Eeyores with Pom-Poms, Cheerleaders for Team Apathy.

[riqster]

In response to Monday’s Hobby Lobby decision, many people got angry. Some are channeling that anger into action, but many are slumping in embittered defeat, convinced that nothing can be done to stop the inevitable corporate-fascist world takeover of our formerly free country blahblahblahbittyBLAHblah. Pathetic but at least typical.

But now, we have these gloom and doom aficionados trying to get the rest of us to go along with their defeatist mindset: indeed, they are trying zealously to convert us. Evangelists for hopelessness. Eeyores with Pom-Poms. Cheerleaders for Team Apathy.

One wonders why such people, convinced that nothing is possible regardless of effort, would expend the effort to try and depress the rest of us. I mean, Hell, it seems pretty damned contradictory, doesn’t it? Why bother, if everything is just so fucking hopeless, right?

Two possible reasons offer themselves:
First, “misery loves company”. These miserable louts need others to wallow in the mire to make them feel better about their apathetic lives.
Second possibility:they might actually be happy about the Right-Wing Lemming March towards Fascism, and are trying to get the Center-Left to lay down and give up.

In either case, fuck those Pom-Pom-wielding purveyors of gloom and despair. I will fight for our rights and freedoms for as long as I can breathe. Here’s hoping most of us will do the same.

[SwampG8r]

1. +1

it should be informative as we watch who takes umbrage to which parts of the op

[riqster]

4. Yeah. Not so many of them here at DU, thankfully.

Lots more elsewhere in America, and most of them don't post here. But I expect a few will dance on up and whup on me with their Pom-Poms.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

80. There's a few here

[riqster]

100. One on this thread, in fact.

[Bobbie Jo]

103. Sure enough

Your description was spot on, too.

[Sheldon Cooper]

2. I'd like to have more than 48 fucking hours to get past my rage.

Is that really asking too much?

[riqster]

5. Yes. Embrace futility. Give up. Surrender.

is the only possible course of action.

God forbid any of us should channel that righteous rage into activism, after all...

[SwampG8r]

7. and do you see the irony of someone using sheldon cooper as a screenname

just giving up and going home when he didn't get what he wanted?
the character Sheldon cooper would work to make changes happen and never give up

[Sheldon Cooper]

10. You might want to sit down, because I'm about to deliver some incredible news.

Ready???

I'm actually NOT Sheldon Cooper. I know, pinch yourself, it's an astonishing bit of information to process.

[SwampG8r]

17. thank god i was already sitting

I thought everyone on DU was a fictional character

[Sheldon Cooper]

9. Yes, that's EXACTLY what I said.

[riqster]

12. I was being ironic. Sorry, should have used a smiley.

[FSogol]

3. Classic symptoms:

1. If you can't fix everything, why fix anything...
2. What about gerrymandering....
3. It doesn't include EVERY form of birth control...
4. What do the Hobby Lobby employees think....
5. Improvement __ isn't good enough....
6. It is of historical interest, if nothing else...

[riqster]

6. And course, the classic:

"Good is the enemy. Perfection is the only acceptable outcome."

[el_bryanto]

8. What should DUers have done in the past 48 hours? nt

B

[riqster]

11. Pretty much what almost all of us did. Discuss and agitate.

After we vent our spleens and thus correct our humours, we can start taking action.

And the same goes for the country as a whole.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. What action? It's a USSC decision. All the popular outrage in the world changes nothing because

the USSC is not beholden to political matters.

For sake of argument, assume 60% of the people are on your side of this debate and there are protests commensurate to their numbers. Then what?

[riqster]

18. Here is one course of action: GOTV and hold the Senate,

...and decrease the Repub majority in the House in 2014.

In 2016, likewise, plus hold the White House. Increase the number of liberal justices and pass appropriate laws.

There you go. You're welcome.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. That would require a new case before the court but similar cases will now be decided by this

precedent. It how things work. It's why precedents like desegregation and Roe aren't overturned everytime the political majority shifts.

[riqster]

26. Legislative action is also possible. Don't forget that.

In fact, it is a very common way of addressing egregious Court rulings.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. This is a 1A ruling. Legislation can't trump the BoR, which (if you had been paying attention) is

the basis for the decision. Disagree with that all you will but you're not going to change that any sooner than the RWers are going to change Roe V Wade.

If people can organize and bring their resources, creativity and determination to bear why not do it in a manner that obviates pig-headed judges, narrow-minded corporations and corrupt politicians? THAT would actually be useful and would address the needs of real people rather than some silly protest.

[riqster]

43. You propose making people roll over and accept the loss of benefits.

Or, put another way, your message is

And you are quite incorrect as to the possibility of legislative remedies, because you reframed the discussion to suit your "solution".

[FBaggins]

63. Actually... it isn't a 1A ruling.

They ruled on the basis of RFRA and didn't think that going further to 1A (as HL wanted) was necessary.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. True, but that itself was a codification of previous court rulings.

It could also prove nettlesome to Hillary.

[ReRe]

55. Amen

This should be everyone's ultimate goal from now on, until we have corrected this injustice on the Supreme Court and in our government as a whole.

GOTV, starting now and into the foreseeable future!

[riqster]

57. Agreed. Us, and everyone we know. Get 'em to the polls!

[wandy]

78. There ya go. One course of action and not the only one we have.........

Anyone else have another suggestion?
Don't be afraid to be creative.

Just one thing.
No second amendment remades, please.

[JNelson6563]

20. Protest where they live & you might see some action.

Just sayin'.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. You want to intimidate Supreme Court justices? That's beyond dumb.

[riqster]

27. You have a better course of action? Please share it.

Anybody can pooh-pooh the ideas of another.

Let's hear your ideas for effecting change.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. That's wasn't an idea, it was a worse-than-useless emotional response.

And it seems rather hypocritical for you to say that after that weak-sauce retort to my suggestion of developing a private co-op.

The USSC is not a political body. The precedent has been set. Public displays of anger aren't going to change anything for the better.

[riqster]

35. So, you have no proposals of your own, then?

Color me NOT surprised.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. I have no proposals for those who pray for light chains and kind masters.

I don't even wish them their hearts desire.

[riqster]

45. Well, here's one, anyway.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

54. Ooo, good one! well I'm going to look up local groups,

To see where I can get busy......

Oh, hey,....aren't you the one who jumped on me out of the blue one day, to tell me how much you hated my little useless dog, and that I'm a pinhead for having her, and a disgrace to all intelligentsia (such as yourself) for dressing her up?

Yeah, I remember you. How ya doin'?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. I never used the term "pinhead." That would wholly be your fabrication.

But it was in response to your complaints over other people having children. Call me crazy but I think human children have actual value, both morally and in practical terms, than a small dog is silly attire.

If the human condition is so grave that human children cannot be brought into this world than the world is in too critical a state to countenance small dogs with no useful purpose. Either your grave warnings or your emotional attachments are in error. I was hoping you would reconcile these positions. You simply reasserted your love of your pet and I left it at that.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

77. I used the word "pinhead" because it characterized the judgement

you applied to me. In other words, it did not introduce inaccuracy, which is what your word quibbling is an attempt to accuse me of.

And yes, I do speak of the dangers of human overpopulation often. Too much of a good thing, you know.

Overcrowding, over-stressed resources, overwhelmed waste-management systems, complicating and over burdening social and infra-structures that are necessary to maintain order in large civilizations. Over populating also creates MORE disregard for human life. More people struggling to survive in the face of greater competition creates more stress, more violence, more chaos.

You minimize the threat of over population, the critical factor driving many of the complex issues facing us as a species. Your reason for minimizing it was in order to moralistically castigate me.

Also, don't think I didn't notice that sly attempt to tag me as someone who devalues children, with ALL the negatives that implies. And all the self-aggrandizement calculated to reflect back to you.

Your facility with language is enjoyable; I do appreciate that, but the hostility, false comparisons, arrogant insinuations, goal-shifting, and plain old dourness....well, if you care for honest feedback, it just errodes your credibility.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

81. If you have to make-up words that were never said in order to make yourself feel better that is

your issue, not mine. That would be a real erosion of credibility. I'm still curious, assuming your description of the world to be true, how you're entitled to the luxury of a pet in silly clothes for nothing more than emotional self-gratification. I'm sure it consumes at least as many resources as a human infant but unlike a human child it will never progress to do anything of any tangible value.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

84. remember how I described the joy she brings to people, and the love she brings to my life?

That creates value.

With regard to words---dishonestly focusing on minutiae so that you can obscure your original attack on me is your issue.

Comparing resources consumed by one tiny dog to resources consumed by a person? Really?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. Of course I remember.

But that's not value. That's your personal gratification. And I'll wager parents feel the same way about their children -- who grow-up to do useful things.

Comparing resources consumed by one tiny dog to resources consumed by a person? Really?

Feeding anything requires land. Water and other resources must be harvested and processed. There is electricity to power factories. Oil and gas for production and transport. Packing. Landfills. Retailers. All for a pet that produces nothing.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

93. as I said, she brings happiness to many people.

Not my "gratification" alone. That produces more good than many people do.

And as I said...you're comparing the resources used by a tiny dog--whether over a day or a lifetime--to those consumed by a person?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

96. I'm sure you will create as many justifications as you require to keep what you want.

But you do so at the expense of others when you elevate your personal desires over theirs. They are as entitled to their children as you are to your pet; I would argue more so. If I was forced to choose between a child and dog I know how I would choose without hesitation, ergo dogs are of lesser value. In fact, I would characterize it as infinitesimal as I would sacrifice all dogs for 1 human child.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

102. gee, that would make a lot of children cry....

Sacrificing their dogs...

Is your yard and house littered with plastic toys for kids? Just asking, as this "conversation" has devolved too far to bother with further.

........

You're ignoring the point about overpopulation, too. That's a large argument to just ignore. Again, doesn't make you look like someone interested in real-world, valuable discussion.

Why not respond to the other, more substantive response I made to you. You know, the one that's not about your past attack on me over your self-righteous bullshit.
.......

Thank you for your participation. I don't think you've impressed anyone...just my guess, of course....but you just go on thinking so.

I must leave you now...this is way past productive.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

104. Whenever the topic of overpopulation is explored in depth it generally comes down to the fact that

third-world populations are expanding fastest. I'm sure you can see the moral hazards of white people telling non-whites what they should do with their own children and resources.

Is your yard and house littered with plastic toys for kids?

No. Lover Boy and I have no children of our own. My SIL stays with us quite frequently but she's pretty low maintenance. For amusement she likes to work on her space exploration program. She has a orbital space station now and is working on an off-world colony.

self-righteous bullshit

It's just a dog no matter how much emotional energy you invest in it.

[DonCoquixote]

113. it depends on who can take responsibility

There are many chuildren who no one will ever, ever take responsbility for, least of all their parents. Those kids are doomed to a hardf, hard life, one which will be a burden for everyone. So yes, if someone wants to feed a small dog that , if nothign else, teaches people to be kind, the dog can earn their keep, whereas we all know plenty of humans that never, ever will.

[BrotherIvan]

97. Are you taking a pro-life position here?

Because it sure sounds like it. Contraception is important because it is estimated that 49% of pregnancies in the US are accidental. I know plenty of people who already had kids and didn't want more, but when she became pregnant, she had the child because she didn't want to abort. That is her choice and because of the cost of raising children is life changing for the whole family. We're not talking about people not being able to have any children, we're talking about people being able to plan when and how many children they will have.

And yes, we do need some education that large families are burdens on resources. Every human being over its lifetime is a huge burden on resources Large families were necessary when infant mortality was high, but we have brought that tradition into the modern world when infant mortality is lower.

And saying a small dog takes up the same resources as a human is absolutely laughable. Do you think her dog drives, runs electronic devices, or makes war?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. I'm taking a "humans > dogs" position.

[JNelson6563]

114. No, just suggesting how protest might be more effective.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

82. I have just composed some letters to the editors of newspapers

even though they won't publish them at least somebody got them. Even though they tossed the letters into the garbage it doesn't make me give up. I got one letter published in the NY Times on the Iraq war some years ago. I assume some people read it?

[riqster]

86. Raising awareness is critical. Good on you!

[VanillaRhapsody]

13. sideways repeatedly!

[clarice]

14. Because gloom and doom are so much easier than positive action...

you don't have to get up off the couch.

[FSogol]

16. +1 n/t

[JNelson6563]

19. Some have been hard at it for years.

A steady stream of omg the world sucks so bad, we're doomed!!1! Give up now, it's hopeless1!!

And they post the worst news to be found in new OPs all the time.

I tend to put them on ignore.

Julie

[riqster]

21. I have one DUer on ignore. I like knowing what is being said.

Even if, or especially if, they piss me off.

Different strokes for different folks and all that.

[JNelson6563]

115. With some it's easy to know what's being said.

Boringly predictable doom and gloom. I don't think I'm missing much.

Julie

[riqster]

116. Most likely you're right.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. How about setting up something like a

private co-op that uses mechanisms like bulk purchases to offer discounted BC while petitioning Congress to have BC re-scheduled as OTC? That way we aren't subject to the USSC, corporations or politicians.

[winter is coming]

25. If birth control is re-scheduled to be OTC, insurance companies will likely not pay for it.

I've certainly never had insurance with a drug plan that paid for over-the-counter stuff. So basically your "solution" is for women to pay for their own birth control, something the ACA sought to address. There's no good reason why prescription drugs and devices related to contraception should be treated any differently than antibiotics or statins.

[riqster]

28. Beat me to it. Thanks.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. Lots of medications have been rescheduled. Naproxin, Ibuprofen, various acid blockers.

All are priced quite accessibly. It's precisely because the pharmas keep benign medications locked behind the protectionist firewall of prescription-only that prices remain high rather than subject to market share competition.

But if someone wants to have their life governed by the USSC, corporations and politicians far be it for me to interfere with the freedom to be subjugated.

[riqster]

36. False construct. You propose people be forced to pay for female-specific drugs.

Discriminatory to say the very least.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. Have you ever bought a condom?

[riqster]

46. Discriminatory it is then. Sexist and uninformed too.

Condoms and female-specific birth control products are medically quite different. The risks are different. The range of indications are different.

Yet another specious bit of false equivalence.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. If it's so discriminatory and medically necessary then why did Obama exempt non-profits?

This entire episode, like your posts, are nothing more than theatrics.

[riqster]

53. A lame attempt to shift focus.

Shake those Pom-Poms!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. There is no BC healthcare crisis. There never was one.

It was never even mentioned during the debate of the ACA. In fact, the only mention of BC was from the Stupak faction that insisted matters of conscience be respected. Stupak won his amendment allowing the bill to move forward. This was never an issue until after the mandate was challenged. The mandate itself -- which exempts millions of workers in the non-profit workforce -- was only offered to shore-up support for the law after its politically disastrous rollout.

Where were all this deep concern and furrowed brows during the debate on the ACA? Where was the hue and cry when the mandate was passed but still exempting non-profits? If it's such a matter of discrimination and dire health risk why are millions of non-profit employees not being championed by this noble crusade?

Your theatrics win you many fans but they're still just theatrics.

[riqster]

60. Shifting focus again; this is not the pattern of a credible opponent.

Try the Pyramid: I understand it is a popular cheerleading schtick.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. What shift? You're claiming the HL decision is discriminatory and puts women at risk.

How does that change for an employee of a non-profit? Are they not being "discriminated" against? Are they not subject to the same health concerns?

[riqster]

67. Keep trying.

I'm not buying. But then, I never liked Pom-Poms much anyway.

[winter is coming]

38. The point of this SC case was not whether women are allowed to obtain birth control, but whether or

not their insurance will cover it. For some women and girls, whether or not the insurance covers it determines whether they'll have it at all. The "solution" you're offering to the problem of "some women aren't getting birth control coverage" is that pretty much no women will get birth control coverage. That's a total logic fail. There's no guarantee that OCs will become cheaper, and even if they do, there's a huge difference between paying $50/month for the OTC version of a $100/month pill your insurance used to cover and getting the same pill on your insurance for a low copay.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. No it's not. The BC mandate already exempts non-profits.

If this was actually about health the administration would never have made that exemption. This is all political theater.

There's no guarantee that OCs will become cheaper...

What is guaranteed is the USSC will not be swayed to suddenly reverse a decision just because a bunch of people are protesting. That is an absolute certitude. So those who are advocating for protests instead of something tangible will be as impotent and pissed off for the foreseeable future.

...and even if they do, there's a huge difference between paying $50/month for the OTC version of a $100/month pill your insurance used to cover and getting the same pill on your insurance for a low copay.

So, my post based on the historical price decrease of other rescheduled medications is no guarantee but you're certain that BC will be $50 to $100 so much so that we not even bother finding our own solutions. Best just to consign ourselves to unelected judges and corrupt politicians.

[winter is coming]

56. You spent a goodly chunk of yesterday trying to convince us that the ruling was no big deal

because it didn't affect many women ("What percentage of women can ONLY use an IUD? What percentage of those women medically NEED an IUD? What percentage of those women work for HL? What percentage of those women have no other recourse to obtain an IUD?&quot and that women could get their pills for $20/month or find a PP clinic, 'cause you know there's one on every corner and their financial resources are bottomless. Basically, that thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025173199 is full of examples of you trying to minimize how much this SC ruling sucks for women and showing a complete lack of understanding about what challenges other women face when it comes to obtaining birth control.

Given that, perhaps you'll understand why the "solution" you're offering today is being welcomed as nothing more than a fresh shipment of bullshit. Your credibility on this subject is nonexistent, and you're the one who destroyed it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

69. I maintain the ruling changes nothing of substance but

if people actually wanted to do something other than have temper tantrums in front of the media they could try creating actual solutions to those things they consider a problem.

No protest is going to sway the USSC. No boycott is going to get people of sincere belief to change their mind. You're never going to find (435 + 100 + 1) * 0.51 politicians who actually gives a rat's rear end about you or anyone else.

Meanwhile, to hear some tell it, there are women IN DIRE NEED RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!! Not that anybody seemed to mention them in 2010 or the non-profit workers who are exempt today but whatevs.

Okay. Then why not do something tangible for them if the concern is so genuine? Apparently there is a way to pay water bills for people in Detroit. Yet, here we are debating the merits of bloviating theatrics in front of a body that is designed to be immune from political considerations. No protest is going to gain a single IUD. Ever. Period.

So, do you wanna do something or do you wanna do something USEFUL? Y'all run-off and have your cute little protest. I'll be sitting here watching the free birth control NOT flowing to employees of exempt businesses both profit and non-profit.

[riqster]

70. Here is the core of your post, and it is quite illuminating:

"I'll be sitting here watching".

With Pom-Poms at the ready, no doubt.

Sit there. Yep. Just sit there and watch.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

71. And then what happens?

[riqster]

74. Nothing. Sitting around and accepting injustice guarantees its perpetuation.

Accepting the unacceptable is support thereof.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

76. No, I meant for you. You're going to go out and do whatever it is you want to do

(except provide low/no cost birth control) and then some--THING is supposed to happen? What is going to happen once you do your little thingy-whatever?

[riqster]

83. I will be out doing. You, by your own admission, will sit and watch.

I might accomplish something. The apathy cheerleaders will definitely accomplish nothing to remedy the injustice because they will do nothing. Your "program" is to roll over and accept the injustice.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

87. You also MIGHT be greeted by aliens that will wisk you away to their world to be their king.

You are MIGHTy indeed.

[riqster]

91. Inaction is guaranteed to produce no reaction.

My course of action at least provides a possible result.

You guarantee the perpetuation of the injustice.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

92. Will your course of action include confronting the "injustice" of the exemption for non-profits?

[riqster]

94. More shifting. Such transparency.

Cheerleaders. Sigh.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

95. So employees of non-profits that are exempt from the BC mandate aren't enduring an injustice.

Apparently the only delineation of injustice is the tax-filing status of the employer. I have to admit, that's an interesting notion of "justice" you have there.

[riqster]

99. I wrote the OP. It defined the topic. You are trying to change the subject.

Start your own thread if you want, but I am sticking to the topic as outlined in the OP.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

101. Why are you Pom-Pom cheerleading for the continuation of the injustice endured by employees

of non-profits. You yourself equate an employer not providing free birth control to an employee as a corporate-fascist takeover. You have told me, "Accepting the unacceptable is support thereof." The only difference between Monday's ruling and the exemption is the tax-filing status of the employer.

Why is it an injustice for a for-profit employer to not provide BC but a non-profit employer that does the exact same thing is somehow different?

[riqster]

105. Thanks for exemplifying the behavior outlined in the OP.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

106. Why do you consent to the injustice suffered by employees of non-profits?

[riqster]

107. And why do you consent to the terms of NAFTA?

It's no more of a silly attempt to distract than your question. And your agenda is now obvious: to support the Roberts Court in its anti-woman agenda by stopping others from taking action against it.

As such, you aren't really worth arguing with further. I have work to do,

[Nuclear Unicorn]

110. The subject, by your choice, is employers refusing to cover BC. You are consenting to employers

denying coverage of birth control, according to the terms.

And your agenda is now obvious: to support the Roberts Court in its anti-woman agenda by stopping others from taking action against it.

Ummm. You are the one who claims "denial of BC = injustice" yet you are too dishonest to confront the reality that a difference in tax-filing status creates the exact same situation you claim is so severe.

The administration wrote the exemption. You were silent then because there was no issue of injustice or health risk. You're silent now because at the end of the day you're doing nothing more than putting on a puppet show.

If you're so hot and heavy for "taking action against it" then by all means have your little puppet show. I'm not going to stop you, I can't stop you; but have the honesty to be consistent.

Be sure to post pics.

[wandy]

85. Sorry to jump in. I have a reason to consider this a big deal........

What diminishes my fellow human diminishes me.
Hobby Lobby has opened a flood gate here and any "corporate person" would be out of their mind if they didn't have their leagel team working 24/7 to come up with some shecanery to bypass any federal restriction, law or protocol that hurts their bottom line.

Not to mention that our government has just proven that the treat woman with less respect than Cliven Bundy's flippen cows.

[riqster]

89. Nice Bundy analogy. Nice post, too.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

61. well then, instead of telling us all what

1) You recommend.
2) What idiots WE are for not jumping when you say so,

I'd suggest you get busy on your idea, so we have your impeccable framework from which to launch.

Oh, btw, all hormone regulating medications have possible serious side effects. Doctors typically require that patients be monitored while using them. That generally disqualifies a medicine from OTC use.

But, have at it. Tell us how we can support your fight.

[riqster]

73. The poster has already done so. Here's the gist:

"It's impossible to fight back, so just accept it".

A useful poster, to exemplify the behavior I described in my OP. I doubt that was their intent, but it works out well.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

79. yep. it was a good job

Of illustrating your whole point.

[tularetom]

30. Get rid of the ACA and implement single payer health care

Then we can tell Hobby Lobby to go fuck themselves.

As long as health care is provided by employers we're going to have this fight.

I'm just waiting for a Muslim owned business to refuse to provide contraception and get sued for it, just to watch the supreme court twist themselves into a pretzel to find ways to uphold the suit.

[riqster]

32. I'd sequence it differently:

Get single payer and then get rid of the ACA.

Having nothing would be worse, far worse. Apart from that, I agree with your post.

[winter is coming]

39. +1. n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

88. Yes

[treestar]

44. The only way to do that is to have another Democratic Congress at the very least

[riqster]

47. Bingo. GOTFV!

[Armstead]

33. I understand your feelings but I have difficulty with the tone of your post

I have nothing against pep talks. I've given more than a few over time. But insulting people who don't see things exactly as you do at a certain time -- especially when they feel besieged by political setbacks -- is not the way to lift spirits or energie peole.

It's not like people who get frustrated and angry and pessimistic are being "cheerleaders of despair" nor are they "louts."

People are generally a mix of different emotions and perceptions.

I'm 62 years old. Over the course of those 62 years, in terms of political issues, I've bounced around between optimism, despair, anger, hope, a determination to remain optimistic to overcome despair -- and many variations of that. I've seen hope rise and fall, I've seen progress go backward and forward and I've seen things mired in stagnation -- and many variations of that.

The attitude expressed in your post puts up barriers that are as counterproductive to positive engagement as any Eyore.

[riqster]

37. I understand your point of view.

My approach is brick-up-side-the-head. It works with some folks, not with others.

[woo me with science]

49. I wish you would also deploy it

against the corporatocracy and the corruption we have within our own party with corporate money buying policy.

Every single complaint you have here, I have about those who excuse the very same policies under Obama that we decried under Bush.

Corporate Democrats are funded by corporations, and they are working deliberately, aggressively, and proactively for corporate interests. The excuse of mere Republican obstructionism has been shown to be a lie. Therefore, the argument that you fix it by merely electing more Democrats is also a lie.

Where is your outrage about the TPP and the TISA?

[riqster]

52. I focus on Repubs, because they are the greater enemy.

Secondary focus to those who diminish our ability to de-elect Repubs.

You can't do everything.

[Eleanors38]

59. I tend to see things as you do. If a major political movement...

starts in the U.S., I have my doubts it will originate in DU; this place seems to have other purposes.

The major questions remain:

1) With the fall of MSM and its unifying and legitimizing functions, what institution(s) will replace these fuctions essential to a viable nation? Some speak of the inet & social media & its evolving iterations, but I have failed to see it, and I have 900+ plus political emails in my storage with one (1) thing in common: They want this old SS recipient's money.

2) When, if ever, will progressives come up with a hard, short, concise, short, easily-understood, and short list of policies & beliefs by which -- at a MINIMUM -- we take over the Democratic Party, or develop a new party. MINIMUM, I say.

That is all.

[treestar]

42. Depress turnout this November

That is the only mission. They know that's how they win (or punish the Democrats, to their own disadvantage, but they'd rather it be that way).

[riqster]

50. It is certainly a pernicious effect.

Screw those Republican-enabling fools.

[whatchamacallit]

72. Nothing depresses turnout like insulting, self righteous, flame bait

Like this "inspiring OP"

[riqster]

75. Well, maybe my thread will have the opposite effect than I intended.

Last edited Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Not likely, but possible. However, my intentions are at least laudable.

Those who deliberately seek to help Repubs win are far worse, IMO.

[paulkienitz]

66. I would be in complete agreement with you, if

I'd ever seen such a person as you describe in real life.

[riqster]

68. There are a fair few such posts here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025178080

[paulkienitz]

108. care to be more specific? there are going on 200 replies there

No way am I going to spend the time to filter out the few replies that you might think are examples.

[riqster]

109. Not my job to spoon- feed you. Especially given your tendentious phrasing.

[LittleBlue]

111. I have a real solution

A national healthcare system.

If we can take the insurance companies out of it, then the costs come down and religious exemptions are irrelevant.

Oh well

[riqster]

112. I fully support national health care.

But I bet the Fundagelicals will still try to fuck it up.