. And presumably we on DU all pretty much want the same end result.

I think it would help get this place back to where it used to be where the comments were informative. But the jury system and MIRT do not work properly to avoid this problem.

[CJCRANE]

260. I completely agree. nt

[sabrina 1]

272. That may be because no one has the slightest hope of anything even close to reason from Republicans

It sort of 'goes without saying'. I personally criticize right wing policies all the time though. So do most Democrats. Right Wing policies are bad for children and other living creatures. That's kind of a given.

As for making everything about Obama all the time? That is true, but far more from those who cannot stand any criticism of policies, or such issues as placing Republicans in his cabinet.

Many times when discussing something important, like the privatization of education eg, without ever having mentioned, or probably even thought Obama, I have received responses that have zero to do with anything I might have said, such as 'you just can't stop attacking Obama'! ??? I never mentioned Obama.

Frankly I don't mention the president very often and have never done so in a disresctful way, but have received other comments such 'all you ever do is slam Obama'! Again, What?? When I ask for proof, of course it never comes.

So when this is pretty standard, when anyone tries to express an opinion on ANYTHING and it doesn't include 'I totally agree with Obama', those are the kinds of responses people are getting, and naturally they react.

The reason I don't mention the president a lot is that for me, some things I know now tell me that we live under a system and it is the SYSTEM that needs to be changed, so that when we do get a good president, s/he won't have to face enormous resistance when trying to do some good.

But regardless, on almost a daily basis people like me are attacked with FR-like epithets and insults, not that I care, drive by posts, most leveling the 'you hate Obama' charge no matter how irrelevant it may be to the topic.

The only reason I haven't put those people on ignore is because that won't stop them from lying about me, and i will never allow a lie about me go unchallenged. But there is no real discussion here anymore of issues. For some it really is all about Obama.

[noiretextatique]

254. i notice that too

it's really creepy, to be honest. after 30+ years of rightward shift, a centrist is being aggressively sold as more liberal than he really is. supposedly this PR campaign is to counter the RW craziness, and of course, the emo firebaggers. it makes me sick to see this, after 30+ years of fighting against the rightward shift as normal.

[theboss]

92. We've been dicking around with the idea of "universal coverage" since the late 60s

And never got a damn thing passed.

Obama somehow gets the ACA passed and is the enemy because he didn't turn us into Canada in 6 months.

Want to know why the Right was so up in arms about stopping it? About not letting ANYTHING through? Because they knew that once it passed and people got used to it, it would only expand.

People love Social Security. They love Medicare. They will eventually love the ACA. And then they will want more.

[Capt. Obvious]

102. "Obama is the enemy because he didn't turn us into Canada in 6 months."

That straw man never stood a chance.

[NoOneMan]

120. "Obama somehow gets the ACA passed...."

If you really look at the history of the specific legislation over the last 4+ decades, through all its reincarnations since Nixon's NHIPA (and Dole and Heritage and Romney), then you know its not really a "somehow". Obama didn't propose some unsupported, miraculous legislation from a blank slate. He supported an establishment position with historical support on the right and polished it for the left. I don't believe your take is really honest whatsoever.

[jeff47]

126. It's been longer than that.

Single-payer in some form has been proposed in every Congress since the 1930s.

[brush]

291. Go back some more

Teddy Roosevelt proposed national healthcare in the nineteen aughts when he was president.

As Joe Biden said when it passed: "This is a big fuckin' deal."

It happened under the Obama admin so even the haters have to give him credit for it.

[itsrobert]

152. and that advice was met with more flame and evasive answers

n/t

[ProSense]

4. Wrong

"The man's wife is suffering from MS and lashed out at the president and some of you are taking it so personally you are gleefully attacking a person who was concerned that his wife wouldn't be able to get meds for her MS. And now some are posting/reccing/supporting a thread about how that poster's gf got meds fine, so there. Naner naner naner. "

No one is "gleefullly" attacking him for being "concerned" about his wife. That's simply a cheap tactic to shut down criticism.

People were helping in that thread, offering advice and facts, and he ignored them and continues to repeat the false information.

Let's say someone truly doesn't know that the President has nothing to do with formularies. After learning the facts, that person would remove the vile attack. That was not the case. The attacks continued, and were clearly personal and intentional as the followup threads prove.

[Lars39]

10. Nonsense

Quit trying to gaslight us

[ProSense]

12. No, it's not "nonsense." n/t

[seveneyes]

65. Us?

The collective.

[Union Scribe]

14. So how many (more) of your 60 posts a day

are you going to devote to making him pay for that deadly sin?

[ProSense]

18. As many as I friggin feel like.

The bizarre attempts to smear everyone who found the post distasteful is ridiculous...even more ridiculous in the face of the poster's insistence on repeating the attack and false information.

[Union Scribe]

22. In other words, yes you plan to continue

hounding, taunting, and mocking a DUer because they said things you don't like about the President.

[ProSense]

24. Spare me the silly characterizations. n/t

[Cha]

29. Strawman victim card.. Deflection

at its whiniest.

"The bizarre attempts to smear everyone who found the post distasteful is ridiculous...even more ridiculous in the face of the poster's insistence on repeating the attack and false information."

[cui bono]

28. Really, your take on my post is that it's a cheap tactic to shut down criticism?

The irony is so rich.

People were helping in the "that" thread. You are either being coy or you have completely misunderstood my OP. I'm not talking about Pitt's thread. I'm talking about a call out thread where people are figuratively - and may be even literally, I can't say for sure since I can't see them - jumping for joy that they can slam Pitt by talking about how one of their gfs got meds without getting angry about it.

Callous doesn't begin to describe it. And yes, you know the thread because you are in there defending it.

It's disgusting and a new low for DU.

[ProSense]

30. Nonsense.

"It's disgusting and a new low for DU."

Yeah, trying to justify and encourage a vile and unjustified attack is a "disgusting and a new low."

[cui bono]

33. Nonsense.

Again, here you are defending the callous. Keep it up. Get it all out in the open.

Honestly, I don't even know what your post means. WTF are you even talking about?

[ProSense]

35. BS. n/t

[cui bono]

38. Explain yourself then. I don't understand your last post.

What justifying of what?

And if you're not defending the callous then what are you going on about in this thread? You're not agreeing with me.

And you did defend that other thread that was truly rude and insensitive.

[treestar]

70. Yes it is

You are just inflaming with your straw man "glee."

[cui bono]

212. Show how it is then... I don't see it.

[Logical]

221. This post is directly addressing posters like you. n-t

[Scootaloo]

326. I don't know about "Gleeful"

...But you seem pretty damn obsessed with painting Pitt as the devil himself for daring to speak a word against the president.

It's as if you've tied your own sense of self-worth to the opinion anyone else holds about the president or something

[Manifestor_of_Light]

6. Well...

some people enjoy name-calling other people in particularly cruel circumstances.

I think about the Buddhist concept of "right speech" a lot.

There is a difference between calling an SOB an SOB (truth is an absolute defense to slander) and irrelevant and unnecessary name-calling. This is about the latter which has gone on way too long.


Some people just are not careful about what they say. Or maybe they intended it to be hurtful, I don't know their motives.

DU has sunk a long way since I joined and that was quite a while back, probably through Bartcop's mentioning it.

[CJCRANE]

21. I don't know. When I joined DU it was full of profane rants

and a lot of namecalling of newbies in particular. It was no holes barred stuff.

Also, Will is known for his extreme rants so it's not surprising that he gets extreme reactions.

But even in the all the noise, he got a lot of good advice. So the main thing is to use that advice to RESOLVE the situation.

[JI7]

7. did someone threaten to kill him or something ?

[Egnever]

13. .

I see what you did there.

[CJCRANE]

16. No, they disagreed with his political point and gave him advice to help resolve

a personal situation.

The best thing would be to decouple and the political and the personal in the middle of an ongoing situation. The two things are getting mixed up, the general political background and the individual circumstance of a situation that is still ongoing.

[cui bono]

31. No, I don't think you've seen the thread that is calling him out.

This is not about Pitt's thread. It's about the subsequent threads, one in particular, where everyone is so happy to rec a thread that's basically spitting in Pitt's face, talking about how the OP's gf got meds no problem, without getting angry, so there.

No advice in that thread.

[rhett o rick]

249. I see self-righteous bullies with no empathy. I thought that only conservatives were like that.

And I still think that. To me "empathy" is the standard. If you dont have it, then you are a Republican or DINO.

[Lars39]

15. And just so we're clear on which thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4701199

"My Girlfriend will get her meds. And all without my calling out the man who made it happen. [View all]

Imagine that.

Three years ago a woman was helped without crying bloody murder.

I did some research on her behalf. I found solutions. Obama's efforts gave her coverage.

Time will tell... "

[Union Scribe]

17. That's not the only one out there either.

I've seen at least 2 or 3 other OPs going after him. By the usual people one would expect that sort of thing from.

[Lars39]

20. True, but this is the thread the OP is citing.

Ugly.

[SammyWinstonJack]

58. Apparently some people here can have it both ways.

How many are saying that WP's wife not getting her meds had nothing to do with Obama but now are praising Obama for making it possible for this Op's girlfriend receiving her meds.


Having it both ways is so fun.

[LondonReign2]

101. Indeed

I saw the post of Obama saying "You're Welcome". If we are going to (rightfully) say the ACA had nothing to do with insurance companies denying claims since that seems to be the prime objective of insurance companies, claiming Obama somehow interceded with a the drug company to provide relief is beyond ridiculous.

[theboss]

104. Those are sarcasm because Obama had nothing to do with either.

At least I think so.

[Capt. Obvious]

114. If it's the poster I'm thinking of

I can say without a doubt that it was not sarcasm.

[theboss]

116. Oh...someone was mean to Will

After he ranted and made shit up.

Let's have a 200 post thread about it.

[Capt. Obvious]

117. Your childish response is out of place

Were you making shit up about the intentions of the person posting the Obama "You're Welcome" image?

And for someone so upset about a 200 post thread you sure are posting a lot in it.

[theboss]

131. Half my posts have been really good advice on health insurance

Which I feel are necessary to correct the rantings.

The other half have been ranting about the ranting.

[Capt. Obvious]

135. What percentage were spent

patting yourself on the back?

[theboss]

142. Ten

It's a sub-category in ranting about the ranting.

[Marrah_G]

100. I got my very first hide in that post

Not even upset about it.

[QC]

160. What you said was very mild,

especially considering the grotesque piece of trollery that prompted it.

But hides tend to be purely arbitrary anyway. Too many jurors approach their duty like ninth graders choosing the homecoming court.

[Marrah_G]

164. yup

[Skittles]

19. one of those folk speculated on his financial status

ugh

[Lars39]

23. You've been here longer than me, Skittles

Have you ever seen this before?

[Skittles]

37. aw hell yes

not the first and alas, won't be the last - I'm done with that one though - f*** him

[Whisp]

194. I've seen something like this before:

Karl Rove Indicted!
yessireeee!
whatya mean I'm full of shit you little ******! go **** off and die!

no apology there either, not a whiff of humility or wrongdoing, just blistering anger at people that doubted him and were proven correct.

so yeh, something like that.

[Lars39]

196. You are the one maliciously questioning the validity of the book.

So, I do believe your bias is showing.

[Whisp]

198. If someone doesn't check their facts on Two known different 'stories'

then of course I will wonder about the validity of everything they write.

I don't think this is considered well enough on the part of the guy - he thinks he can just gloss over this and come out smelling like roses. Well, people have memories and patterns are revealed.

[Lars39]

201. LOL You are questioning the validity of the facts in one of the books

that helped expose how we got a war on with Iraq?

[Whisp]

222. It's not the crime, it's the cover up

- sort of applies here.

Everyone makes mistakes but it's how you handle the aftermath that shows what you are made of and blaming others in a maelstrom of explosive self pity usually doesn't work for forgiving and forgetting.

And oh, I didn't realize how super duper important that book was. What exactly did it accomplish alongside the hundreds of other writings around that time on the same subject?

Anyway, you aren't doing the author much favour by bringing this book up. You do know that Scott Ritter, the main writer and weapons inspector, is a convicted pedophile and seeing that book name and cover makes me think of Ritter before anything else. I don't know if others feel this way, but chances are some do.

[Lars39]

228. You*Continuing* to try to hurt someone's livelihood is *still* goddammed low.

It is something RWers have done here before.

[Whisp]

230. ...

I say again, that livelihood is not being hurt by me, but by the one who we are talking about that made some unwise choices in how he deals (imho). There is no lie in what I said, unlike the Title of the OP - which is a bald faced lie.

[Lars39]

244. Ya'll have enacted a scorched earth policy. No excuse for that.

[CJCRANE]

25. Did Will ask for advice to resolve the situation?

Or did he go into a profane political rant?

The day before, I jokingly posted that it's easier to make money as an anti-Obama advocate, so the thought did cross my mind.

You'll notice that the people who disagreed with Will politically also gave him the most advice to actually solve the problem, rather than just giving up.

It might be nice to be fatalistic but it's better to do stuff.

[cui bono]

32. No, no advice, just ridicule and figurative spitting in his face.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4701690

[theboss]

113. I provided a ton of advice

So did many others.

So - like Will -get your damn facts straight.

[cui bono]

283. Again, I'm not talking about Pitt's OP. I'm sure there was advice there.

I'm talking about the snide call out threads, particularly the one I described.

"So - like Will -get your damn facts straight."

[stevenleser]

277. Yes. Advice. Will acknowledges the advice he received here enabled him to get the meds she needed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024696136

My wife will get her meds

Those of you who suggested we go through the drug company directly were bang-on correct; our insurance company is still futzing around, but the drug company has hooked us up for enough time to get the issue permanently resolved.

---------------------------------------------------------

In your OP you deliberately threw out a false attack on people, and now you are wrong about whether Pitt was given advice here.

[cui bono]

280. I'm not talking about Pitt's thread. I'm sure there was advice there.

I'm talking about the call out threads, particularly the one I described. There was no advice there, just spite.

[stevenleser]

285. So, let me get this straight. Will is allowed to be angry and spout off, but no one else is?

And you accuse people like me of hero worship and a cult?

[cui bono]

293. Where did I say that?

Will commented on a public figure in a moment of great emotion. I have characterized that as "ill advised". The call out OPs are personal attacks and very mean spirited. I think there's a difference.

I have no hero worship for Will. How did you come to that conclusion?

If I did I would rec every thread of his and kick it and post my agreement of it. I don't always agree with him. I've probably posted disagreement at some time or another. I wouldn't know for sure off the top of my head because I don't pay that close attention to him.

I neither rec'd nor participated in the thread of his that garnered all the attention. I wasn't really aware of it or at least hadn't really looked at it until all of the fall out. I still haven't gone through the thread, though I of course read the OP when I read about what he said. Again, I have characterized that as "ill advised" and it would have been a good move for him to have edited it.

[stevenleser]

296. All of your comments in this OP suggest it.

That other poster's S/O, the one you alternately characterize as angry, gleeful, etc., was saved by Obamacare.

But they are not allowed to be angry about someone attacking what saved their S/O according to you.

[cui bono]

297. They can be angry, but their OP is a personal and insensitive attack.

Do you concede that you are wrong about calling me a Pitt hero worshipper? If so, missed that...

This is not about taking sides. This is about a completely insensitive call out. The equivalent of saying my gf got hers too bad about you. I believe that since you are looking at this as a team effort and taking sides you are just not seeing the callousness of that OP. That mean spirit is what my OP was about. I think it was callous and insensitive and is hardly justified just because they were upset that Obama got called an obscene name.

Or do you really think that other OP is fine and should be defended?

[stevenleser]

299. And you continue to defend one person for posting angry rants and attack another.

No, I was spot on for suggesting you are engaging in hero worship.

[cui bono]

300. Where did I defend him? I'm merely stating the difference in the two.

One was an emotional outburst towards a politician - which, again, I have characterized as "ill advised" - and one was a spiteful, mean spirited direct attack on another DUer.

Show me where I have exhibited hero worship of Pitt. I'm interested to see that.

[Skittles]

36. NONE of this excuses that OP

NONE

[stevenleser]

288. Will's angry OP, or the other angry OP? nt

[Skittles]

290. look

I felt the POS line was over the top, but least William was speaking from utter anger and frustration over the shoddy treatment of his loved one. The other OPs are just disgusting beyond belief.

[stevenleser]

292. The other angry OP had a S/O that was saved by Obamacare. I can understand both being

somewhat angry.

[stevenleser]

313. It's not the timing, its the hypocrisy. One person with sick S/O OK to rant, another not.

That's my contention.

[Lars39]

316. I don't know why I'm suprised, but I am.

[Skittles]

325. done here

[cui bono]

312. What is the OP whose S/O got her meds angry about?

They got meds.

If you are attempting to equate anger at someone using ill advised name calling of a politician to anger over finding out your wife can't get meds for her MS, well I submit that that is extremely misguided. The two are not remotely the same and the anger at the name calling of a politician does not justify a cold hearted OP like that.

[LeftyMom]

34. And they were demanding to know every last thing about his wife's medical condition,

her medication, etc. It was so appalling I had to close the thread out, and I'm not exactly conflict averse.

We lost a close friend of the family to MS not real long ago, and the last few years of her tragically shortened life were horrific. We're talking infected bedsores and dementia in her 40s horrific, the kind of end that made dying in her 50s look like a mercy. I've been thinking about it a lot today because of Will's family's situation. If the person I love the most needed a medication to avoid that fate and was getting dicked around in getting it? My reaction would make Will's look MILD AND RESTRAINED.

We need a system that gets people their medication without having to jump through hoops of fire, get a PhD in insurance company bullshit, or go on their knees to the pharmaceutical company.

[pacalo]

45. +1.

[City Lights]

91. I found that aspect of it extremely distasteful and unsettling. nt

[theboss]

115. Do you want to know why knowing the name of the medicine would be helpful?

Because then we could figure out how to get it.

I'm all of your privacy. But if you use your wife's medical condition as a political club, others should be allowed to ask some questions.

And if you are mistating fact after fact in your rant (as Will did), others should be able to challenge those.

And if you are trying to help - as I was - all the facts would be useful.

(And for the record, I never asked for the name of the medicine).

[truedelphi]

276. Exactly as you call it. n/t

[grasswire]

121. and several people continue to disparage his work, his reputation.

We all know that google picks up DU posts. I think it should be a ban-able offense to disparage someone's livelihood here. Especially a long-time person with little hides.

[Lars39]

193. Last time I saw that here was Freepers messing with Andy.

Totally repulsive behavior.

[grasswire]

323. oh, that hit me like a sock in the gut...

You're right.

[Lars39]

324. Sorry, grasswire.

Won't ever forget Andy or what happened.

[Scout]

204. few hides...

but banned and whined his way back several times over the years.

[nadinbrzezinski]

246. That is not rare

Andy suffered the same, and I have people here doing that to me here regularly. Why if we have news in my neighborhood, better be picked by CNN.

[hotrod0808]

39. Last night, my toddler died

in a hospital when her disease, which is also neuromuscular, got the best of her. She was 2 years, 8 months old. I am in no mood to read critique of care, back biting, or gloating because someone can take care of their kid better than I did. I extend this mood to whomever is crushing this sufferer of a similar disease and her husband.

If you don't have the decency to just support this couple, then you are on the wrong thread, in the wrong forum, on the wrong fucking website. Be kind to your fellow man, because tomorrow is not promised to anyone.

Also delete your critical comments from the original post, if not out of decency, then out of shame of the heartless pricks that you are.

[Lars39]

41. ~

[Skittles]

42. ...

I am so sorry hotrod0808

[pacalo]

44. My heart goes out to you...

My sincere condolences for your precious loss, hotrod.

[Hekate]

48. I am so sorry for your terrible loss. My only granddaughter died of SIDS a few years ago...

No worst, there is none. Pitched past pitch of grief,
More pangs will, schooled at forepangs, wilder wring.
Comforter, where, where is your comforting?
>snip<
O the mind, mind has mountains; cliffs of fall
Frightful, sheer, non-man-fathomed. Hold them cheap
May who ne'er hung there.
>snip<
~ Gerard Manley Hopkins ~



Dear grieving one, this is not the best place for you to be just now, as GD is not in a healthy mood. There are other forums at DU than GD, less acrimonious by far, if you need to be online. ~~ Know, however, that over time Will has received support here, a lot of it. He trips himself up with his free-floating rage at the president, though, and that is subject to comment. Even people who disagreed with him in his original rant tried to offer advice and a way out of his dilemma. Eventually it got through.

Please take care of yourself; reach out to others in your real life, and let them love you. I cannot say I know what you are going through, but your heartbreak is bringing back mine, and my tears are for you.

Hekate

[Number23]

287. Hekate

For you and your beloved...

[Hekate]

294. Just when I'm about to give up on DU (again)...Thanks...

[pnwmom]

49. I am so sorry, hotrod0808.

There are no words for such a loss.

[bemildred]

52. +1. nt

[Dorian Gray]

54. hugs

I am truly sorry.

[Le Taz Hot]

60. Oh, hotrod!

How terrible for you and your family. My deepest condolences in this terrible time of grief. :hugs:

[City Lights]

63. I'm so very sorry, hotrod0808.

[progressoid]

72. ...so so sorry...

[Autumn]

88. I'm so sorry for your loss, and grateful for your wise words

Be kind to your fellow man, because tomorrow is not promised to anyone. Hugs to you and your family

[myrna minx]

107. I can't even image your grief and sorrow.

My heart is with you and yours.

[Amaril]

118. So very sorry for your loss, hotrod!

Words are truly useless in the face of such a tragic loss. Sending hugs to you and your family.

[undeterred]

119. I am so sorry for your loss.

[steve2470]

124. so sorry to hear this, take care of yourself nt

[LittleBlue]

137. Shit

That isn't fair. My condolences to you and your family.

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. {{{hugs}}}

[840high]

181. My heart goes out to you.

[JohnnyLib2]

232. I'm so sorry for your tragic loss.

[Beaverhausen]

241. So sorry

[cui bono]

256. omg... I'm so sorry.

I can't even begin to imagine how you must feel.

My deepest sympathies go out to you.

[Number23]

282. "Be kind to your fellow man, because tomorrow is not promised to anyone." Wise words

I am so terribly sorry for your loss. My God, I am so sorry

[freshwest]

330. That says it all.

[irisblue]

306. I am so sorry for your great loss hotrod

[renate]

318. that is absolutely shattering news

I am so, so sorry. Sorrier than I could ever put into words.

[QuestForSense]

40. Good post.

When you're alone and driving in your car and another driver does something stupid, you're free to blister the air with any comment that comes to mind. But you would never say those things to a stranger if you were both pedestrians, unless you were trying to get punched. The anonymity provided by this forum and the internet in general sometimes bestows a false bravado and people get careless. But why someone would wish to hurt the feelings of a stranger is anathema.

[pacalo]

43. The disregard for Will's raw feelings about his wife's predicament was hard to read.

I felt hit by a ton of bricks when I read about Will's problem; imagine having to count pills after learning that coverage for the outrageously-priced medication has been denied. That point should outweigh his calling the president names.

[madfloridian]

183. Amen to that. Some remarks were appalling.

[Hekate]

46. There is no glee over illness. Instead there were dozens of posters trying to find a solution...

... trying to get someone to breathe into a paper bag long enough to stop the hysterics so that he and they could find a solution through logical thinking and planning. Apparently logical thinking and planning are considered cold-hearted, even heartless, and certainly empathy-less. Apparently over the top hysteria and rage are considered so much more of an indication of sensitivity and true love, somehow.

Yet literally dozens of DUers, even those of us who vehemently disagreed with his characterization of the source of his dilemma, tried to come up with suggestions and possible solutions. Indeed, one poster (theboss) walked Will through the process step by step until he saw that there was a way through it.

Will Pitt had relied on the inaccurate information of an acquaintance (with a vested interest in the outcome?), and when it all went pear-shaped, he reverted to what has become the favorite object of his free-floating rage: President Obama (who himself is an actual human being and not a cardboard cutout). When a solution was reached with the help of several DUers, and when it became evident that Obama and the ACA were not actually the perps, did Will back down? I must have missed it if he did.

Instead when called on it he said that this venue was just an online board and that he was only venting as could be expected (sorry that is not a precise quote). Contrariwise, cui bono, when someone has spent over a dozen years developing a readership and a following, and wishes to be taken seriously as a political commentator, some accuracy is owed to the reader. Will is himself a public figure of sorts and invites commentary of what he publishes.

But schadenfreude over someone's illness? No, I don't see that.

[steve2470]

47. my take was similar to yours

Yes, some of us were taken aback and offended by the POS reference. Nevertheless, I and many others brushed that aside to try to help Will. Eventually a solution was found, at least for now.

I think everyone understands his rage, his panic, his frustration. Unfortunately, when one bares one's soul and loved one's medical condition on the internet, some people are not sensitive. Unfortunately for everyone involved, the initial rage towards the President got us all off on a bad footing. I think if I, as a relatively unknown poster, had said exactly the same things, I would be tombstoned today as a freeper troll.

We all want Pitt and his wife to have adequate healthcare. The thread was just a clusterfuck in the very beginning and struggled to right itself. It's amazing productive things actually got done for Will.

[Cha]

51. Excellent Post, Hekate.. Thank you.

[Nine]

53. +1,000,000

I haven't commented on any of this up till now, but the idea that people were being gleeful is a complete fantasy.

Will Pitt is entitled to all the pain, anger, frustration, etc. that he felt. And people who are in pain may lash out - sometimes at the wrong person. Everyone understands that. But having difficult circumstances doesn't give you a get-out-of-jail-free card forever. At some point you need to take responsibility for what you said and either apologize if you think you were wrong or stand by it if you think you were right. WP seems to be standing by it, which is fine. But then it needs to be treated like the political statement it is rather than a momentary lashing out done by someone in extreme pain.

DU is full of people who have personal tragedies or are suffering in one way or another, including me. Does that mean that everyone who is in pain can say whatever they want and not be challenged on it in any way, even in the context of trying to find a solution? What about someone in the opposite position as WP - a person whose loved one is finally getting the meds or treatment they so desperately needed because of ACA and sees attacks on ACA as attempts to cut this lifeline? Are they not equally allowed to be emotional about the issue?

[treestar]

81. +1

About the other people, too, who had positive results. I saw on another thread that is to be dismissed with "Oh, so you're saying I got mind, screw you?" How unfair is that? We can't even offer personal stories that differ. Only negative stories are to be accepted!

[Cha]

298. Wow.. I'm glad you commented on this, Nine.. thank you.

"WP seems to be standing by it, which is fine. But then it needs to be treated like the political statement it is rather than a momentary lashing out done by someone in extreme pain."

[freshwest]

331. Wisely spoken. Thanks for being compassionate and seeing the point. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

61. Nailed it!!!

Also, millions have benefited from the ACA and will benefit from it in the future. It does those people a great disservice when disinformation is spread.

[JoePhilly]

73. + 1000

I pointed him to the National MS Society because I have a friend who has used that organization to get help when he's had MS treatments and drugs denied in the past (going back before the ACA even existed).

They provide various resources and assistance.

I received no response.

[treestar]

79. +100000000000000000

[theboss]

96. Thanks for citing me

I've been posting here off and on since 2003. One of the reasons that I am more off than on these days is because I got exhausted by the never-ending stream of rage and bitching that fills up the front page here. Interesting threads drop off the front page in 20 minutes. "Old Man Yells At Cloud" threads survive for days and spawn sub-thread after sub-thread of people trying to purge one another from the ranks of the true believes. WP is one of the posters who I feel - perhaps unfairly - has helped to foster that environment.

Yet, I also believe that if you have knowledge you need to share it. And if you can help someone, you should. That's what this message board should be about.

I'll state this again: Will was completely and utterly full of crap about the ACA.

In 2008, if Will's wife had quit her job, she could have bought expensive COBRA coverage for 18 months. At the end of that, she would have needed to find a new job in 63 days or risk never being covered by any time of plan (group or otherwise) ever again until she reached Medicare age. She could have bought a very expensive individal plan - possibly - but it would not have covered any treatment related to MS (which could be anything from the flu to cardiac arrest). Today, she could get a individual policy that would - in point of fact - provide treatment for MS.

The issue was that it did not provide the specific treatment she wanted.

That is a very real problem and one that deserves sympathy.

But to ignore the overall truth is ridiculous - particularly for an alleged truth-seeking journalist.

[steve2470]

122. you did a wonderful job of helping Will

You deserve many kudos and thanks for it.

[Hekate]

218. You're welcome

"More off than on these days..." I myself keep thinking I need to take another 2 year hiatus, it's that bad.

I actually read through most of that horrible thread, and it was exhausting. However, some of the subthreads were well worth it, especially yours as you actually got him to engage. The sad, sad irony is that the best advice came from many who don't even like Will's outlook any more.

[LiberalAndProud]

247. I hesitate to kick this thread yet again, but here goes.

If Will's outburst did nothing else, that thread did much to educate many of us. I very much appreciate your efforts to that effect. Thank you.

Signed,
A Fan

[Cha]

301. "truth-seeking journalist".. yeah.. about

that..

[stevenleser]

191. Nearly 9 hours since your excellent response the OP and their supporters haven't addressed your post

Last edited Fri Mar 21, 2014, 03:07 PM - Edit history (1)

As RedQueen and over a dozen others noted downthread, the OP is not based in the reality of what the responses were to W. Pitt's OP, they are a caricature, a strawman of those responses. No one was happy about W. Pitt's wife's sickness. If anyone did express happiness, the entire rest of DU would call for that person's PPR.

OP should be PPR'd, IMHO, for making what OP knows is a heinous and false accusation against those with whom OP disagrees.

[Bobbie Jo]

215. Agreed. nt

[Whisp]

227. let me add my ++++

ty Hekate.

[Spazito]

245. Well said! You have eloquently and respectfully stated what happened and...

there wasn't any glee over his wife's illness at all. Thanks for posting this, it reflects my view as well.

[cui bono]

259. No, there was an OP that was very mean spirited that offered no advice, just spite.

It is linked in this thread by someone else.

Basically it said my gf got her meds without any emotional outburst. So there.

That was uncalled for and it was sick and mean spirited and people were gleefully defending it and kicking it. Some people just can't see the difference between an ill advised emotional outburst at a politician and a rubbing in the face disregard for the real emotions of a fellow DUer whose wife suffers from MS.

[stevenleser]

268. Even that gross distortion is light years different from what you alleged in the OP

No one had glee over W. Pitt's wife's illness.

You deliberately posted something that was not true to manufacture outrage against your intended targets here.

[Number23]

281. This post made this OP a mildly interesting read. Thanks to you CJCrane, theBoss and a few others

for your maturity.

[sunnystarr]

295. Thanks for posting exactly what was needed

and so very critical to the point.

The problem with insurance coverage for prescriptions hasn't seemed to be addressed. Even with single payer - Medicare For All - you don't have your prescriptions covered. Instead you choose some company for Medicare Part D unless you have Medicare Advantage which can put you at a disadvantage as well. The insurance companies decide what their formulary is and it changes at least every year. My Advair alone just about puts me into the donut hole so if I need another high tiered Rx I'd have to cut my dosage in half. I currently have the doctor insisting I take Eliquis but he's given me 6 weeks of samples so I'm already trying out half of each drug. They'd never cover meds that are still in trials or too new and costly.

We should be fighting for lower Rx costs. They charge us just about double for medications than they charge the rest of the world. It's a racket but I do know that my President can't change it. Even a Dem House and Senate wouldn't have the courage to go against those who are lining their pockets with silver and gold. I know I won't see an end to lobbyists in my lifetime but pray that at least campaign finance reforms save our democracy.

[ReRe]

50. The behavior is akin to...

... kicking someone when they're down. Vicious verbal bullying. Trollish.

[jsr]

64. It's personal, opportunistic, creepy and cultist.

They're treating him like a Obama hater, which is nowhere near the truth.

[seveneyes]

78. Reminds me of the BOrG chasing after Picard

Rather fundamentalist in nature.

[VanillaRhapsody]

153. hahahahahahahahahaha You are funny!

No one here ever reads Will Pitt huh?

[QC]

90. It's the sort of thing Scientologists do.

Creepy.

[mythology]

55. I haven't seen what I feel is people taking glee in his situation

What I have seen is a bunch of people who feel that anything other than complete agreement with the original rant makes one heartless.

You can turn your comments about public figures back on anybody. Nobody is entitled to be free from criticism for their actions.

[bluestate10]

317. Neither have I. The OP clearly sided with Will and is not trying to shame

anyone the suggested that Will was out of line in the OP that he wrote and some of the claims that he made. Every one suffers struggles and devastating losses in life, that is part of living, but not everyone attempt to lash out at anyone that don't buy in to their narrative, or lash out at decent people who are working on their behalf.

[Bobbie Jo]

56. Horseshit

But keep dragging it out as a platform for your "cause."

Your righteous indignation rings hollow when it's based upon such a dishonest representation of events. I'm not buying it for a second.

[cui bono]

257. You keep accusing me of shit and whenever I ask for you to provide evidence you disappear.

What are you talking about? Please explain. My OP is exactly what it is and is accurate. Show me what your problem is exactly or stop posting false hit and run accusations about me.

[Bobbie Jo]

266. What part of "dishonest representation of events"

do you not get??

Others have called you on your characterization of members being "gleeful" in this very thread.

Please produce examples of DU'ers expressing "GLEE" in response to Mr. Pitt's situation.

[cui bono]

273. There is a thread about someone's gf getting their meds without emotion

and that is mean spirited and spiteful. The I got mine too bad about you and your emotions type. There are a lot of people who cheered it on and kicked it.

I'm not going to post a link or say who posted it because I'm sure you would alert my post if I did that.

So what about the other accusations you made about me? Please provide evidence. TIA.

[Bobbie Jo]

275. Hardly "gleeful"

Your OP is a complete misrepresentation.

Plenty "mean spirited" and "spite" to go around...

The I got mine too bad about you and your emotions type. There are a lot of people who cheered it on and kicked it.

What the hell is this?

[cui bono]

279. What do you mean "what the hell is this?"

And I disagree with you about my OP.

Btw... what's my "cause"?

[BeyondGeography]

57. See post #46 and self-delete

[Le Taz Hot]

59. 'Cause he said bad things about

Dear Leader. Honest to goddess that's all it comes down to. Anyone who says anything even slightly negative about PO, the bat signal goes out, the swarm wakes up and it's "Flight of the Valkyries" complete with one-dimensional arguments and blue links to nowhere.

[seveneyes]

80. Similar to the Wraith waking up in the hive ships

Stargate Atlantis.

[truebrit71]

108. Yup.

It never ceases to amaze me how this President with a (D) can get away with things that would have resulted in howls of rage had they been done by a President with an (R). They are unable to see their own blind hypocrisy and the fact that they act EXACTLY the same way as the folks on that site-that-shall-not-be-named.

I thought Dems were supposed to be the thinkers, not the lock-step followers....

[theboss]

110. Everything Will said in his rant was wrong

Every fact aside from his wife's condition was incorrect.

[truebrit71]

111. Uh huh...

...you betcha...

[theboss]

129. Ok. Let's break it down

What I've learned after a three-month war with these fiends: the ACA says the insurance companies cannot deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, which is true as far as it goes.

The ACA does what it say it does.


But they can deny coverage for the life-saving medications necessary to treat those conditions.

That's not true. They have to provide coverage for MS drugs, and they do. They do not have to provide coverage for every drug.


The insurance company I signed up with through the ACA exchange just denied coverage of my wife's multiple sclerosis medication.

Okay, this is likely true

We're "covered," to the tune of $700 a month...just not for what she really needs.

Without reading her medical chart, we don't know what drug is even talked about here or what the alternatives are.

A cozy loophole, that.

It's not a loophole. It's a formulary. Every plan has them. Medicare-for-All would have it.

[Bobbie Jo]

159. You're wasting your time there.....

Last edited Fri Mar 21, 2014, 03:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Folks popping in with the indignant comments don't give a rat's ass about the facts of the matter, as they've demonstrated time and time again.

They. Don't. Care.

They found a shiny, new bandwagon of outrage to hop aboard until the next one comes along.

These folks act like no one has read their posts for the last 4+ years, as if their objectivity is spotless.

I'd be willing to bet that this person didn't even bother to read your post. That's how cynical I've become, having waded through all the self-righteous finger waving all these years.

Same shit, different bandwagon.

[woo me with science]

155. That's the best analogy I've ever heard for it.

Valkyries.

[840high]

182. Yes - I skip all

the blue links.

[Le Taz Hot]

186. So does everyone else.

Not sure why she keeps doing it but there ya go.

[Capt. Obvious]

236. I don't see any blue links

It's great

[nadinbrzezinski]

211. And the flight

http://m.

[seveneyes]

62. Cheerleaders gonna cheer

[City Lights]

66. It's really disgusting.

And disappointing.

[treestar]

67. What glee? Where do you get off accusing people of that?

Pitt is no more real to me than Obama, and just as public.

And how dare you people use personal things to try to push us on our opinions?

And it was not criticism of the President but blind rage. It could have been directed at anyone but was thrown at us to get in terms of blaming someone he well knows we support as Democrats and a law we support, to use personal things to make it hard for us to argue.

And you are just piling it on.

[randome]

71. Damn. Well said.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

77. thanks randome

there is a real shortage of straw in OP's area.

[ScreamingMeemie]

109. "you people"

We used to be collectively amused when someone would post that ridiculous address.

[grasswire]

163. "you people"?

"you people"??

Could you say precisely who "You people" are?

[QC]

173. People who do not believe that the president is seated at the right hand of the Father

and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

[grasswire]

177. world without end, amen nt

[Whisp]

68. No. That rant was like a Koch Bros. Anti ACA commercial

the poster didn't bother to find out the FActs but just went ahead and starting farting out his abusive words.

I have not seen one person here be disrespectful to the woman who needs the meds. You are making things up.

[randome]

74. I wonder if there's a treatment for written 'tourette's syndrome'.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[JoePhilly]

87. This is what happens ...

... when some one has their outrage meter pegged at 11 all the time.

When something important actually happens, their outrage meter doesn't have anywhere to go, so the entire thing explodes.

And of course ... this OP is silly.

[FSogol]

94. +1. n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

75. This Real Person . . .

. . .the real person writing this post, has had MS for nearly 20 years. I don't recall ever writing or having to justify a blind rage post about any subject at all because of the illness.

So, this real person doesn't support the instigating event because we all have our burdens to carry and dealing with it needs to be better than what was demonstrated.

Since i'm taking the opposite side here, i presume that makes me insensitive to the suffering of MS patients, which of course, is ridiculous, since i've been one of the for 2 decades.
GAC

[Boudica the Lyoness]

185. You have MS

I also am ill with a progressive auto-immune disease. I don't get mad and rant either. I just deal with it.

It's different for my husband though. He's come close to going off on doctors and insurance companies.

I think it's harder for those that feel that it's their duty/job to look after us and protect us.

[ProfessorGAC]

192. Don't Understand Your Reply

Who are these people that feel they need to look after us? I'm capable of managing my own affairs. So, i'm confused as to who asked for help.

[Hekate]

237. I think the reference was to spouses

... sometimes too intimately involved for total objectivity.

[theboss]

82. It was an ill-informed rant

I feel bad for anyone suffering from any illness, but that's not an excuse for someone just to make shit up and expect commiseration.

More importantly, the original thread actually could have harmed people who had pre-existing conditions and took the nonsense that "journalist" Pitt spouted as fact.

(And for the record, it is long past time for Pitt's little fan club here to stop justifying every single idiotic thing he posts).

[Cha]

304. ("For the record..

it is long past time for Pitt's little fan club here to stop justifying every single idiotic thing he posts)."

Yeah, that ain't gonna happen. as long as the meme is Obama hate.. it's Pavlovian.

[Rex]

83. Not that at all, it is all about getting Will banned and when it doesn't happen

throwing a temper tantrum in GD. Get a grip? Nah, let them rant. Will got to rant, so it is only fair. He can take it imo.

[grasswire]

166. ^^^^

absolutely

[Hekate]

226. The only rant I saw was Will's own. Period. nt

[Rex]

229. Oh I guess you missed the hidden post then.

NP. We can't read every post or hidden post.

[Hekate]

238. >shrug< Will was allowed to rant, and it was all out there.

Oy

[Rex]

239. Yep and some members on MIRT were allowed to rant as well.

Big personalities sometimes clash on this site. Oy indeed.

[Whisp]

84. Where is your evidence that there was anyone 'gleeful'

of the woman's suffering? This shouldn't be a matter of how you interpret things or how you imagine them.

Give us a link or change your false headline.

[JoePhilly]

86. Here ... I found it.

[Walk away]

85. Blaming the President because his wife needs an....

incredibly expensive and experimental drug that wouldn't be covered under Single Payer or 90% of the existing health insurance policies is just wrong.

I am very happy that they have found a solution to her problem but that post was just using a terrible tragedy as an excuse to demand something that wouldn't have made a difference in the first place.

I did not post about this in the original thread and I am for Single Payer. However, you had better check with some people on Medicare before you start ranting about how "Medicare for all" will solve problems like this.

[TheKentuckian]

197. Medicare for all is marketing to attract folks familiar and accepting of Medicare as a jumping off

point, I've never been overly comfortable with the tactic because it also isn't really what is wanted or needed either (though I think would be an improvement that more logically and directly could evolve into single payer).

Medicare's advantage (no pun intended) is low administrative cost but the reality is it is low deductible, premium supported 80/20 with no max out of pocket and a boondoggle of prescription coverage which makes it a way point rather than any endgame and not the most desirable rest stop to pull into. I'd rather model off Tricare and/or the VA for an existing landmark but even many Democrats think it is too much to expect the care the military is provided for various reasons.

[Glitterati]

95. Someone else said it best - American Idol

too many folks around here think hitting the alert button on Obama criticism is their weekly vote for their American Idol.

Will Pitt needed his friends to grab him by the shoulders and give him a chest crushing hug, along with a moment to let the tears flow. He was dealing with the terrifying thought that his loved one was in danger.

Instead, he got the Idol voters clicking their voting (alert) buttons over and over and over to make Will's pain get locked.

These people were trying to stack the deck against Pitt by cheating with their votes. And, when they couldn't get a jury to agree with them, they went all the way over the top.

Sad.

[theboss]

97. Will is a grown man and does this crap all the time

He didn't need a hug. He needed to pointed in the right direction - which happened.

[Glitterati]

98. What he didn't need was the animosity

and the mud slinging that got thrown his way when you folks couldn't get a jury to agree with you.

So sad, too bad.

Deal.

[theboss]

99. I told him how to fix the problem

I offered help to him that I could have charged a $100 an hour for.

What did you do? Make a sad face?

[KittyWampus]

161. Pitt needed a hug? No, he needed facts & advice, which he got DESPITE his vile OP which was

based on such gross ignorance one wonders how he could call himself a journalist.

There was no glee.

But there were a lot of Ideologues happy to jump in and stir the pot themselves.

[Cali_Democrat]

174. That poster is all over the place...

talking about hugs, tears and vote stacking.

Actually, I'm convinced that's a parody post.

[theboss]

178. You may be right

It does seem like the kind of nonsense people think progressives say to each other.

[truebrit71]

103. Cheerleaders and sycophants can't help themselves...

...especially when emboldened by an imperfect jury system...

[Iggo]

105. It's people who say "My President" versus people who say "the President".

Or as I like to call it: Just another fucking day at DU.

[Bobbie Jo]

205. Versus people who say "Dear Leader" nt

[City Lights]

217. I thought it was silly when Junior's supporters adoringly

referred to him as "My President," and I think it's silly now. I must be naive, but I never expected to see that here.

[brush]

303. "The President" is actually correct when referring to . . .

a sitting president — respect for the office and all.

Referring to a "president" there is no need for the "The" or capitalization of the word president.

It just a matter of correct usage, not idolatry.

[bluestate10]

319. Every one of our Presidents is "My President", regardless of whether I agree

with the President or not.

[Iggo]

322. I use "the President", but I get you. They're all my presidents. Even Dim Son.

[bobduca]

106. masks are off

[redqueen]

112. Shameless strawman demagoguery. What utter bullshit this is.

Others have spelled it out already: posts 46, 67, 68, 85... and more I'm sure.

What an idiotic crock of shit.

[Number23]

286. Par for the course, no?

But when there's recs to be counted and all...

[jeff47]

125. What's with the lying?

Formularies existed long before the ACA. Virtually all single-payer systems have formularies. The drug in question isn't on most of them. Blaming Obama and the ACA for the problem is a lie.

If we are going to take the position that lies like "BENGHAZI!!!!" are bad, we can't also say lies like "ACA is denying my wife her medication" are good.

Or, for example, your post. Where you claim people were gleeful over the situation. Why is your lie OK, and Republican lies wrong?

[Autumn]

130. I will say that I had insurance from my job

for 20 years before I left my job and lost my insurance, I have never heard of Formularies until this episode came up. When I signed up on the Connect for Health web site here in CO I never even saw anything about them. I guess I'm lucky I don't need high dollar drugs.

[jeff47]

139. You may not have heard of them

But they've been a part of every single employer-provided health insurance plan that I have had. I had enough bad luck that I got to find out about them in my first insurance plan, and so I've looked for them in every subsequent plan.

The plan documents just never spend a lot of time talking about formularies, so it's easy to miss.

And formularies are not written in stone. So if you find yourself needing a high-dollar drug, there is an appeals process that will likely get it covered......thanks to the ACA. (Changes mandated by the ACA make the appeal process much shorter and easier)

[theboss]

144. I may need to research this, but I also think pharmacies and physicians will sometimes work together

If one drug is not covered and an equivalent is. I'm fairly certain that this has happened to me before.

It becomes an issue on high-priced and experimental drugs.

[jeff47]

146. Yep, that's what happened in my particular case.

Prescription was for a brand-name, and there was a generic that was in the formulary.

[theboss]

171. I think it is automatic with generics in some instances

I think my Tricor prescription switched to a generic as soon as it was available, and I don't recall being involved in the decision. It saved me $80 so I was happy.

[redqueen]

149. "Changes mandated by the ACA make the appeal process much shorter and easier."

One good thing to come from this ridiculous drama-fest is the informative posts in some of the threads.

[bluestate10]

320. I have dealt with Formularies and my drugs aren't expensive. nt

[Autumn]

321. DU is a good place to learn things. n/t

[Zorra]

128. Yeh, we forgot to close the flaps on the Big Tent before the RWers snuck in. nt

[Vashta Nerada]

136. It's disgusting, isn't it?

[Oilwellian]

138. It's what right wingers do n/t

[Lars39]

141. Let's be clear...and It's Troll behavior

[Bobbie Jo]

162. Oh please.

Give the passive aggressive troll editorials a rest already.

[Lars39]

167. I call 'em as I see 'em.

[Bobbie Jo]

170. With bizarre repetition

but to what end, exactly?

[Lars39]

172. It's identifying he problem.

[ProSense]

168. That would be continuing to spread misinformation after the facts are known. n/t

[Lars39]

179. It would also be going after his liveilhood, which now seems to be the chosen scum sucking method

of attack. Ya'll aren't fooling anybody, nor winning any votes for the Democrats,by acting the way you do.

[Hekate]

234. "His livelihood"?

You are referring to Will's journalism? I've watched him from a pup, and sadly the journalism angle is devolving. But nobody's "going after his livelihood." Instead those who disagree are disagreeing, and when he acts like a fact-free drama queen some people walk away and some people call him on his shit. The issue at hand was too important to walk away from.

[Lars39]

240. Uh, huh.

[Whisp]

150. I set my Bullshit Meter contraption up to your post and

the thing lost it's springs and shot up somewhere into the stratosphere.

You are very, very wrong to post this lie, but hey, whatever gets recs and fanboys/girls all excited fluffing up their pom poms (we had a surplus in the BOG and sales are doing really, really well this last while).

Anything goes! Road Warrior time, oooomph! Wheeeeee! Next let's take a shit in the middle of the street! yeeeeehaaaaaaaa.

[Beacool]

165. I don't know what all these posts are about,

but all politicians need to have their feet held to the fire. On the other hand, if someone on a Democratic site said that Obama needs to go f*ck himself, I understand why some people would find that to be offensive.

There's public discourse and then there's disrespectful ranting.

[LordGlenconner]

169. What a dumb, misleading thread

To the trash it goes.

[tarheelsunc]

175. I challenge you to identify even one post where anyone was gleeful over his wife's suffering.

People offered solutions and pointed out that this is an issue that really has nothing to do with Obamacare. In what universe does that indicate someone is expressing "glee" over the suffering of a person?

[Bobbie Jo]

203. That's because they don't exist.

Apparently it's okay to flat out lie to further your "cause."

Talk about capitalizing on someone else's struggle. The reality of the matter is far worse than what the OP is accusing others of doing.

Pitiful....

[840high]

176. Thank you - in my book

people always come before politicians and party.

[DanTex]

180. What glee?

There's no glee over suffering, just objection to a post full of irrational hatred towards the president. This is a political message board. We discuss politics. There have been enough phony "Obamacare ruined my life" pushed by Fox News and the Koch Brothers, that a lot of us are able to recognize the genre. It's surprising that the same meme has made it to DU. But recognizing irrational Obama-hatred doesn't mean anyone is gleeful about someone else's injuries, be it another DU poster, or one of the Fox News "victims".

[nadinbrzezinski]

187. It is textbook bully behavior

It is tolerated and it will happen again, mark my words.

[DrDan]

189. I don't believe I have ever witnessed so much hero worship among adults

but . . . it is in sync with a post from here that I will not forget - "I not only love my President, I am in love with him."

Can't attack the idols of others . . . things can get our-of-hand quite quickly

[Egnever]

190. What dishonest claptrap

Unless of course you think it is perfectly acceptable to spew misinformation. Yes god forbid anyone correct misinformation spewed by the great Will Pitt they must all be sycophants of the president....

[cui bono]

199. This has nothing to do with correcting information.

It has to do with the completely insensitive, mean spirited personal attack on someone who thought they couldn't get meds for their wife who has MS.

The man's wife has MS and he thought he couldn't get medication for her and lashes out at Obama by calling him a bad name. Apparently someone's little feelings got hurt by that and so he posted a thread flaunting the fact that his gf got meds, just rubbing that fact in Pitt's face with complete disregard that Pitt's wife was facing a life of MS with no meds and the emotional trauma that put Pitt in.

That was not done to correct any misinformation. Not at all. That was simply done to be mean. There's no other point to that thread.

[ProfessorGAC]

209. Just Silly

As i said in another thread, i have MS. I have for nearly two decades. I don't take it out on anybody for any reason. Besides the fact that it's not civil, it accomplishes nothing.

Does my criticism of Pitt's approach mean i worship Obama? Or does it mean i think his approach is wrong?

[cui bono]

225. I don't think you know the OP to which I'm referring.

It has nothing to do with criticism/advice etc... it was merely a mean and spiteful OP with no content to speak of other than basically saying my gf got her meds without getting emotional so there. Naner naner naner.

It came out of being upset that Obama was called a bad name.

There was no other substance.

[ProfessorGAC]

333. Then We Disagree

I do think there was other substance and i do think the criticism is valid.

[DrDan]

242. not sure I get the connection

I didn't read Pitt's OP as him lashing out that she had MS, just that he was not able to get the medication he thought should be available - and that he was blaming the ACA.

Was he vehement in his criticism . . . no doubt. But they were just words . . . words expressing his frustration.

I don't think criticism of his approach means one worships the President. But some of the critical posts were just over-the-top considering his pain over his wife's seemingly lack of medication.

btw, are you able to get meds through your provider? How would your SO react should your provider decide to stop their availability.

[ProfessorGAC]

334. Answer

More civilly than Pitt

[DrDan]

220. "correct misinformation" - what a cute way of expressing what went on here for the past day or so

[Whisp]

195. talk about hero worship.

LOL!
at least my hero is a good and honest man who would never talk to anyone like yours did.

[DrDan]

224. my hero? why would you say that? have I ever expressed that?

I consider neither to be my hero. One is a politician - one writes. Why should either be heralded as a hero?

[Scout]

207. yes, there does seem to be a lot of hero worship of Pitt around here n/t

[DrDan]

231. there is? He was "visibly upset" due to what he perceived as a lack of help for his wife and

he lashed out.

I perfectly understand that.

What I don't understand is how offended some became.

He was concerned over his wife's health. The others were concerned over some words.

Is he my hero? Hardly. I don't believe I have ever had a conversation with him even though I have been here since 2001, and I know he is a long-timer also.

I DO know now who my heroes are not.

[Scout]

267. didn't say it was you

and "around here" means DU, not one or two threads.

[nadinbrzezinski]

214. Oh yes we have

The eight years of shrub were the same, and we made fun of it. We even pointed at FR and laughed out loud.

It is a disease, it's infected the partisans on both sides.

[DrDan]

233. yeah - you are correct

Just seems different when it comes from the other side. It should be "made fun of".

From our side, however, . . . . well, its just different.

[nadinbrzezinski]

235. It is poisonous to democracy

And I will call it for what it is, cult of personality, regardless who does it.

[DrDan]

243. we are a case study for that

[brush]

308. Nor have I of sycophancy from a certain clique . . .

of a particular serial ranter.

[MadrasT]

200. Agree, those threads are sick. I can't believe how cruel and insensitive people are. n/t

[RetroLounge]

208. This is what DU has become.

Admins can't be bothered.

RL

[Sheepshank]

213. What a disingenious heading in the OP

I have yet to see anyone gleeful over any illness...talk about fanning the flames...this is nothing but flame bait

[Cali_Democrat]

223. Apparently those posts are all over the place

So many DUers are gleeful over the illness of a DUers wife.

But not a single person has been able to provide a link.

Go figure.

[Puzzledtraveller]

216. they besmirched their idol?

[Capt. Obvious]

251. pretty much

[Puzzledtraveller]

302. LOL

[Whisp]

335. here's a bit more of pretty much:

I'll take reading Tiger Beat any day. You?

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Capt. Obvious]

336. You might as well talk to the wind

[Warren DeMontague]

248. If I had to guess, it had something to do with calling Obama a "Piece of shit used car salesman"

Just a hunch.

[Aerows]

250. I don't get it, either

When people take criticism of a politician as a personal attack, it is very odd. How on earth could anyone be that personally invested in a public figure they have probably never even met that criticizing something they do becomes an attack to their psyche?

It's plain weird.

[LanternWaste]

253. I'm guessing (against the inevitable protestations to the contrary)

"...what's with the call out threads and insensitive posts?"

I'm guessing (against the inevitable protestations to the contrary) that it allows one to both crow about being right, with the additional bonus of poking a finger in the eye of someone who admitted they were wrong.

The "I told you so" crowd, though vulgar and unimaginative, are rather consistent in their petulance...

[MisterP]

264. but they're bragging about being WRONG

"A blocks B from C, B bypasses A to C, A somehow gets all the praise"

[Nine]

265. Who admitted they were wrong? (nt)

[jeff47]

289. Where's the correction? (nt)

[OregonBlue]

269. I don't care what was going on, coming to a Democratic board and telling a Democratic President

to go fuck themselves and accusing them of being a hack, etc. are not okay. He could have been critical without being an Ahole. As it turns out he was wrong and there was a solution.

So he was called out? So what? Is there some rule here that says we aren't allowed to disagree with him? That makes us insensitive jerks?

[pnwmom]

271. Where's the glee?

[stevenleser]

274. Think a happy thought, sprinkle pixie dust on your head, follow Peter Pan and you might get to where

you can see it.

[Bobbie Jo]

328. Well, here is the answer I got.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4705101

See if you can make heads or tails of it.

For some reason, I'm the only one in this thread asking the same question, that the OP bothered with an attempt at a response.

Granted, it wasn't much of an explanation.....

[lostincalifornia]

305. come on, this didn't happen because of a simple criticism of the President. It happened because

someone said "FU President Obama". That was over the top.

It was not the criticism that caused it. It was the hate directed at the President, and I might add, misdirected.

[bluestate10]

311. Don't attempt to distort the debate that took place.

Absolutely no one attacked the poster's wife, no one!! To make that claim is a fucking absurdity. The issue was over the claims that the poster was making concerning health plan policies vis a vis prescriptions before and after the ACA, and the poster's vile attacks on the President. I was one of the people challenging the poster and I don't regret a damned second of my challenge.

[UTUSN]

327. The phoniest o.p. since Shrub invaded Iraq n/t