Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 10:26 PM Mar 2014

Should we add a Dem-bashing clarification to the GD SoP?

Currently, the General Discussion Statement of Purpose reads:

Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.


I propose that we ask DU admins to add the phrase "No FOX-style Dem bashing." By "FOX-style" I mean gratuitous, insulting, over-the-top, topically irrelevant dog-whistling of the type seen on FOX News and other RW outlets. Benghazi's, you might say. Your thoughts?
33 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
Great idea! Let's do it.
6 (18%)
Let's at least consider adding "No FOX-style Dem bashing" to the GD Statement of Purpose.
1 (3%)
Let's discuss this thoroughly before doing anything rash.
0 (0%)
Not keen on the idea but wouldn't object to it.
0 (0%)
Terrible idea. Epic fail.
26 (79%)
Other.
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
239 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Should we add a Dem-bashing clarification to the GD SoP? (Original Post) ucrdem Mar 2014 OP
Other: Separate Dem-Bashing forum undeterred Mar 2014 #1
I like it. ucrdem Mar 2014 #3
And it sounds like a party! undeterred Mar 2014 #6
how bout a forum where named democrats are worshipped as the new saviors :-) nt msongs Mar 2014 #2
We already have a group for that. Vashta Nerada Mar 2014 #4
We sure do! sheshe2 Mar 2014 #28
There's support, then there's worship. Vashta Nerada Mar 2014 #101
Worship, no. And you can't win without a little zealotry. ucrdem Mar 2014 #103
There isn't a snowballs chance in hell that Palin would ever be president. Vashta Nerada Mar 2014 #112
That is often what was said about George Bush before he did become President... Spazito Mar 2014 #168
Oh, I see it every day... sheshe2 Mar 2014 #107
You're obviously unaware of the works of Will Pitt, aren't you? Vashta Nerada Mar 2014 #110
Oooh I am not unaware. sheshe2 Mar 2014 #119
You still didn't answer my question. Vashta Nerada Mar 2014 #150
Sorry, Vashta, looks like you've been SERVED by a superior intellect MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #188
Ha! Vashta Nerada Mar 2014 #195
Well... Andy823 Mar 2014 #223
You both have a half a glass of water. Not a drop is added or taken away by how either spins it. TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #165
BOG is here. Ed Suspicious Mar 2014 #13
So very sad isn't it? sheshe2 Mar 2014 #25
I was banned after a few very mildly critical posts about policy direction of the administration. Ed Suspicious Mar 2014 #46
You got all of that because JaneyVee Mar 2014 #62
The ban opened my eyes to the nature of the group. Time and experience with them outside of Ed Suspicious Mar 2014 #66
BOG's theme song is Home On The Range hobbit709 Mar 2014 #151
It is a group not a forum. sheshe2 Mar 2014 #69
I get it now, at the time, the way I used DU was to read and reply to the latest threads. Ed Suspicious Mar 2014 #88
I appreciate your thoughtful response, Ed. sheshe2 Mar 2014 #96
I've gotten caught in a protected group by mistake a time or two. MADem Mar 2014 #189
^^^this^^^ L0oniX Mar 2014 #214
I have an idea! :-) sheshe2 Mar 2014 #17
GD: GG ucrdem Mar 2014 #23
Hey urcdem! sheshe2 Mar 2014 #30
Hiya, sheshe! ucrdem Mar 2014 #35
Hope springs eternal~ sheshe2 Mar 2014 #74
Well they outright admitted that they are here for the money..... VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #45
Yes Indeed! sheshe2 Mar 2014 #86
So as Democrats we are NOT supposed to be pleased with them when they do great things.... VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #29
No I don't think he/she gets that, VR. sheshe2 Mar 2014 #34
Some how "Punching Democrats" for sport constitutes "supporting them and helping them get elected". VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #43
Well their mission is.. sheshe2 Mar 2014 #105
Well then I guess it is THEY that suck at politics not us.... VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #108
Yep voted for him twice Andy823 Mar 2014 #224
We are expected not to like Democrats on a Democratic Forum whose mission states" VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #61
You would think that would be inherent. Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #5
Sadly they don't think, Bobbie Jo. nt sheshe2 Mar 2014 #133
Other. How about a "No DUer Bashing" codicile? scarletwoman Mar 2014 #7
No objections but I think that's considered a jury issue. ucrdem Mar 2014 #11
Well, you're asking about making an addition to the SOP. This is the addition I propose. scarletwoman Mar 2014 #16
Ah. ucrdem Mar 2014 #20
I think politicians ought to be fair game. Why should they be protected? scarletwoman Mar 2014 #37
I'm not ruling out criticism, just FOX-style bashing. ucrdem Mar 2014 #57
I would say that "FOX-style" is in the eye of the beholder. scarletwoman Mar 2014 #65
The reason is that we want to win elections. ucrdem Mar 2014 #75
Nah, winning elections just for the sake of winning is not the end of politics nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #79
I believe in the truism, "All politics are local". When it comes to elections, what someone says scarletwoman Mar 2014 #95
that is already against the rules.... VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #48
Oh great then they just come here and BASH BASH BASH Democrats with no VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #32
Reprisal? How about simply making counter arguments? scarletwoman Mar 2014 #44
that is ALREADY the rules.... VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #49
First of all, there are no "rules" per se. There are "Community Standards" and SOP. scarletwoman Mar 2014 #59
There is a mission statement.... VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #63
I'm against "bashing each other" - as I clearly stated in my first post on this thread. scarletwoman Mar 2014 #68
How do you make counter "arguments" to hate? VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #51
Who said anything about letting Republicans come? scarletwoman Mar 2014 #72
We ALREADY do not suffer them...BECAUSE all they do is "punch Democrats" on DU VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #81
Are you going to vote in the Midterms? Are you going to vote for Dems running for local offices? scarletwoman Mar 2014 #104
Oh really? treestar Mar 2014 #197
A place called "Democratic Underground" shouldn't be a forum for putting Democrats under the ground. baldguy Mar 2014 #8
In fact quite the opposite....it says so right in the Mission Statement.... VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #33
I said no, but would reconsider if the most ardent Bog-ers got to make the new rules list quinnox Mar 2014 #9
I think no Fox style garbage is enough. Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #10
Ok, but not sure if some of the more hard core supporters would be satisfied with that quinnox Mar 2014 #12
Easy to solve....if they are on DU and NEVER have a positive thing to say about Democrats VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #36
You seem to have this thing all figured out. Maybe you should be one of the ones who help draw up quinnox Mar 2014 #92
If you are here...for the sole purpose of "punching Democrats" and it becomes obvious that it is all VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #97
Wonderful. You can be lead "enforcer" of these new rules. Put us all in line. quinnox Mar 2014 #99
Careful, you are about to get your first ODS red flag! Rex Mar 2014 #106
So... Andy823 Mar 2014 #225
No, some deserve it. Shoulders of Giants Mar 2014 #14
Okay but there's criticism and there's criticism. ucrdem Mar 2014 #15
I voted for Rod Blagojevich Shoulders of Giants Mar 2014 #19
Blago ucrdem Mar 2014 #26
blago was a good gov questionseverything Mar 2014 #54
That was my impression too. ucrdem Mar 2014 #82
yes some hate him questionseverything Mar 2014 #161
Was Rod Blagojevich protecting the 99% when he was attempting to extort a children's hospital? Shoulders of Giants Mar 2014 #230
since the koch's werent gonna fund him questionseverything Mar 2014 #239
Blagojevich is in jail now.... VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #38
Bashed into prison... ucrdem Mar 2014 #185
It's too ambiguous defacto7 Mar 2014 #18
Do you support Democrats on DU or do you ONLY come here to criticize them... VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #39
I understand the premise defacto7 Mar 2014 #113
That has nothing to do with what I said.....and the rule is already in place... VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #191
I like turtles. 1000words Mar 2014 #21
Much too vague tkmorris Mar 2014 #22
It means that IF like a Fox News viewer would do....you ONLY come on DU to punch Democrats VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #41
Systematic bashing of a Democratic President... sheshe2 Mar 2014 #52
Yes we do have abuse of rules here tkmorris Mar 2014 #138
Agreed! sheshe2 Mar 2014 #141
I think we need a whine bar pscot Mar 2014 #24
LOL! RKP5637 Mar 2014 #47
Would that be one of those exploding penguins? Art_from_Ark Mar 2014 #111
Again... Back In The Day... What Would You Do With Joe Lieberman And Zell Miller ??? WillyT Mar 2014 #27
Neither are Democrats now so it wouldn't apply to them. ucrdem Mar 2014 #31
They Were Both Democrats When They Appeared At The Republican Conventions... WillyT Mar 2014 #40
As I understand it DU3 has only existed since April 2011. ucrdem Mar 2014 #50
And I have been around since nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #67
Hosts and juries did not exist prior to 2011. ucrdem Mar 2014 #70
And we still had standards. nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #76
Possibly but this SoP was written for DU3. ucrdem Mar 2014 #78
Derived from the other two nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #80
Thanks, I try to be as transparent as possible. nt ucrdem Mar 2014 #84
Can you explain what DU2 and DU1 and DU1.1 were? They existed long before DU3. madinmaryland Mar 2014 #71
Okay but the current SoP and division of duties is circa DU3. ucrdem Mar 2014 #77
Regardless of which DU version you have been on, WHINING about DU is a quick way to madinmaryland Mar 2014 #83
I'm making a constructive suggestion. ucrdem Mar 2014 #91
The thread opening post just makes a suggestion, asks a question, provides options. MADem Mar 2014 #234
max baucus technically still is...... think Mar 2014 #58
that was then....this is now.... VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #42
Have the current SoP enforced, that will go a long way. morningfog Mar 2014 #53
YES the mission says "to support and help elect Democrats" period... VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #56
Might as well require discussion of issues instead of personalities n/t eridani Mar 2014 #55
I don't feel it needs to be part of the SOP. Agschmid Mar 2014 #60
how bout a "don't drink a fifth, smoke crack, or rip bong hits before posting OPs" addendum? dionysus Mar 2014 #64
True, this could happen. Rex Mar 2014 #73
! dionysus Mar 2014 #163
How about we don't waste everyone's time on Democratic Underground whose express mission it is: VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #93
Nailed it. There have been elections all year and opportunities to eduate voters on issues wasted.nt freshwest Mar 2014 #145
How about new people stop telling the regulars that we're Doing It Wrong? LeftyMom Mar 2014 #85
You noticed this too? nadinbrzezinski Mar 2014 #89
Amen to that! (nt) scarletwoman Mar 2014 #109
... laundry_queen Mar 2014 #115
+1 U4ikLefty Mar 2014 #144
Ouch.. Fumesucker Mar 2014 #147
Nailed it. QC Mar 2014 #154
Fuckin' A! City Lights Mar 2014 #157
Actually I like it when they expose themselves as authoritarians. Rex Mar 2014 #164
How many years does a person have to be a member... one_voice Mar 2014 #170
Ignore and trash thread work great too. neverforget Mar 2014 #87
Who the hell worries about this shit? Deep13 Mar 2014 #90
No one is required to vote. ucrdem Mar 2014 #94
Another strict restriction? Like "guns?" Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #98
Define Dem-bashing. n/t Skip Intro Mar 2014 #100
Uuum, give me a second here. sheshe2 Mar 2014 #114
Still whining about that? nt Logical Mar 2014 #118
The sad part. sheshe2 Mar 2014 #120
Not everyone worships Obama! Some are disappointed! Some.... Logical Mar 2014 #121
Yup. You own it! sheshe2 Mar 2014 #124
You are in the minority here! Isn't there some posts from..... Logical Mar 2014 #125
You'd be surprised. nt ucrdem Mar 2014 #130
How am I in the minority on Democratic Underground!? sheshe2 Mar 2014 #132
Sorry. Anyone supporting the DNC platform on equal rights for every citizen IS in the minority here. freshwest Mar 2014 #146
Sad truth don't you think, freshwest? sheshe2 Mar 2014 #169
What Minority ? nt pkdu Mar 2014 #196
I am confused Andy823 Mar 2014 #227
I think that's about as good an example as there is. ucrdem Mar 2014 #129
Great Op ucrdem. sheshe2 Mar 2014 #137
wow, didn't know it went that far flamingdem Mar 2014 #237
if we can also add, "No advocating policies that would be condemned by everyone on DU if they were Douglas Carpenter Mar 2014 #102
Good one DC. you win the thread! kath Mar 2014 #143
that's gonna go right over their heads, Douglas Skittles Mar 2014 #178
^^^this^^^ L0oniX Mar 2014 #219
Might as well wish for and vote for whether it Cha Mar 2014 #116
Yeah this one might need a little retooling ucrdem Mar 2014 #127
It's a start! Like ACA.. in spite of all the liars trying to get rid of it.. Cha Mar 2014 #134
I love knowing who voted "great idea", not a shock! nt Logical Mar 2014 #117
I love knowing who voted "Epic Fail", not a shock! nt sheshe2 Mar 2014 #122
Notice who is winning! The ones who realize the Democratic Party.... Logical Mar 2014 #123
You and your supporters are winning? sheshe2 Mar 2014 #126
Be a sheep! Fine with me. I will take Will over the poster you support any day! Logical Mar 2014 #128
Well as long as we're picking teams. . . ucrdem Mar 2014 #131
huh? Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #135
The poor little lamb that was lost astray. sheshe2 Mar 2014 #140
I'd say "other" mvd Mar 2014 #136
Lots of people here bash Obama for signing free-trade agreement after free-trade agreement. Nye Bevan Mar 2014 #139
Possibly the dumbest post I've read all week. Marr Mar 2014 #142
Add it to the TOS, and ban the fuckers that continually engage in it... SidDithers Mar 2014 #148
I thought you hailed from a village? TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #166
+1 we need a DU dog house flamingdem Mar 2014 #233
You mean like not using ODS, Putinista, firebagger, Obamabot and such cui bono Mar 2014 #149
I don't like the dichotomy gollygee Mar 2014 #152
How about something that defines what, exactly, a Democrat IS. djean111 Mar 2014 #153
Terrible idea. bigwillq Mar 2014 #155
I point out that the admins killed Meta for good reasons. Bluenorthwest Mar 2014 #156
But now the toothpaste fails to retreat back into the tube and it just is all over the place. TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #190
Haha, I knew this is where you were heading whatchamacallit Mar 2014 #158
word. KG Mar 2014 #167
+1 Hissyspit Mar 2014 #171
Be honest. You want to get rid of anyone who criticizes Obama or Hillary. NT clg311 Mar 2014 #159
nooooo.....it is strictly Obama Skittles Mar 2014 #176
Nah, much better to have their impotent rage posted here, than to have it ... JoePhilly Mar 2014 #160
LMAO Jamaal510 Mar 2014 #175
A lack of enthusiasm could be considered bashing. nt rrneck Mar 2014 #162
Perhaps. But "FOX-style Dem bashing" is something else. ucrdem Mar 2014 #172
Host duties are centered primarily on placement rather than content. rrneck Mar 2014 #192
Let's make it simple: they're centered on the SoP. ucrdem Mar 2014 #193
That's a distinction without a difference. rrneck Mar 2014 #198
The current GD SoP is 29 words; this would add 5. ucrdem Mar 2014 #200
You're wrong. rrneck Mar 2014 #201
The info I've posted is 100% accurate. Check the link. nt ucrdem Mar 2014 #202
Um, yeah. rrneck Mar 2014 #209
Thank you. nt ucrdem Mar 2014 #210
Everyone can see where that would head. JackRiddler Mar 2014 #173
I'll tell you where: no change whatsoever except GD hosts would have more guidance ucrdem Mar 2014 #174
all of DU would be like the BOG Skittles Mar 2014 #177
Fat chance. And this is soley a lock-leave matter, not a jury direction. ucrdem Mar 2014 #179
aw please Skittles Mar 2014 #182
Why would you doubt it? ucrdem Mar 2014 #183
Well it IS the people from the BOG pushing this. Rex Mar 2014 #180
well no shit Skittles Mar 2014 #181
Careful you are about to get an ODS red card! Rex Mar 2014 #184
It's not criticism that is the problem, it's the nasty, foul-mouthed name calling. MADem Mar 2014 #186
That's why I suggested "FOX-style Dem bashing," ucrdem Mar 2014 #187
Righteous indignation against the powers that be Trajan Mar 2014 #211
Dog whistling like a FOX star is not an essential form of protest. ucrdem Mar 2014 #215
You keep referring to FOX ... Trajan Mar 2014 #220
Well this poll is an epic failure. Rex Mar 2014 #221
Swearing like a fifteen year old at "authori-TEH" is not "righteous indignation" though. MADem Mar 2014 #222
Your interpretation is hardly definitive Trajan Mar 2014 #226
It's definitive enough for most major publications. MADem Mar 2014 #229
+1000 nt Andy823 Mar 2014 #231
Not only no, but FUCK NO, and please don't ask again. cherokeeprogressive Mar 2014 #194
What you mean "WE", Kimosabe? cherokeeprogressive Mar 2014 #199
ROFLMAO that list is like a who's who of socialist DU'ers LOL snooper2 Mar 2014 #203
What list? ucrdem Mar 2014 #204
stare at your OP for a bit and you'll figure it out :) snooper2 Mar 2014 #206
I didn't post any lists in the OP. ucrdem Mar 2014 #207
Just because some posters are literate, perceptive, intelligent, have superior deductive reasoning Zorra Mar 2014 #212
Modest, too. ucrdem Mar 2014 #213
heehee! Aww, did I hit a nerve? nt Zorra Mar 2014 #218
Us little people should not criticize Dems Teamster Jeff Mar 2014 #205
You can criticize Dems on DU. This is about something else. nt ucrdem Mar 2014 #208
Are you whining about DU bro? L0oniX Mar 2014 #216
No. nt ucrdem Mar 2014 #217
Not just no--HELL no. TroglodyteScholar Mar 2014 #228
Send the Doggie Whistlers to the Dog House flamingdem Mar 2014 #232
Or they just don't care. Andy823 Mar 2014 #235
Hmm wonder if they learned that from the Teaparty! flamingdem Mar 2014 #236
lol ucrdem Mar 2014 #238

sheshe2

(83,355 posts)
28. We sure do!
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:13 PM
Mar 2014
BOG!

Sadly some weep and moan that some people support this President.

And before you go on and say we mindlessly support Obama, let me say that you know nothing about us and you never will. Your glass will always be half empty. That's a sad way to go through life. My glass will remain half full.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
103. Worship, no. And you can't win without a little zealotry.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:33 AM
Mar 2014

So I say zealotry, bring it on! Spread the word, register Dem! Vote Dem! Otherwise hello president Palin.

p.s. have you ever tried to register voters?

 

Vashta Nerada

(3,922 posts)
112. There isn't a snowballs chance in hell that Palin would ever be president.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 01:05 AM
Mar 2014

Don't even pretend for a second that it could happen.

Second, if there's a viable liberal third party candidate that is more liberal than the Democrat running, you can bet your ass that I'll vote for that third party candidate.

Spazito

(49,783 posts)
168. That is often what was said about George Bush before he did become President...
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 03:18 PM
Mar 2014

all too many, myself included, thought he was a joke, that he would never become President and yet he did.

sheshe2

(83,355 posts)
107. Oh, I see it every day...
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:38 AM
Mar 2014

with the adoration of Snowed-in, GG and now Will Pitt!

Deal with that fact Vashta!

 

Vashta Nerada

(3,922 posts)
110. You're obviously unaware of the works of Will Pitt, aren't you?
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 01:03 AM
Mar 2014

Maybe you don't remember any of the liberal causes he wrote about since 2000.

He dared criticize Obama about Iraq and a crappy part of the ACA, and certain group members through a shit fit.

SMDH. SMDH, indeed.

sheshe2

(83,355 posts)
119. Oooh I am not unaware.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 01:30 AM
Mar 2014

Bog'ers are able to read and actually understand the facts!

Oh wow Pitt dared, he dared to criticize Obama and a part of ACA that had nothing to do with this President, Do go on Vashta!

No, Obamacare Won’t Cover Every Drug — Just Like Every Other Insurance Policy
BY IGOR VOLSKY ON DECEMBER 10, 2013 AT 12:40 PM


Under the law, insurers must offer drug benefits as part of 10 essential health care benefits, meaning that millions of uninsured Americans will now have drug coverage for the very first time. But the coverage won’t be limitless. Insurers will continue to rely on drug formularies — as they currently do in the private market and Medicare Part D — to decide which prescriptions are covered and which are not.

snip

States — not the federal government — select the benchmark and insurers then offer coverage for the drugs listed in those formularies. “What the vast majority of states have chosen is a common small business plan, so you know it’s saying what will be available in the exchanges and in the individual market generally is what’s popular among small businesses now and that seems like a reasonable place to start,” the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Larry Levitt explained.


But yes, there are certain limits: a formulary, for instance, may cover three drugs for treating a certain condition but not two others. Obamacare — like all insurers currently operating in the market — has a fix for that. ACA regulations demand that a health plan must have an “exceptions process” in place that allows patients to request and gain access to clinically appropriate drugs that aren’t covered by the health plan (in addition to internal and external appeal processes). So, if a health plan does not cover a particular drug that a patient absolutely needs, their doctor can certify medical necessity to extend coverage. Insurers have relied on drug formularies before the law went into effect and already have exceptions processes in place, meaning that most “will not have to implement significant changes.”

Snip

And therein lies the irony of the attack: Republicans have traditionally seen high deductibles and limited coverage as a way to control individual health care spending. Now that Obamacare gives patients that choice, they’re suddenly complaining that the insurance is not generous enough.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/12/10/3042741/drugs-obamacare-coverage/

Andy823

(11,495 posts)
223. Well...
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 04:59 PM
Mar 2014

Their is "criticizing" and their is plain hateful bashing, like when you call the president a POS, and tell him to F off!

One is acceptable and one is just plane stupidity. You can be the judge of which is which!

I have no problem when someone complains about things the president does, but when someone goes over the line into rightwing crazy talk, it should not be acceptable.

Ed Suspicious

(8,879 posts)
46. I was banned after a few very mildly critical posts about policy direction of the administration.
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:29 PM
Mar 2014

It is the only group, forum, whatever from which I have been removed. I was absolutely hurt and offended that my thoughts which were only meant to spur academic-like discussion would be taken so out of the realm of my intention and I was angry that they could/so flippantly disregard my points, points that I thought all decent people in good conscience would be willing to take up for the benefit of the party and in the interest of thoughtful discussion. When I was summarily banned by a 100,000 plus post poster who is lord of the group... Well, it brought to light for me the fanatical devotion of the BOG people and it made me realize that there were people here who weren't interested in discussion, only in expressions professing reverential adoration of a man who I thought was cool, but like all men, flawed. They sought to obscure those flaws from their group's eyes. It was weird and it was cult-like. I have since had trouble with the BOG people. I just cannot relate and in the end I guess I'm glad I'm not part of their odd little spin-doctorish group.

Ed Suspicious

(8,879 posts)
66. The ban opened my eyes to the nature of the group. Time and experience with them outside of
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:53 PM
Mar 2014

the BOG shaped and reinforced my expectations of them.

hobbit709

(41,694 posts)
151. BOG's theme song is Home On The Range
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 08:17 AM
Mar 2014

"Where seldom is heard a discouraging world and the skies are not cloudy all day"

In the real world of course things happen.

And I go by Teddy's words
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

sheshe2

(83,355 posts)
69. It is a group not a forum.
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:56 PM
Mar 2014

Last edited Sat Mar 29, 2014, 02:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Yes there are rules. You abide by their mission statements. All the groups have them. Sorry, but that is how they work. Just like AA, HOF and LGBT.

There are plenty of places to disagree. That is what GD is for. It's not like we don't post there too. We do, a lot. Ah, that is where the lively conversation comes in.

Yet is there not one safe place in your house that you find comfort in after a long day? One where you can kick back and relax. Maybe to laugh sometimes to cry? To commiserate with a friend? To have a conversation without interruption? Well that is what the groups are, that is why they were set up. It is our comfort zone.

I hope that you can understand that. I am sorry you were hurt. If you wish to talk about that sincerely, let me know. I have not been a host for long yet I am willing to lend an ear. I would reinstate you if you wish, yet if you post you go by the rules. I didn't make them, yet they are the groups rules.

Ed Suspicious

(8,879 posts)
88. I get it now, at the time, the way I used DU was to read and reply to the latest threads.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:13 AM
Mar 2014

I guess it was a lack of understanding of how DU worked. If The thread was in latest threads and I felt like replying, I did. All I knew was I posted to a latest thread, received what I thought was some strange pushback, responded to that and next thing you know, I could no longer engage. All I knew was that I just got a message stating that I was summarily banned and could not for the life of me understand why. I thought for a moment that I was banned from DU. It was incredibly frustrating. I appreciate the offer to reinstate, but I'm afraid I'm more up for a lively from multiple viewpoints type of discussion than what is offered in a group like the BOG.

sheshe2

(83,355 posts)
96. I appreciate your thoughtful response, Ed.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:17 AM
Mar 2014

I have no problem with a lively debate either!

I just feel the need to kick off my shoes once in awhile. Especially after a long day at work.

Peace~

MADem

(135,425 posts)
189. I've gotten caught in a protected group by mistake a time or two.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 01:45 AM
Mar 2014

The only thing to do is apologize/delete. I try to remember to check the group I'm in before I open my mouth. As I said, I've erred, especially when going to a thread from the front page.

It's not that you can't make the points you want to make, you just can't make them THERE. Some of those groups are looking for supportive conversation, not bashing/trashing/drama.

We've got self-help groups, the interfaith group, the assorted politicians' groups, LGBT, gender groups, quite a number of safe-havens. Let people have their little areas--it's not hurting anyone. People who need to make a point can start a thread--there's no quota or limit on thread starting.

sheshe2

(83,355 posts)
17. I have an idea! :-)
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 10:56 PM
Mar 2014

We need a Snowed-In and GG adoration Group! Oh, another, someone suggested the other day that Will Pitt should have one too!

Yes!

They are adored here, wow some might call them, the followers, "bots"!

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
45. Well they outright admitted that they are here for the money.....
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:28 PM
Mar 2014

its just about page clicks for them.....they think they have bought DU!

So yes I think you may be onto a new name for such phenomenon.

sheshe2

(83,355 posts)
86. Yes Indeed!
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:10 AM
Mar 2014

Money Lyrics

[EMCEE]
Money makes the world go around
The world go around
The world go around
Money makes the world go around
It makes the world go 'round.

A mark, a yen, a buck, or a pound
A buck or a pound
A buck or a pound
Is all that makes the world go around,
That clinking clanking sound
Can make the world go 'round.

[GIRLS]
Money money money money money money
Money money money money money money
Money money money money money money
Money money

[EMCEE]
If you happen
To be rich,
[GIRLS]
.......Ooooh
[EMCEE]
And you feel like a
Night's enetertainment,
[GIRLS]
...Money
[EMCEE]
You can pay for a
Gay escapade.
[GIRLS]
Money money
Money money
Money money
Money money
[EMCEE]
If you happen to
To be rich,
[GIRLS]
.......Ooooh
[EMCEE]
And alone, and you
Need a companion
[GIRLS]
...Money
[EMCEE]
You can ring-ting-
A-ling for the maid.
[EMCEE]
If you happen
To be rich
[GIRLS]
.....Ooooh
[EMCEE]
And you find you are
Left by your lover,
[GIRLS]
...Money
[EMCEE]
Though you moan
And you groan
Quite a lot,
[GIRLS]
Money money
Money money
Money money
Money money
[EMCEE]
You can take it
On the chin,
[GIRLS]
.....Ooooh
[EMCEE]
Call a cab,
And begin
[GIRLS]
...Money
[EMCEE]
To recover
On your fourteen-
Carat yacht.

[EMCEE]
Money makes the world go around,
The world go around,
The world go around,
Money makes the world go around,
Of that we can be sure.
(....) on being poor.

[ALL]
Money money money-
money money money
Money money money-
money money money
Money money money money money money
Money money money money money money
Money money money money money money

[DANCE BREAK]

[EMCEE AND GIRLS (In Canon)]
If you haven't any coal in the stove
And you freeze in the winter
And you curse on the wind
At your fate
When you haven't any shoes
On your feet
And your coat's thin as paper
And you look thirty pounds
Underweight.
When you go to get a word of advice
From the fat little pastor
He will tell you to love evermore.
But when hunger comes a rap,
Rat-a-tat, rat-a-tat at the window...

[GIRLS]
At the window...

[EMCEE (spoken)]
Who's there?

[GIRLS (spoken)]
Hunger!

[EMCEE (Spoken)]
Ooh, hunger!

See how love flies out the door...
For

[EMCEE]
Money makes
The world...
[GIRLS]
...Go around
[EMCEE]
The world...
[GIRLS]
...Go around
[EMCEE]
The world...
[GIRLS]
...Go around
[EMCEE]
Money makes the
.... Go around
[GIRLS]
...Go around

That clinking
Clanking sound of
Money money money money money money
Money money money money money money

[EMCEE]
Get a little,
[GIRLS]
Money money
[EMCEE]
Get a little,
[GIRLS]
Money money
[EMCEE]
Money money
[GIRLS]
Money money
[EMCEE]
Money money
[GIRLS]
Money money

[EMCEE]
Mark, a yen, a buck
[GIRLS]
Get a little
[EMCEE]
Or a pound
[GIRLS]
Get a little
[EMCEE]
That clinking clanking
[GIRLS]
Get a little
Get a little

[EMCEE]
Clinking sound

[GIRLS]
Money money
Money money...

[EMCEE]
Is all that makes
The world go 'round

[GIRLS]
Money money
Money money

It makes the world go round

http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/cabaret/money.htm

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
29. So as Democrats we are NOT supposed to be pleased with them when they do great things....
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:14 PM
Mar 2014

According to your rules we bash them.....or say nothing at all...

I might remind you...THIS is Democratic Underground....for the purpose of supporting and helping to elect Democrats....that includes PRAISING them. Understand?

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
43. Some how "Punching Democrats" for sport constitutes "supporting them and helping them get elected".
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:25 PM
Mar 2014

That is how insidious it is...

sheshe2

(83,355 posts)
105. Well their mission is..
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:34 AM
Mar 2014

to hold his feet to the fire.

Gawd dammit they voted for him twice! They even canvassed for him, worked their collective asses off for him. They helped put him in office, they did their work!!!! Then they left him on his own. No support. None.

Now it is a complete misunderstanding of the facts. The GOP is the one that betrayed this country. Yet they just moan and a wail. He betrayed me! He betrayed me!

Rend clothes and tear out hair here, he betrayed their trust.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
108. Well then I guess it is THEY that suck at politics not us....
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:43 AM
Mar 2014

We weren't expecting "the One" "the Savior" (what ever the latest fad phrase they are using is) THEY were expecting "the One" "the Savior".....when THEY (not us) didn't get a Savior or The One....they were the ones lamenting their "bad choice at the polling booths"......meanwhile the rest of us who have had our expectations met or exceeded are constantly accused of it! Ironic isn't it? YET they want to make US feel bad about who WE voted for....even though as we see....they CERTAINLY suck at choosing leaders....why should we EVER listen to them?

Andy823

(11,495 posts)
224. Yep voted for him twice
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 05:07 PM
Mar 2014

And yet some of them were into "bashing" him in just a few months after they voted for him.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
61. We are expected not to like Democrats on a Democratic Forum whose mission states"
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:41 PM
Mar 2014

to support and help elect more Democrats"....you mean that kind of "worship"? Using your analogy and looking at the mission statement....I guess that makes Democratic Underground a church. That means you are here to attend the "service".

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
7. Other. How about a "No DUer Bashing" codicile?
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 10:37 PM
Mar 2014

I would like to see an end of threads that are started for the sole purpose of labeling and dividing DUers.

No good ever comes from those threads.

Yes, individual DUers disagree with each other on any number of things. However, the insistence of dividing DUers into camps and then broad-brushing their viewpoints is destructive and makes DU suck.

I want to see an end of DUers accusing each other of not posting their individual opinions in good faith.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
11. No objections but I think that's considered a jury issue.
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 10:44 PM
Mar 2014

As I understand it, hosts decide on Statement of Purpose violations (lock/leave), juries decide on Community Standards, including DUer bashing ("This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate&quot , and admins decide on Terms of Service (everything else, including supporting Democrats). So I suppose what I'm suggesting is giving GD hosts a reason to lock offensive posts that don't call out a DUer or whine about DU.

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
16. Well, you're asking about making an addition to the SOP. This is the addition I propose.
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 10:54 PM
Mar 2014

I'd like to see the SOP of GD expanded to include a statement that it is not permitted to start threads for the sole purpose of "bashing" fellow DUers.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
20. Ah.
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:01 PM
Mar 2014

Well I wouldn't object but at least there's a protocol for addressing DU-er bashing violations, and juries are expected to consider it. Right now Dem-bashing sort of falls between stools and neither hosts nor juries have explicit instructions to consider it.

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
37. I think politicians ought to be fair game. Why should they be protected?
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:19 PM
Mar 2014

Politicians aren't affected by what's posted on DU, but DUers are certainly affected by what politicians DO.

I see no reason to protect politicians from being criticized, I'm only interested in protecting DUers from being attacked by other DUers for criticizing politicians.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
57. I'm not ruling out criticism, just FOX-style bashing.
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:36 PM
Mar 2014

They're different in that "criticism" implies a basic level of respect, regardless of how strongly a poster might feel about a particular policy, proposal or statement.

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
65. I would say that "FOX-style" is in the eye of the beholder.
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:51 PM
Mar 2014

Who decides what sorts of criticism is "FOX-style"? I don't even know that means.

You say that it has to do with "a basic level of respect" - but why should "respect" be enforced? Are politicians our betters that we must tug our forelocks and hold our tongues?

I've always been taught that respect must be earned. If a DUer feels that a politician has not earned that DUer's respect, why should they not be free to express it? It does nothing to take away the freedom of those who disagree to express their disagreement.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
75. The reason is that we want to win elections.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:01 AM
Mar 2014

That's what politics comes down to doesn't it? If you don't win you're at the mercy of your rivals and these days that's a very dangerous place to be.

So, while I absolutely understand the desire to talk trash about pols you despise on a discussion board, the fact is that DU has a certain bellwether quality and come election time that trash-talk is gonna bite us in the butt. There are other reasons but that's the basic one.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
79. Nah, winning elections just for the sake of winning is not the end of politics
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:06 AM
Mar 2014

Exercising power responsibly is the end of politics. You can win all the elections you want, not listening to the needs of the people who put you there is not exercising power responsibly.

You should go visit a few city council hearings. Because you have no clue what government is about.

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
95. I believe in the truism, "All politics are local". When it comes to elections, what someone says
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:17 AM
Mar 2014

about some politician in DC is irrelevant to everyone except the person who actually lives in that politician's district.

In any case, we haven't even reached Primary season yet. Let's freely hash out what we want, and who we think sucks and why.

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
44. Reprisal? How about simply making counter arguments?
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:26 PM
Mar 2014

A "No Bashing DUers" rule would cover everyone - no matter which viewpoints you hold.

It would mean that the SOP would not allow someone to bash YOU for expressing YOUR viewpoint.

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
59. First of all, there are no "rules" per se. There are "Community Standards" and SOP.
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:40 PM
Mar 2014

Community Standards are nebulous at best, and entirely dependent on the whim of random juries.

On the other hand, if the SOP clearly stated that GD is not to be used for starting threads bashing other DUers it would hopefully serve to significantly cut down on OPs which serve no purpose other than division and stoking flame wars.

I think that would be a good thing.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
63. There is a mission statement....
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:42 PM
Mar 2014

which states "support and help elect Democrats" what part of "Bashing each other" accomplishes that?

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
68. I'm against "bashing each other" - as I clearly stated in my first post on this thread.
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:54 PM
Mar 2014

That's my whole point. I'd like to see an end to DUers "bashing each other".

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
51. How do you make counter "arguments" to hate?
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:32 PM
Mar 2014

It wastes alot of time....

By your thinking....why don't we just let Republicans come...we could just 'make counter-arguments" right?

Because that is OH SO productive to have to constantly do that right? Same thing is happening but from wolves in sheeps clothing...they are here to "Punch Democrats" it is THEIR mission....not to make congent arguments in good faith. They are not honest brokers...

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
72. Who said anything about letting Republicans come?
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:58 PM
Mar 2014

Stop accusing your fellow DUers of ill intent just because they don't see things the same way you do.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
81. We ALREADY do not suffer them...BECAUSE all they do is "punch Democrats" on DU
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:07 AM
Mar 2014

why should we allow anyone else to do it? Would you expect to have to spend your time "counter-arguing with them" (the Republicans) as if bashing Democrats should HAVE to be defended endlessly on Democratic Underground. Why should we allow Libertarians to come to Democratic Underground to "bash Democrats"....they are here to "suppress the vote" not to elect more Democrats.....

scarletwoman

(31,893 posts)
104. Are you going to vote in the Midterms? Are you going to vote for Dems running for local offices?
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:34 AM
Mar 2014

Are you going to vote for Dems running for state offices? Are you going to vote for a Dem running for the Congressional seat in your district? Are you going to vote for a Dem Senator if one of your state's Senate seats is up for election?

If your answer is yes to all, then you are no different from pretty much everyone else on DU. No votes are being "suppressed" by DUers expressing their opinions.

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
8. A place called "Democratic Underground" shouldn't be a forum for putting Democrats under the ground.
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 10:41 PM
Mar 2014
 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
33. In fact quite the opposite....it says so right in the Mission Statement....
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:16 PM
Mar 2014

this is NOT "Punch a Democrat Underground!

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
9. I said no, but would reconsider if the most ardent Bog-ers got to make the new rules list
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 10:42 PM
Mar 2014

It would be worth it, just to see how long the list was, and what was said in it as to what constitutes "bashing". I'm guessing it would be a pretty long list.

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
12. Ok, but not sure if some of the more hard core supporters would be satisfied with that
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 10:46 PM
Mar 2014

It is too open to interpretation and they might want it to be a lot more specific.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
36. Easy to solve....if they are on DU and NEVER have a positive thing to say about Democrats
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:18 PM
Mar 2014

Ever...then they ARE NOT here "to support and help elect more Democrats" and are CURRENTLY in violation of that...

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
92. You seem to have this thing all figured out. Maybe you should be one of the ones who help draw up
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:16 AM
Mar 2014

the new rules of showing proper respect to our Democratic leaders...

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
97. If you are here...for the sole purpose of "punching Democrats" and it becomes obvious that it is all
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:18 AM
Mar 2014

you do here....then you are not "supporting or helping to get more Democrats elected" which is the express mission of this site.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
106. Careful, you are about to get your first ODS red flag!
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:37 AM
Mar 2014

I'm looking over their new rules and regulations manual, the uniforms are tight.

Andy823

(11,495 posts)
225. So...
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 05:31 PM
Mar 2014

Are you only here to only bash democrats and never say anything positive about them, because I think that's what VR was saying? You said "put us all in line" so I am a little confused.

14. No, some deserve it.
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 10:47 PM
Mar 2014

See John Edward, Joe Lieberman, Rod Blagojevich... Having a D behind your name should not make you free from criticism.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
15. Okay but there's criticism and there's criticism.
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 10:53 PM
Mar 2014

You can appreciate Edwards' virtues as a candidate, or lack thereof, or discuss his moral failings without dragging his haircuts or his big-ass ranch into every sentence.

19. I voted for Rod Blagojevich
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:00 PM
Mar 2014

The things I would have to say about that awful excuse for a human being now would make make Hannity say "ease up." No, some people are terrible human beings and deserve what they get, despite if there is a D behind their name. If something like that would get me banned, then so be it. I'm sure if I voted Edwards, I would feel the same about him now, but I dont really think about him.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
26. Blago
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:07 PM
Mar 2014

I don't live in Chicago so I never got up-close and personal but it always seemed to me that his offenses were of the rather ordinary kind. But to hear the media you'd think he'd committed some heinous unspeakable crime. I mean seriously, what pol doesn't consider quid-pro-quo when making appointments, financial or otherwise? That's what politics is all about.

questionseverything

(9,631 posts)
54. blago was a good gov
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:34 PM
Mar 2014

night before he arrested he was on the steps of a shuttered factory, standing with the laborers that bank of America was screwing out of pay...telling the bank if you do not pay what you owe the state of Illinois will not longer do business with you

we went to bed cheering

next morning fbi arrested him

took them 2 trys to convict him

he asked dems to do fund raisers for him...is all I ever knew he was convicted on (why wouldn't a dem gov want a dem senator that could raise funds)?...now if he was gonna "sell" the seat to a repub,i would of been pissed but that was not the case

Christy has done hundred times worse and he is still walking free

seigleman got nothing and he rots in prison

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
82. That was my impression too.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:08 AM
Mar 2014

Though I know a lot of Illinois folks despised him, so there was probably some truth to the accusations, but how much of that was thanks to the media blitz? They did much the same thing to Kucinich when he was mayor of Cleveland or at least that's how I understand it.

questionseverything

(9,631 posts)
161. yes some hate him
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 01:44 PM
Mar 2014

he was all about protecting the 99%

Illinois has huge money problems, blago would not raise income taxes, he wanted to make companies that did business in Illinois but paid no income tax pay a simple 1/4 of 1 % tax on their gross....big business hated that

I still think it is a great idea

230. Was Rod Blagojevich protecting the 99% when he was attempting to extort a children's hospital?
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 07:24 PM
Mar 2014

Sorry, but even if a politician agrees with me on the issues, if he or she is of contemptible character, then I have no use for him or her. Rod Blagojevich is where he belongs. And I voted for him for governor. Worst vote ever. Its this vote why I cannot support this "anti dem bashing" rule.

questionseverything

(9,631 posts)
239. since the koch's werent gonna fund him
Mon Mar 31, 2014, 05:25 PM
Mar 2014

Children's Memorial Hospital CEO: Blagojevich ask was "inappropriate," "illegal."
By Natasha Korecki on May 16, 2011 2:23 PM | 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
Reporting with Lark Turner

A different witness is up, but government prosecutors are staying on the same theme: Children's Memorial Hospital.
The hospital's CEO, Patrick Magoon, is now testifying about a pediatric rate increase he sought in the fall of 2008. Prosecutors contend Magoon was shaken down for a campaign contribution after he asked for state help at his institution.
In testimony, Magoon said he reached out to then-Gov. Blagojevich via letter seeking the rate increase and heard nothing back. Blagojevich was in control of the rate increase, which went to doctors who treated Medicaid patients at Children's.
He then asked former Cubs manager Dusty Baker to talk to Blagojevich, a Cubs fan.
That got a response and eventually, Magoon got a call from Blagojevich himself in October of 2008.
Blagojevich told him he'd get the rate increase but he asked him not to make the decision public until after Jan. 1 of the following year.
"Only five days had lapsed," according to Magoon, and he got a second call.
This time it was from Blagojevich's brother, Rob, who also happened to be the head of the Friends of Blagojevich campaign fund.
He asked Magoon to kick in $25,000 to his brother's campaign fund. And he asked that it be done before ... Jan. 1st.
"From my perspective, the two were linked and one, in my point of view, was in exchange for another," Magoon told Assistant U.S. Attorney

///////////////////////////////////////

children's hospital conjures up visions of poverty but the ceo testifying made over 1.8 million?


RANK NAME STATE HOSPITAL REVENUE HIGHEST-PAID EXECUTIVE TOTAL COMPENSATION ADJUSTED COMPENSATION
1 CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER OH $1,461,074,989 James M. Anderson - President & CEO $1,747,573 $1,577,367
2 CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA PA $1,439,522,728 Steven M. Altschuler- President & CEO $2,070,775 $2,070,775
3 CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOSTON MA $1,348,731,678 James Mandell - CEO $1,962,538 $663,132
4 TEXAS CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, HOUSTON TX $1,001,158,792 Mark A. Wallace - President $1,430,013 $1,430,013
5 NATIONWIDE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, COLUMBUS OH $918,711,467 Steven Allen - CEO $1,111,264 $1,111,264
6 CHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER DALLAS TX $912,034,106 Christopher J. Durovich - President & CEO $2,845,980 $2,128,120
7 CHILDREN'S HEALTHCARE OF ATLANTA, INC. 1 GA $872,173,403 James Tally-CEO 2 $3,474,172 NA
8 PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD CA $772,101,422 Christopher Dawes-President & CEO $1,102,983 $641,714
9 CHILDREN'S NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER DC $730,275,611 Edwin K. Zechman Jr.-President & CEO $1,987,629 $1,987,629
10 SEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL WA $707,928,519 Thomas Hansen - CEO $1,209,562 $1,209,562
11 CHILDREN'S MERCY HOSPITAL, KANSAS CITY MO $684,116,645 Randall L. O'Donnell - President & CEO $5,987,194 3 $1,902,203
12 CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF WISCONSIN, MILWAUKEE WI $588,727,332 Jon E. Vice - President $5,465,948 4 $5,465,948
13 CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL DENVER CO $588,534,289 James Shmerling-President & CEO $1,088,845 $1,088,845
14 CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS & CLINICS, MINNEAPOLIS MN $565,417,744 Alan L. Goldbloom -President & CEO $1,324,535 $1,262,436
15 COOK CHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER, FORT WORTH TX $563,749,365 Rick W. Merrill-President & CEO $1,006,707 $1,006,707
16 CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF LOS ANGELES CA $546,993,497 Richard Cordova-President & CEO $1,159,984 $1,026,269
17 CHILDREN'S MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, CHICAGO IL $533,957,494 Patrick Magoon - President & CEO $1,802,955 $1,802,955

////////////////////////////////////

dem spend MOST their time begging for money and some go to jail for "doing it wrong"

but Christie appointee Sampson has made millions off his law firms connections and so far nothing from feds

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
38. Blagojevich is in jail now....
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:19 PM
Mar 2014

he has been bashed into prison...you won't find anyone on DU that will support him at all..

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
185. Bashed into prison...
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 01:37 AM
Mar 2014

Exactly. It's happened in my own little town. Happened to a city council member I voted for mayor on the very afternoon I cast my mail-in ballot. Resigned that day. Weird huh.

defacto7

(13,485 posts)
18. It's too ambiguous
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 10:58 PM
Mar 2014

for my small brain. I have no idea what the mentioned list means in logical or specific terms. Someone would have to judge what that means and then there will be another storm of infighting.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
39. Do you support Democrats on DU or do you ONLY come here to criticize them...
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:20 PM
Mar 2014

its is pretty simple...and part of the mission of this site...to "support and help elect" them...

defacto7

(13,485 posts)
113. I understand the premise
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 01:08 AM
Mar 2014

what I don't understand is the wording that would easily determine who fits into which category in a way that a rule can be followed that is consistent to everyone who reads the SOP. The wording used in the poll question is not any better at determining what the change would accomplish.

"No FOX-style Dem bashing" What is that? I don't watch Fox anything.

Then the explanation, "gratuitous, insulting, over-the-top" That's already implied or written into the TOS..

"topically irrelevant dog-whistling of the type seen on FOX News and other RW outlets" I have no idea what that is and everyone who is familiar with those terms would give a different degree of value to those terms.

What I am saying is that the wording would need to be comprehended with little ambiguity. In the end, it would come down to a judgment that is already made by the jury.

Honestly, I don't know what wording would accomplish the goal determining who is one or the other emphatically. Then there's the issue of reality among humans..... not a good idea.

Maybe I'm taking this too seriously...

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
191. That has nothing to do with what I said.....and the rule is already in place...
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 02:00 AM
Mar 2014

gIf you have come to DU SIMPLY to complain and criticize and NOTHING else...then how can that be considered to be in support OF Democrats....its one thing to be a Democrat with a criticism or two....but to have NOTHING but criticism...then how is that in anyway constructive? In fact...that is not "constructive" at all...that is destructive. It is being JUST as recalcitrant as the Teabagging Republican and FOX News viewers...


tkmorris

(11,138 posts)
22. Much too vague
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:02 PM
Mar 2014

It can't work. You know what "No FOX-style Dem bashing" means TO YOU, but I can guarantee you that 100 random DUers will have 100 different opinions about what that means to them. Rules must be tediously specific, or they are ripe for abuse.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
41. It means that IF like a Fox News viewer would do....you ONLY come on DU to punch Democrats
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:21 PM
Mar 2014

then you are neither supporting them or helping them get elected. If you NEVER post anything positive about them...then like a Fox News viewer....you are not here to support or elect them...

sheshe2

(83,355 posts)
52. Systematic bashing of a Democratic President...
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:32 PM
Mar 2014

With never a post that praises any action this President takes is bad for Democrats. Why the new outrage now? Are people being told that it is hopeless, that we should just stay at home in 2014 and not vote?

We already have that abuse of the rules here, tkmorris, sad but true.

tkmorris

(11,138 posts)
138. Yes we do have abuse of rules here
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 02:23 AM
Mar 2014

What I am saying is that to change that in a positive way means being VERY specific. "Fox style bashing" doesn't say anything.

pscot

(21,023 posts)
24. I think we need a whine bar
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:06 PM
Mar 2014

We could put it in the darkest corner of the lounge, back behind the stuffed penguin.

 

WillyT

(72,631 posts)
27. Again... Back In The Day... What Would You Do With Joe Lieberman And Zell Miller ???
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:07 PM
Mar 2014

They were both Democrats.


ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
31. Neither are Democrats now so it wouldn't apply to them.
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:14 PM
Mar 2014

And DU didn't exist when Lieberman was on the national ticket.

 

WillyT

(72,631 posts)
40. They Were Both Democrats When They Appeared At The Republican Conventions...
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:21 PM
Mar 2014

DU was around for Miller, and Lieberman was discussed ad nauseum after DU was formed, so you really didn't answer the question.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
50. As I understand it DU3 has only existed since April 2011.
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:31 PM
Mar 2014

Miller left the Senate in 2005 (wonder why) and Lieberman left the party after losing his primary in 2006.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
67. And I have been around since
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:53 PM
Mar 2014

Oh...

Member since: 2003 before July 6th

I joined in late 2001 to be exact. So answer what Willy asked. What do you do about Lieberman and Miller?

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
80. Derived from the other two
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:07 AM
Mar 2014

What you want is the ability to shut up people you do not agree with. Nice try buster. You are quite transparent.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
77. Okay but the current SoP and division of duties is circa DU3.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:03 AM
Mar 2014

So however things were arranged prior to 2011 doesn't really have any bearing on the current SoP.

madinmaryland

(64,920 posts)
83. Regardless of which DU version you have been on, WHINING about DU is a quick way to
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:09 AM
Mar 2014

get your OP locked/hidden or whatever.

And you are whining about DU.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
234. The thread opening post just makes a suggestion, asks a question, provides options.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 07:53 PM
Mar 2014

That's the only post the hosts can vote on. It's not "whining about DU." If I were still a forum host (and I did it for quite a bit when we first fired up here), I'd vote to leave it.

Anything below that post is a job for a jury. Juries generally don't lock for SOP. They often don't lock for TOS violations!

 

think

(11,641 posts)
58. max baucus technically still is......
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:39 PM
Mar 2014

How Max Baucus, the Next Ambassador to China, Killed Progressive Health Care Reform




Sen. Max Baucus' opposition to regulating the health and insurance industry made it impossible for the Democrats to take full advantage of their 60 vote majority in the Senate. He not only lead the handful of centrist Senate Democrats against Obama's plan, but also empowered Republicans and right-wingers, including Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck, to exploit the Democratic divisions.
Let's concede that President Barack Obama's decision to appoint Senator Max Baucus as his ambassador to China is a clever political ploy. Baucus had already announced he wasn't going to seek re-election next year, but if he leaves the Senate now, Montana's Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock can appoint a replacement who can run next year as the incumbent, increasing the odds that the Democrats will hold onto that seat.

It's just unfortunate that Obama couldn't send Baucus to a democratic country so he could see first-hand what a decent universal health care system looks like. Almost any democracy country would do, since all of them -- including Canada, Germany, France, New Zealand, Sweden, England, or Japan -- cover more people at a much lower cost than the United States.....


Read more:
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/12/20-4
 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
53. Have the current SoP enforced, that will go a long way.
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:34 PM
Mar 2014

Any changes would be useless when the current SoP is not enforced.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
56. YES the mission says "to support and help elect Democrats" period...
Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:36 PM
Mar 2014

if you come here to "punch Democrats" you are in violation of the mission...

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
93. How about we don't waste everyone's time on Democratic Underground whose express mission it is:
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:16 AM
Mar 2014

"to support and elect more Democrats" by forcing them endure to endless Democrat Punches from those that "claim" to be fellow Democrats. However....I fail to see how allowing that to happen "supports and helps get more Democrats elected"

LeftyMom

(49,212 posts)
85. How about new people stop telling the regulars that we're Doing It Wrong?
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:09 AM
Mar 2014

It's getting really fucking old.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
164. Actually I like it when they expose themselves as authoritarians.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 02:28 PM
Mar 2014

It goes to show why so many people are banned in the BOG. Thankfully they will never get their wish, this is a liberal website and they just cannot stand it!

one_voice

(20,043 posts)
170. How many years does a person have to be a member...
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 08:23 PM
Mar 2014

to not be considered a new person? When can they look forward to not being dismissed as if they're less because they're new?

neverforget

(9,434 posts)
87. Ignore and trash thread work great too.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:11 AM
Mar 2014

I've used trash thread function more in the last few weeks than I have ever before.

Out of sight, Out of mind.

sheshe2

(83,355 posts)
114. Uuum, give me a second here.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 01:10 AM
Mar 2014

Oh wait I have one!

"Fuck you, Mr. President, you piece of shit used-car salesman.

From my heart and soul, fuck you."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024685964

sheshe2

(83,355 posts)
120. The sad part.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 01:34 AM
Mar 2014

You support that statement from Will Pitt! You take pride in it as Pitt does. Has he apologized? No and he never will. He owns that and so do you!

 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
121. Not everyone worships Obama! Some are disappointed! Some....
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 01:37 AM
Mar 2014

Act like the GOP who worshiped Bush!

Will can defend himself! But he has a right to complain.


sheshe2

(83,355 posts)
124. Yup. You own it!
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 01:41 AM
Mar 2014

And Will needs his rec's from his supporters to make his sad point. Talk about worship.

sheshe2

(83,355 posts)
132. How am I in the minority on Democratic Underground!?
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 01:55 AM
Mar 2014

Are you saying that a supporter of this President and the foundations of the Democratic Party that upholds equal rights for every citizen is in the minority. I am in the minority here!? On DU!!!!! Why because I am a woman and chose to speak out, WTF!

As for your cute comment about kicking threads, which ones do you refer to. I am sure I know, yet I wish to hear you say it.


You are walking a tight line here, Logical.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
146. Sorry. Anyone supporting the DNC platform on equal rights for every citizen IS in the minority here.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 03:50 AM
Mar 2014

Last edited Sat Mar 29, 2014, 04:23 AM - Edit history (1)

Mainly because they don't need such facts, only fury.

These Do-Nothings profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and discourage all effective action for change. They are known by their brand, 'I agree with your ends but not your means'.

~ Saul Alinsky


Andy823

(11,495 posts)
227. I am confused
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 05:39 PM
Mar 2014

Are you saying that the "majority" of people here on DU are all for the "fox news style" of bashing democrats? That calling the president a POS and saying F you Obama is what the majority of the people on this board would approve of?

I really find that hard to believe.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
129. I think that's about as good an example as there is.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 01:48 AM
Mar 2014

I imagine some will disagree however.

p.s. thanks sheshe!

sheshe2

(83,355 posts)
137. Great Op ucrdem.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 02:21 AM
Mar 2014

And thank you.

That last post, I am in a minority here? Gotta say that pisses me the hell off! You probably already read my response.

I/We are not a minority.

LOL I love your avatar!

Douglas Carpenter

(20,226 posts)
102. if we can also add, "No advocating policies that would be condemned by everyone on DU if they were
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:32 AM
Mar 2014

carried out by a Republican administration."

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
127. Yeah this one might need a little retooling
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 01:46 AM
Mar 2014

but ya gotta start somewhere right?

Back atcha Cha!

 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
123. Notice who is winning! The ones who realize the Democratic Party....
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 01:40 AM
Mar 2014

Is not working like it should!

sheshe2

(83,355 posts)
126. You and your supporters are winning?
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 01:45 AM
Mar 2014

Or whining.

Your way sure as hell won't get out the vote in 2014, now will it!

sheshe2

(83,355 posts)
140. The poor little lamb that was lost astray.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 02:27 AM
Mar 2014

Bah Bah Bah....keep following Pitt.

Where he leads you will follow~

mvd

(65,148 posts)
136. I'd say "other"
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 02:16 AM
Mar 2014

I'd like to see reasoned criticism over FOX-style bashing. Obvious conservative troll insults should always be dealt with. But I am afraid too many posts will be alerted as "FOX-style" and people will be afraid to post their opinions. So I say hold off on this idea.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
139. Lots of people here bash Obama for signing free-trade agreement after free-trade agreement.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 02:23 AM
Mar 2014

Not me, because I happen to favor free trade. But that does not necessarily mean that I think the people who oppose free trade should be banned from expressing this opinion in GD.

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
148. Add it to the TOS, and ban the fuckers that continually engage in it...
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 05:48 AM
Mar 2014

This town needs an enema.

Sid

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
149. You mean like not using ODS, Putinista, firebagger, Obamabot and such
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 05:52 AM
Mar 2014

against other DUers? I'm all for that!

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
152. I don't like the dichotomy
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 08:18 AM
Mar 2014

There is fair criticism, and people should be able to criticize any politician, including the POTUS.

OTOH people have moved from reasonable criticism to unreasonable bashing and name calling. I think it's gone too far.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
153. How about something that defines what, exactly, a Democrat IS.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 08:22 AM
Mar 2014

Right now, looks like all being a Democrat means, for some, is that there is a "D" after the name. That's it. That's all.
I now have the impression that there is no Republican so low, so base, who couldn't have his sweatshirt embroidered with a "D" on the back, and instantly have the mindless support of some.
Eventually, at this rate, what we will have is a government full of various shades of GOP.
And, to make it even better, the Third Way DNC doesn't really support progressives.
The ultimate goal of the Third Way is not to gain control and magically become liberal or progressive. it is to govern as GOP would have. Austerity'n'all. IMO, etc.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
156. I point out that the admins killed Meta for good reasons.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 09:11 AM
Mar 2014

This thread and the dozens like it are some of those good reasons.

TheKentuckian

(24,949 posts)
190. But now the toothpaste fails to retreat back into the tube and it just is all over the place.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 01:54 AM
Mar 2014

If the Meta was a bad a idea getting rid of it seems worse because the meta folks just keep on rocking and it has infected the overall host.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
160. Nah, much better to have their impotent rage posted here, than to have it ...
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 10:41 AM
Mar 2014

... roaming the streets distracting from our GOTV efforts.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
172. Perhaps. But "FOX-style Dem bashing" is something else.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 12:47 AM
Mar 2014

And if I can clear up one other point: the added phrase is soley to give hosts guidance in deciding whether or not to lock disruptive threads. Juries already have complete discretion in deciding whether or not to hide, so this would not affect jury decisions.

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
192. Host duties are centered primarily on placement rather than content.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 02:02 AM
Mar 2014

Last edited Sun Mar 30, 2014, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)

There's a place on DU for almost every subject under the sun. Generally when the hosts lock an OP it's because it should have been posted elsewhere. Hence the questions about kitteh threads and the like. The "no whining" clause concerns itself primarily with complaints about the treatment of DUers by other DUers via the jury system. Since we police ourselves, watching the watchers is a subject of considerable interest. The problem is that since the demise of Meta, GD gets the bulk of that traffic. Meta was eliminated because of the intramural conflict associated with distributed authority.

It seems to me that DU is designed to modulate the degree of partisan special interest among its members. Protected groups are for the most hard core partisans devoted to certain subjects while the forums are a place for the general population to meet. Hence the ability of group hosts to block certain members.

It's not hard to find accusations of "right wing talking points" being flung about. Those are the result of partisans in various interest groups reacting to a perceived failure of partisan fervor in others. It is a subjective evaluation, and "FOX style bashing" would simply be included in the repertoire of those accusations.

In the end the hosts would find themselves evaluating the fervor of people's political leanings rather than doing the job for which the position of hosts was created: proper OP placement. Evaluation of content is the purview of juries.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
193. Let's make it simple: they're centered on the SoP.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 02:12 AM
Mar 2014

From the "Forum Hosts FAQ" visible to all:

Q. What do forum Hosts do?

A. Forum Hosts have one very simple job: they lock threads which violate the Statement of Purpose in the forum they are hosting.

Q. How do Hosts decide what to lock?

A. Every forum has a Statement of Purpose which is used to determine what kind of threads are permitted. For example, the Statement of Purpose for this forum (General Discussion) is:

Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.


Hosts must use their own best judgment to decide whether or not any given thread in their forum is in line with the Statement of Purpose.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=hosts&volunteer=1002

That's why I'm focusing on the GD SOP, because locking and leaving is a host function. Hiding is done by juries but I'm only talking about locking.

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
198. That's a distinction without a difference.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 10:47 AM
Mar 2014

Both are stopping the conversation. It's already difficult enough to host without adding more content to the mix. We already have extended conversations about what constitutes "whining" without adding other content considerations. One thing is certain, the hosts forum isn't an appeal court when a jury declines to hide a post.

Can you define "FOX style" bashing in such a way as to distinguish it from any other type of "bashing"?

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
200. The current GD SoP is 29 words; this would add 5.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 11:19 AM
Mar 2014

"FOX-style Dem bashing" is a metonymy for dog whistles and other gratuitous insults. It's defined at more length in the OP but I think it's clear enough. In any case, hosts are instructed to use their best judgment when deciding how to respond to SoP alerts:

Hosts must use their own best judgment to decide whether or not any given thread in their forum is in line with the Statement of Purpose.


rrneck

(17,671 posts)
201. You're wrong.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 11:27 AM
Mar 2014

It's not clear enough. And the reason it's not clear enough is because each of us defines "over the top" differently. We make that assessment based on subjective criteria including partisan enthusiasm, perceived partisan enthusiasm, personal likes and dislikes, popularity or it's lack, and no doubt a host of other factors that the hosts cannot control or evaluate.

I'll ask you again. Can you provide a definition for "Fox style" bashing? Understand, a definition requires some sort of objective standard. Can you provide that?

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
209. Um, yeah.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 11:48 AM
Mar 2014
Here's a link for you.

I am currently a GD host, and if you want me to lock OP's with "dog whistles", "incorrect style", and "over the top" content you need to exibit something other than the behavior that makes those determinations impossible.

You think you know what a "dog whistle" is, but your definition will not be the same as anybody elses. How the hell are the hosts supposed to regulate inferences?

You're not asking the hosts to be fair, you're asking the hosts to defend your personal understanding of partisan loyalty. Unfortunately you don't even have an objective standard for your own feelings, much less anything that would suffice for others.

I'll ask you again. Do you have an objective standard for proper expression of opinion sufficient to distinguish it from the expressions of our political opponents?

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
174. I'll tell you where: no change whatsoever except GD hosts would have more guidance
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 01:04 AM
Mar 2014

in deciding whether to lock threads, PERIOD. Juries: no change. TOS: untouched. Hosts: still plenty of discretion to lock or leave at liberty, but in close shaves, an incentive to lock outlandish threads and head off shit-storms.

Also: a lock is not a hide. If hosts lock a thread, it has no effect on a member's transparency. It can also be undone relatively easily, whereas a hide is forever. But this would not affect hides.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
179. Fat chance. And this is soley a lock-leave matter, not a jury direction.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 01:26 AM
Mar 2014

No member is going to be any worse off for having a GD thread locked, but it would create a more serene and less divisive DU experience for everyone.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
186. It's not criticism that is the problem, it's the nasty, foul-mouthed name calling.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 01:38 AM
Mar 2014

Some posts I've seen here sound like they were written by LefTEAS, not lefties. I think that kind of bitter, vitriolic commentary is just unnecessary. It also gives way too much "joy" to the wingnuts and Paulbots who read this place and pick over the comments like the losers they are, having no lives.

It's actually possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

We should at least try.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
187. That's why I suggested "FOX-style Dem bashing,"
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 01:40 AM
Mar 2014

to make it clear we're not talking about garden-variety criticism. We're talking heavy duty dog whistling.

 

Trajan

(19,089 posts)
211. Righteous indignation against the powers that be
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 12:06 PM
Mar 2014

Is the essential form of dissent

This is an adult forum, and adult language is occasionally used ... trying to stifle that language is an attempt to stifle dissent, and THAT is unacceptable ...

A huge NO FUCKING WAY for this ...

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
215. Dog whistling like a FOX star is not an essential form of protest.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 12:14 PM
Mar 2014

Not to us anyway. People keep recalling that DU was founded in 2001 as a refuge from the storm. So why invite that noise in now?

 

Trajan

(19,089 posts)
220. You keep referring to FOX ...
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 12:26 PM
Mar 2014

Your attempt to associate anybody who takes issue with the President with FOX is obnoxious and absurd ...

It is naked character assassination, pure and simple, ... a smear tactic that is itself the REAL problem, yet it is YOU using it here in DU ...

THAT is the true abomination, not the honestly felt dissents that you are attempting to stifle ...

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
221. Well this poll is an epic failure.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 12:28 PM
Mar 2014

But you have to expect them to try and stifle discussion, it is what they do in the BOG all day long...well did, now they only talk to themselves. THAT is what they want for GD. Just say no to echo chambers!

MADem

(135,425 posts)
222. Swearing like a fifteen year old at "authori-TEH" is not "righteous indignation" though.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 04:46 PM
Mar 2014

And it's not dissent.

It's called "Making an immature ass of yourself."

It demonstrates an inability to express oneself effectively. Not a good look for anyone claiming to be a wordsmith.

If this is an ADULT forum, it would behoove people to behave like ADULTS--and not charter members of the Terrible Twos Tantrum Team--if they want to be taken seriously.

 

Trajan

(19,089 posts)
226. Your interpretation is hardly definitive
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 05:32 PM
Mar 2014

Perhaps you focus more on the messenger than the message ...

You obviously have a different perspective as to what is more important: the messenger or the message ...

I heard what Will said, and I had no objection to his language usage ... none whatsoever ... I heard the message, loud and clear ....

Fussing about HOW he said what he said seems to me to obfuscate what his message was, and I believe THAT was the intent of the anti-free speech wing of the Democratic party ... out in force here in DU ...

Tis a pity ....

MADem

(135,425 posts)
229. It's definitive enough for most major publications.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 06:24 PM
Mar 2014

People who write like that don't last long as reporters. You don't open up your Boston Globe or even your edgy Mother Jones and see a surfeit of that kind of language. Yet, that author can't seem to get away from it. Seems like a downward circling cycle, to me.

It wouldn't matter if the reincarnation of Mary, Queen of Scots wrote that. It was a lousy thing to say, and it didn't advance any argument. It did focus attention on the writer--so if you're accusing me of paying untoward attention to the messenger, you might want to have a look at the thread that lit that stupidity off--ALL the attention went to the messenger... and maybe THAT was the goal?

If a writer can't write so that his message is "obfuscated," (to note your point) then maybe that writer ought to grab a clue--particularly when he expects to make a living at the keyboard. Tis a pity, indeed, especially when that's yer paycheck....

This has absolutely nothing to do with "free speech." One can make a clear and persuasive point without being, dare I say, a "piece of shit" about it. And if one chooses to be a "piece of shit" and express oneself in an "assholish" fashion, then one should be prepared for some free speech pushback from people who are sick to death of childish histrionics.

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
194. Not only no, but FUCK NO, and please don't ask again.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 03:05 AM
Mar 2014

YOU might want to post in an echo chamber, but I don't. And for those of you who do, there's this place called the Barack Obama Group.

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
199. What you mean "WE", Kimosabe?
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 10:53 AM
Mar 2014

Should we storm DUs gates with pitchforks in defense of those who turn to jelly when a particular politician isn't properly revered?

You go first. We're right behind ya.

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
206. stare at your OP for a bit and you'll figure it out :)
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 11:42 AM
Mar 2014

I have to run to Lowes and grab one more sheet of glass tile for my inlay in the bathroom...


Always happens, just a little bit short

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
212. Just because some posters are literate, perceptive, intelligent, have superior deductive reasoning
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 12:07 PM
Mar 2014

skills, don't bow before authority, and don't engage in idol worship, it does not mean they are socialists.

Although some are.

I imagine the majority of RW corporatist conservatives think of all forms of socialism as a great evil; in fact I'm sure of it

"Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it." --Ronald Reagan

"President Obama is taking the country down a dark path -- but there's still time to save ourselves.

"If you look at FDR, LBJ, and Barack Obama, this is really the final leap to socialism," she said. "But we all know that we could turn this around and we can turn this around fairly quickly. We're still a free country." --Michelle Bachmann

Teamster Jeff

(1,598 posts)
205. Us little people should not criticize Dems
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 11:42 AM
Mar 2014

Only Corporations and big money donors should have that right.

flamingdem

(39,304 posts)
232. Send the Doggie Whistlers to the Dog House
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 07:47 PM
Mar 2014

I swear some of them are so naive they don't even realize they sound like Fox! Ruf Ruf

Andy823

(11,495 posts)
235. Or they just don't care.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 09:59 PM
Mar 2014

I still think some here just want the attention and they know if they bash Obama fox style, it's worth hundreds of recs.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
238. lol
Mon Mar 31, 2014, 01:40 AM
Mar 2014

Who needs the Teaparty when we have our own local heroes ?

p.s. speaking of votes thanks . . .

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Should we add a Dem-bashi...