What? Obama just stood with the UAW and Chrysler against the greedy Hedge Funds

[Thrill]

and there is no thread about it?

[Uzybone]

1. I logged in after the President spoke to see if anyone started a thread

but alas nothing.

Its a good sign I guess, almost every DUer knows that the idea of Obama working against the unions is nonsense.

[Peacetrain]

2. Been looking for one myself..

But here is one.. as a proud union member of AFSCME.. thank you President Obama, I cannot remember the last time a President stood up in office, and said, I stand with the Unions.

Lots say anything they want during primaries..but give Obama his due.. he did it when the rubber met the road

[NYC_SKP]

3. Well, you know. Trash sells faster than Truth.

Even here, sadly.

Kicking and recommending for visibility.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. People are more upset at Obama for banning torture.

[ThomCat]

8. The law bans torture. Not him. He either enforces the law or doesn't.

It's strange that people don't get that.

It is congress that bans torture, and they have done that several times over the years, including quite recently. Obama had nothing to do with it.

[stillcool]

9. with all the legal findings established..

by the Bush Administration perhaps the new President had to make a legal finding of his own over-riding the previous ones?

[Egnever]

11. No sorry Obama never does anything good.

havent you learned that yet?

[stillcool]

18. Guess I'm a slow learner...

:hi:

[Political Heretic]

42. Exibit A.

[Egnever]

43. of what?

[grantcart]

74. last night he keyed my car

[Egnever]

77. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8382023&mesg_id=8382536

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. It drives you nuts, doesn't it?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MoJoWorkin]

5. I was looking for one---you provided it. Thanks.

President Obama came down strong against those"unscrupulous" hedge fundies. LOL

I hope they get outed, and they incur the wrath of the people, as AIG did.

[pleah]

6. You should have seen the outrage on CNBC!

They were mad that Obama wouldn't let the Hedge fundies steal more taxpayer money.

Of course they didn't straight say it that way, but that was what I got out of it.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Egnever]

24. Why does the post you are responding to bother you?

Just curious. You don't seem to me to be a blind hater. I don't think for a second he is talking to or about you. Surely you can acknowledge the fact that there is a contingency on here that is predisposed to believing the worst about Obama every single time. We saw it with the AIG stuff we saw it with the torture memos we see it with the union busting stuff. We see it over and over again.

Do you deny its true?

Theres plenty of room for thoughtful criticism but the knee jerk reactionism that is displayed here so often especially by the same several people over and over deserves all the scorn it gets IMHO. Have a little faith is all we are asking. Let the man work give him some breathing room or let the position be fleshed out before jumping in and screaming doom and gloom. Again I don't think that applies to you at all. I do think denying that it is present here is silly though.

There does need to be continued pressure to advance people particular issues but the hyperbole needs to be left out and a more realistic exploration of the stances is what I think the poster here you are responding to is asking for. Especially on this board. I expect the sort of posts he is talking about on a neutral site but not on one that is supposed to be a dem supporting board.

[Political Heretic]

30. I know he's not talking about me. I think this campaign to pretend that DU is dominated by haters

is getting old really fast.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Political Heretic]

37. It's not a strawmen argument. It's an opinion you disagree with.

You haven't made a logical proposition, thus can't offer a "strawman" rebuttal even if I wanted to.

But people do like to throw around terms of logic that they don't understand.

[ClarkUSA]

39. No, it's a strawman argument you're accusing me of making that I didn't make.

Your inability to prove that I said anything of the sort is duly noted, however.

[Political Heretic]

41. I didn't actually accuse you of anything, if you want to go with informal logic.

Since you're trying to turn this into at thing of logic, let's get technical.

I said "the ones who" I didn't say "YOU" meaning that I was obviously referring to a broader group - thus my proposition - for which you may or may not consider yourself a part.

[Egnever]

44. Now you are doing what you are acusing him of.

this is now silly time.

[Political Heretic]

46. Not at all.

[Egnever]

49. Ok then lets try this

I would say post number 25 is a perfect example of what ClarkUSA is talking about. You responded to it so I know you are aware of it. Are you now going to deny it exists?

[Political Heretic]

51. How can that be an example?

1 reply is "more replies"

No recs?

[Egnever]

57. Its an example of the type poster he is calling out

I think you know that but dont want to admit it . I could name plenty of names of like minded posters but calling out posters is forbiden so I wont.

The facxt is it is there and just because they havent found a recent outrage to latch onto in the last five days since they were smacked down on the torture thing doesnt mean they are gone.

You may be right that ridiculing them openly doesnt contribute to the conversation much but it does feel good at times and we all have our own guilty pleasures. Pretending that it doesnt exist though is sort of silly.

[Political Heretic]

60. Callouts are against the rules, but of course that's beside the point.

The point would be that ONE POST in a thread - which by the way, I wouldn't even agree with your characterization of it - does not constitute some sort of pervasive dominating pattern at DU, and my propostion that I asserted is...

those who keep stirring shit up by blanketing perfectly good threads with memes about how much "poutrage" there is or "haters" there are, insinuating that it is some pervasive phenomenon are both (1) doing more to disrupt the climate here at DU and (2) are I believe passively-agressively trying to trivialize ALL criticism by painting with a ridiculously broad brush.

[Egnever]

66. Well I can agree with that premise.

however the last few weeks were pretty toxic here To the point that I was near the point where i was ready to give up on this place once and for all. The fact that it has calmed down considerably the past few days doesn't take away from its previous toxicity.

I doubt that Clarkusa has a problem with reasoned criticism and I also realize that you are still feeling a bit raw from being lumped in with the WTFOBAMASUX people over your disagreements with some of Obamas positions.

What i do feel however is that you are unwilling to see ridiculous criticism when it agrees with your own no matter how hyperbolic it may be. Perhaps ClarkUSA and myself are guilty of the same from the opposite end of the spectrum. However this is a board for supporting democrats and our kick ass president! So I think our table wobbly though it may be is a tad less wobbly than yours.

I haven no issue whatsoever with valid criticism and I doubt Clark does either.

[Political Heretic]

69. But its not just about not having a problem with valid criticism. It's also about:

mischaracterizing what is going on at DU, implying some kind of pervasive majority anti-Obama attitude when there isn't one.

Saying that "poutrageous lies" - a term which Skinner stated he considered to be inflammatory and a personal attack when used directly - and saying that "poutrageous lies" get more recs and replies than other things - is suggesting that DU is dominated by anti-Obama sentiment.

That's just not even remotely true. And I'm deeply fatigued at coming into thread after thread - POSITIVE thread after positive thread - only to be greeted by the same bitter posts stiring up crap insinuating that DU is dominated by anti-Obama sentiment.

Not only is it false, but that sentiment reflects badly on those of us in the middle, who have both praise and criticism, but painting a picture of DU as dominated by unreflected criticism - perpetuating that myth makes this place more hostile toward even reasoned critique and that is when I get involved. :)

[Egnever]

71. So ignore them

Why bother?

[Political Heretic]

73. Because I'm an advocate by nature.

I don't ignore things I don't like. I fight them. :D

[Egnever]

76. Well I can relate to that

:toast:

[Number23]

That was a very nice and respectful exchange.

Thanks for your points, Egnever. I agree with you.

[Political Heretic]

115. I agree. And its an interesting object lesson to see how the two different exchanges have gone.

[ClarkUSA]

55. You're contradicting something you said downthread where you indicated it WAS me you were talking to

I said "the ones who" I didn't say "YOU" meaning that I was obviously referring to a broader group - thus my proposition - for
which you may or may not consider yourself a part.

Then why did you say this earlier? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8382053&mesg_id=8382262

[Political Heretic]

58. There is a reason it is in quotes. That means I'm anticipating something YOU would say.

Has nothing to do with my proposition.

By the way, its my day off today, so I'm happy to continue going on busting you up for as long as you want to respond.

[ClarkUSA]

64. Now you're trying to explain away your use of quotes to avoiding proving your strawman argument.

Keep moving those goalposts. :rofl:

[Political Heretic]

67. What's funny about this is I'm not even arguing that I'm right - just trying to explain to you

That it's not a straw man.

I'm making an assertive proposition. It can be wrong, but it can't - by definition - be a stawman.

Where you seem to be confused is in the fact that my proposition is about more than YOU, which I said. So if you are to say, "hey I don't fit into your characterization!" - that's fine, we could debate that. But the proposition is about more than you specifically - as I stated, in words that anyone here can read - from the beginning, its about many people people saying the things you are saying.

As near as I can gather you seem to think that speaking of "poutrageous lies" has been mischaracterized by me as speaking of "Obama hate." I'm not sure how calling something "poutrageous lies" could be anything other than "Obama hate." What would that be, then? Thus, I believe "poutrageous lies" to be appropriately characterized as describing "obama hate" - and by saying those get more recs and replies than good news, you're suggesting EXACTLY what I said, even though I was talking about a broader number of people than just yourself.

Perhaps you feel this clarification differs with something I've said previously. I must admit, I can't find such an example myself, but if you think so that's fine with me. Consider this clarification.

My proposition is this: those who keep stirring shit up by blanketing perfectly good threads with memes about how much "poutrage" there is or "haters" there are, insinuating that it is some pervasive phenomenon are both (1) doing more to disrupt the climate here at DU and (2) are I believe passively-aggressively trying to trivialize ALL criticism by painting with a ridiculously broad brush.

My personal feeling is that I'm tired of coming into threads where there is yet no fighting even going on and having people posting name-calling bullshit "such as poutrage, which was defined BY SKINNER" as attacking because of a personal agenda to keep perpetuating the myth that there is some sort of anti-Obama majority on DU.

Now, you may say that you are not doing that, and that's fine - but be aware that me explaining my personal feelings that prompt me to make a proposition is NOT the same as the proposition itself. So the fact that I feel that way is (1) not about you and (2) not a strawman. It's simply my opinion about what's going on here.

Again, I believe that "poutrageous lies" and suggesting that they get more recs and replies is fairly synomymous to talking about "obama hate" being pervasive at DU. I think almost anyone you'd ask would agree with that. What is it if not similar if not synonymous?

If you disagree with that characterization, great. If you feel that anything I've written in this post as a clairification of my position is contradicted by something written elsewhere - I certainly don't see that right now, but if you do then I will stipulate to that and ask that you take this post as the one that describes my position with the wording I want.

I don't see this as contradicting anything I've said anywhere else, but I'm also not even remotely scared if you think that it does. Converation is about clarification - so forgive me if I'm not particulaly insulted by all your "spinning" "moving goalposts" personal attacks.

Hopefully that's clear enough for you. I don't know how to state it any more clearly than that.

[ClarkUSA]

72. What's funnier is you falsely attacked me with a strawman argument and still can't prove it.

Your still-accusatory "clarification" isn't relevant to the factual reply I made in response to the OP's query. I stand by what I said.
You might try to posit your concerns in something other than strawman arguments the next time you reflexively attack what I
say.

[Political Heretic]

79. No matter how many times you repeat it, there is no strawman. And how is it factual?

It's not factual in the slightest.

"Poutrage lies" get more recs and replies than anything else?

Hardly.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Political Heretic]

84. You won't believe me, but I didn't alert anything.

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

90. Sure. I believe you. Really. Of course, I can guess who'd be CATTY enough to join in with you.

[ClarkUSA]

94. No matter how many times you deny it, "strawman argument" accurately defines your discourse with me.

Check the facts by looking back for the last three months of OPs and then get back to me, if you're at all interested in being intellectual honest.

[Political Heretic]

98. Not in the slightest. As further illustrated down below in your repeat post

[ClarkUSA]

104. I was referring to your not-so-subtle edit of YOUR repeat post below.

[Political Heretic]

107. My not-inended-to-be-subtle (since I SAID I was editing in my post) removed an insult.

That's it.

Everything else is the same.

[ClarkUSA]

111. You mean the direct insult that broke DU rules? Yeah, I know.

Everything else is the same.

:rofl:

[Political Heretic]

113. Yeah, I made a mistake.

You've made about five of six in terms of posts being deleted by my count. :shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

117. Too bad you couldn't admit it until now. It would have saved us both alot of typing.

Since you seem to be keeping a running score, I must say you've had a fair number of posts/mistakes deleted yourself. :shrug:

[Political Heretic]

122. That would be one post. One. I'm putting an end to all these threads by giving you the last word.

Enjoy.

[dionysus]

27. wow, the truth hurts, it seems to have struck a nerve. you even managed a lockstep. -1 for leaving

out messiah though!

better luck next time....

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

29. That's a strawman argument. Just where was I 'screaming about how much Obama' "hate" there is'?

[Political Heretic]

31. Right above me.

"I wasn't screaming"

Yeah ok.

[ClarkUSA]

34. Quote? Proof? The truth is I never said anything of the sort but you can't admit it.

[Political Heretic]

36. How can I prove a "scream" on the internet?

:)

Here's what I'm sick of:

I'm someone who most would agree sits kind of in the middle as far as attitude toward Obama here at DU - middle meaning between the overwhelming majority of DU that is strongly supportive and has little to no criticism of anything and a tiny minority of DU that can't give Obama credit for anything and basically seem to have their minds made up to hate him. That's a tiny minority. Tiny. You go through two pages - but now just for kicks I've gone through five - of posts on this forum and you'll find it to be dominated by clear and obvious strong, full-throated supporters.

What I'm sick of is people coming into threads where nothing has gone on and stirring up bitter shit. I can't tell you the number of times I have to read some new good thread only to see the bitter brigade roll in and stir up more shit with passive aggressive comments on "the climate of DU" that has nothing to do with anything going on.

I believe people constantly doing that, digging up shit where none immediate exists, are doing more to fuck up the climate here than anyone else.

If you see hate that violates the rules as Skinner has explained them (see link below) then ALERT IT. I certainly have. If that doesn't work, comment to the posts in question and tell them they are out of line. If that's not satisfying, ignore them.

What sucks is to constantly be stirring up the same shit in thread after thread where nothing is going on.

Thread: Obama's press conference was brilliant!
YOU (and others): Yeah too bad all the poutrageous haters dominate DU.

Thread: Joe Biden pressuring Specter on EFCA
YOU (and others): Yeah you'd never know there was goodnews because DU is dominated by haters and poutrage and ponies.

Over. And over. And over. And over again.

That stuff goes on about fifty times as much as the random actual hater ever makes a post. Now, last night we had a real honest to god Obama hater thread. It was the first "real" one I've seen in a long while. And I commented in it and said that the OP was totally wrong and out of line. And that thread didn't last long.

Now we're back to normal - which is where the overwhelming majority of DU is extremely supportive of nearly everything Obama ever does. And yet there's still the campaign by some to make it out as though DU is dominated by all or nothing haters.....

....its almost as though people keep saying that to try and disparage the fair and honest criticism that goes on by manufacturing this meme that DU is an Obama hate-fest.

That's what I'm sick of.

[ClarkUSA]

38. Ignoring the rest of your strawman argument? Where did I say 'how much Obama' "hate" there is'?

BTW, "I'm sick of" strawman arguments.

[Political Heretic]

40. "poutrageous lies" is love?

:shrug:

You keep using strawmen and have no idea what it actually means.

I'm the making a proposition, I'm not responding to one being made. Which means my proposition about Obama hate might be FALSE, but its not a "strawmen" argumentation fallacy by definition.

My proposition, by the way, for the dense is: those who keep stirring shit up by blanketing perfectly good threads with memes about how much "poutrage" there is or "haters" there are, insinuating that it is some pervasive phenomenon are both (1) doing more to disrupt the climate here at DU and (2) are I believe passively-agressively trying to trivialize ALL criticism by painting with a ridiculously broad brush.


A strawman is when you take someone elses proposition, then misstate it, then argue against that misstated proposition.

That's not happening here. I'm MAKING a proposition, and you think that its false. That's great, but its not a "strawman."

[ClarkUSA]

47. lol! Red herrings won't distract from the fact you can't prove your strawman argument.

You're wrong about the meaning of "strawman argument" too. A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on
misrepresentation of an opponent's position. Google it.

[Political Heretic]

48. I taught logic. I am not misrepresenting a position. I am MAKING a preliminary proposition.

Thus, my proposition can be WRONG, but it cannot - BY DEFINITION - be a strawman.

I don't need to "google" it. I've actually got shelves for of, you know, actual academic literature on the subject.


My proposition, by the way, for the dense is: those who keep stirring shit up by blanketing perfectly good threads with memes about how much "poutrage" there is or "haters" there are, insinuating that it is some pervasive phenomenon are both (1) doing more to disrupt the climate here at DU and (2) are I believe passively-agressively trying to trivialize ALL criticism by painting with a ridiculously broad brush.

You can say: I am not doing that.

Great.

That's irrelevant to my proposition though, which extends by YOU. It's not always about you, you know?

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Political Heretic]

63. I'm not misrepresenting anything. I am however, stating a proposition.

[ClarkUSA]

65. Keep moving the goalposts. You can't prove your strawman argument so now you're using a euphemism.

[Political Heretic]

70. What's funny about this is I'm not even arguing that I'm right - just trying to explain to you

That it's not a straw man.

I'm making an assertive proposition. It can be wrong, but it can't - by definition - be a stawman.

Where you seem to be confused is in the fact that my proposition is about more than YOU, which I said. So if you are to say, "hey I don't fit into your characterization!" - that's fine, we could debate that. But the proposition is about more than you specifically - as I stated, in words that anyone here can read - from the beginning, its about many people people saying the things you are saying.

As near as I can gather you seem to think that speaking of "poutrageous lies" has been mischaracterized by me as speaking of "Obama hate." I'm not sure how calling something "poutrageous lies" could be anything other than "Obama hate." What would that be, then? Thus, I believe "poutrageous lies" to be appropriately characterized as describing "obama hate" - and by saying those get more recs and replies than good news, you're suggesting EXACTLY what I said, even though I was talking about a broader number of people than just yourself.

Perhaps you feel this clarification differs with something I've said previously. I must admit, I can't find such an example myself, but if you think so that's fine with me. Consider this clarification.

My proposition is this: those who keep stirring shit up by blanketing perfectly good threads with memes about how much "poutrage" there is or "haters" there are, insinuating that it is some pervasive phenomenon are both (1) doing more to disrupt the climate here at DU and (2) are I believe passively-aggressively trying to trivialize ALL criticism by painting with a ridiculously broad brush.

My personal feeling is that I'm tired of coming into threads where there is yet no fighting even going on and having people posting name-calling bullshit "such as poutrage, which was defined BY SKINNER" as attacking because of a personal agenda to keep perpetuating the myth that there is some sort of anti-Obama majority on DU.

Now, you may say that you are not doing that, and that's fine - but be aware that me explaining my personal feelings that prompt me to make a proposition is NOT the same as the proposition itself. So the fact that I feel that way is (1) not about you and (2) not a strawman. It's simply my opinion about what's going on here.

Again, I believe that "poutrageous lies" and suggesting that they get more recs and replies is fairly synomymous to talking about "obama hate" being pervasive at DU. I think almost anyone you'd ask would agree with that. What is it if not similar if not synonymous?

If you disagree with that characterization, great. If you feel that anything I've written in this post as a clairification of my position is contradicted by something written elsewhere - I certainly don't see that right now, but if you do then I will stipulate to that and ask that you take this post as the one that describes my position with the wording I want.

I don't see this as contradicting anything I've said anywhere else, but I'm also not even remotely scared if you think that it does. Converation is about clarification - so forgive me if I'm not particulaly insulted by all your "spinning" "moving goalposts" personal attacks.

Hopefully that's clear enough for you. I don't know how to state it any more clearly than that.

[ClarkUSA]

75. Reread reply #67.

[ClarkUSA]

92. Sure... that's why you just wrongly defined "strawman argument". Google sources must be wrong, eh?

:crazy: :tinfoilhat:

[Political Heretic]

100. I didn't "wrongly" define it.

I accepted the definition you gave, and pointed out that since I'm establishing my own proposition, not rebutting one of yours, I can be wrong - but I can't be making a "strawman" argument, which is taking someone else's proposition, distorting it, and then arguing against that distorted position as those that "disproves" the original one.

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

103. You sure did but you edited your original reply and now you're moving the goalposts again.

"I accepted the definition you gave"... lol! Not at first, only just now when it became obvious that I proved you wrong,
with a fast assist from your "Edit" button. Nice try.

[Political Heretic]

106. Um... "only now?" it was well past the editing time, my friend.

You made the above post long after the editing time had expired on my posts above. They say the same thing they've said for hours and hours.

You've had the bulk of your posts deleted. Yet you keep coming back over and over to desperately try to make some point that can't be made.

If you had any sense you'd quit now and try to salvage at least some dignity.

[ClarkUSA]

110. Not before you edited your original definition, obviously. Only now have you admitted I was right.

[Political Heretic]

114. I never edited my original definition, I edited my post to remove an insult. Major difference.

And I again refer you to post #64.

If you find something somewhere else that you think contradicts that post, then post it and I'll retract or revise it. But is starting to get awfully childish with this whole "AH see I was right" desperation that has gone on literally all day long.

All I'm doing is sitting here and casually responding with a grin on my face at how silly this is. :)


But I do have to go get some food, so nows your chance - quick blitz the board!! :D

[ClarkUSA]

118. Not true, otherwise I would never have challenged your original unedited definition.

Your attempt to say otherwise defies logic. But do keep on protesting the obvious. It amuses me.

[Political Heretic]

120. No, it is true. But if you disagree then I refer you to post #64

There was nothing edited out of my definition. However, if your pride causes you to refuse to accept that, then I refer you back to post #64 where I say, IF you feel that something in post 64 contradicts something I've said elsewhere, then I would retract whatever you have a problem with in place of the wording of post #64. That post, along with post #102 most clearly state my position.

[Political Heretic]

124. Ending these threads by giving you the last word. Have at it.

Enjoy.

[noiretextatique]

105. i admire your patience

:popcorn: really, really admire your patience.

[Political Heretic]

108. It doesn't take too much effort to watch a self-implosion.

So... I don't mind responding to what's posted. :)

[ClarkUSA]

119. It takes even less effort to observe self-importance.

:boring:

[Political Heretic]

121. Wow it took you two hours to think that up? Glad I went to bed rather than waiting up.

:)

[vaberella]

56. +1. n/t

[Egnever]

10. Lies!

We all know Obama is a corporate boot licker!

:sarcasm:

Time and again we hear the naysayers spout their crap and time and again they get a nice run for a week or so only to get slapped down.

GOBAMA! I freaking love this guy.

[SpartanDem]

23. How much you wanna bet

that none of these people show up to this thread?

[dionysus]

28. one of them already did...

[RoyGBiv]

14. K&R

:kick:

Didn't see the news conference, so I'm glad someone did decide to post about it. Thanks.

[Turbineguy]

15. Watch out for the language police!

"...greedy Hedge funds..." That's a tautology.

[Pirate Smile]

16. After his announcement, on CNBC a couple of their yapping faces started crying about

that Obama "never misses a chance to demonize Wall Street" and Hedge funds. One ass said that the President "always gets pouty" when he doesn't get his way. It was quite entertaining. Whine, whine, whine. Why is he always trying to help the unions? Hedge funds are people tooooo.... Wahhhhh.

:D

[glitch]

17. Very cool K & R nt

[Pirate Smile]

19. whoops - dupe.

[Political Heretic]

21. I can't believe how brazenly assholish the CNBC guys are at a time when the public hates them.

It's amazing.

[Political Heretic]

20. I just heard it reported on Thom Hartmann's show: "I don't stand with them" (Hedge funds)

It was great. Happy day for me.

People who take this principled stance face indescribable opposition from a system designed to support and benefit things like hedge funds. Only time will tell if Obama will be able to really put action to these words, but I believe that what he said today reflects where his heart is.

Now, I realize that those who just hate (or unflinchingly distrust everything about) Obama will find that last phrase to be too touchy feelly. I'm not a very touchy feely guy about politicians. All I'm saying is that I've probably paid as much attention to the career of Barack Obama as anyone here, and having done my best to consider all the evidence, I am of the opinion that he sincerely wants to do a lot of thing that I would support.

The question is, will he be able to keep on that path and not either sell out or be manipulated into drifting into support of the status quo.

Frankly I already feel like Obama is experiencing that tug-of-war for his political soul. Some of the policy that has come forth in response to this financial crisis has been craptacular largely unaccountable handouts to wealthy billionaires in a neo-trickle down theory of economic recovery. And yet on the other hand, some of the policy has been more worker-focused and more left leaning than anything we've had in the last 30 years.

None of it goes as far as we need to go, but I'm also not a blind ideologue unable to grasp how forward progress actually works (which is that change takes time and it takes a foundational groundswell).

By the way, the most important thing people who want more radical leftward change in American politics could be doing to make that a reality is working on the ground - grassroots community organizing and campaign activity for local elections and state elections. We build change by changing the political landscape and shifting public perception. And we do that from the ground-up. According to Huffington Post, only 53% of Americans even perfer capitalism to socialism (as they understand it) when asked -- now is the time for aggressive ground mobilization.

It would be better for leftists to quit whining about how Barack Obama isn't a socialist (or "left" enough) seeing as how change doesn't begin at the top without a base of support, and instead do two things:

(1) Support the administration on the improvements that it CAN make, because those affect real people and
(2) Work to build up a grassroots groundswell of progressives and leftists to take local offices, shift local cultures and the expand from there.

Being happy that the administration does some good things - even when its nowhere near enough - is not in any way in contradiction with a radically leftist ideology of how society really should be NOR in conflict with the kind of work that should be done on behalf of those ideals -- building a people's groundswell and laying the foundation brick by brick, level by level, for greater change.

[natrat]

25. he said he stood with unions as the company goes bankrupt and bankers make billions?

i must be missing something, seriously. there must be more to it that is positive than a politician saying he stands with such and such a group. i should probably read the newspaper or something but i kind of dont give a shit

[Uzybone]

26. You are missing a lot

read up on the issue then form an opinion. Then again you don't give a shit about it so... I guess you won't read up on it.

[Political Heretic]

32. Yeah, you're missing a few things.

It's a beginning, not and end - but its important.

[Egnever]

45. just for reference

I guess that would be Exhibit A for my side of the argument?

[Political Heretic]

53. Not unless you don't know how to read.

1 post is not "more"

[Egnever]

59. more what?

you arew starting to grasp at straws here.

[Political Heretic]

62. The issue is with inciniating some pervasive pattern that doesn't excist.

Thus finding one post somewhere really doesn't demonstrate a pervasive pattern that is anything other than a tiny minority.

Other than me, because I'm sick of this shit, the LOUDEST voices on DU are the people complaining about all the "hate" when there is actually very little.

And that would be fine, except when people roll into perfectly good threads and drag the same "fights" in with them - never missing an opportunity to take cheap shots at other people even on threads that have absolutely nothing to do with what they're bitching about.

[Egnever]

68. It absolutely does exist

the fact that you wear blinders to it notwithstanding.


Heres a thread with a perfect example of it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8381962&mesg_id=8381962

There is a poster in that thread that I doubt even read the article that is condemning Obama as a corporate sellout.

Maybe you agree with him but the fact that he hasn't even read the article yet is ready to rail against the outcome is exactly they type of poster that is being called out.

Honest and valid criticism is fine, Finding an excuse to rail against obama is not and theres plenty of it despite your denial of it. I can keep sending you links all day to that type of behavior if you like.

[Political Heretic]

80. Biggest responder I see in that thread is Two Americas. You're not seriously trying to disparage

him are you?

He's one of the most rational critics I've ever read.

You can send me "links" all you want. The fact remains that its the minority. All one need do is go through four or five pages in the posts from this forum. You'll find an overwhelming majority of posts that are positive, only a tiny fraction that are negative.

Yet to hear some people, you'd think that it was the pervasive norm.

[Egnever]

85. you are talking about the last 5 days

The major offenders got slapped pretty hard a few days ago on the torture thing they have been relatively quiet lately. You cant point to a day you think went well and say see it doesnt exist.

Two americans just likes playing devils advocate similar to you I suppose. No I was not talking about him although his responses are as wildley off the mark as the one I am talking about.

Go back 20 pages or so and get back to me with the possitive to negative ratio.

[Political Heretic]

86. Sigh.. ok welll that's more than I can do. But I gotta ask:

while I don't want to go back twenty whole pages, I gotta ask you:

If things are better now, then why is it still being started up by people not responding to anything negative?

If its better, why are posters still rolling in perpetuating this meme that there's some kind of massive anti-Obama movement here?

I still think its just a back-handed way to cast aspersions on ALL criticism. I find it to be disingenuous.

[Egnever]

88. I would guess like you

that nerves are still raw from the freak show this place was a week or so ago.

[Political Heretic]

101. Okay! That seems like a fair answer.

:toast:

[Thrill]

50. You're missing a lot. Do research

[uponit7771]

33. Someone will complain that the hedge funds didn't get a good deal...

[Sebastian Doyle]

52. If those fucking bastards aren't in prison for the rest of their lives

...then they got a far better deal than they deserve.

[vaberella]

54. If it doesn't cause outrage it's not really worth the time, it seems. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

95. +1

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Political Heretic]

82. EDIT - oops

I hadn't seen that my message was deleted before so I'm editing it to make sure it conforms to the rules

[Political Heretic]

83. Hmm you had your post saying the same thing deleted above, so you opt to just repost it?

Its only people screaming about how much Obama "hate" there is on DU that look ridiculous.

I guess I'll try this too...editing my post to see if this conforms to the rules:


You look at the two pages worth of GD :P threads today and you'll find next to nothing reflecting the unnuanced all-or-nothing obama rejection as you characterize it.

What you will find is plenty of discussion and even debate about what Obama is doing and how well it is working. That's called being responsible engaged adults. We actually use our brains rather than march in drooling mindless lockstep.

But that doesn't stop some people from coming into threads like this and stirring up shit, now does it?

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Political Heretic]

99. Edit due to above post deletion.

[ClarkUSA]

102. You're doing the same thing after your post was deleted above so I'll edit my remarks like you do.

Its only people screaming about how much Obama "hate" there is on DU that look ridiculous.

No one did that on this thread. Rather, it's only people "screaming about" those who accurately state the facts about what has
gone on for the past few months "that look ridiculous."

You look at the two pages worth of GD :P threads today and you'll find next to nothing reflecting the unnuanced all-or-nothing
obama rejection as you characterize it.

As has been pointed out to you already by another, looking back at OPs for the past 24 hours is not reflective of what's been
happening here for the past few months since Pres. Obama's inauguration. Try looking back over the past 20 pages and you'll
find much to confirm my original assertion.

What you will find is plenty of discussion and even debate about what Obama is doing and how well it is working. That's called
being responsible engaged adults. We actually use our brains rather than march in drooling mindless lockstep.

See my prior reply. Responsible engaged adults do not ignore what's happened in the very recent past in order to insist that
others "march in mindless drooling lockstep" to their insistance that all has been sunshine and light at DU regarding President
Obama.

But that doesn't stop some people from coming into threads like this and stirring up shit, now does it?

On that, we agree, but I doubt we're thinking of the same "people" are we?

[Political Heretic]

112. The first time this entire day that you've had a substantive response.

First, I'll point out that I'm not the one getting posts deleted left and right. That would be you.

As has been pointed out to you already by another, looking back at OPs for the past 24 hours is not reflective of what's been
happening here for the past few months since Pres. Obama's inauguration. Try looking back over the past 20 pages and you'll
find much to confirm my original assertion.

That was then and this is now. That doesn't excuse coming into new threads and making snide shit-stirring comments because something happened 20 days ago that pissed you off, or because "things used to be way worse." Whatever. That does not change at all what I'm sick of, which is people coming into threads that have nothing to do with "anti obama" anything, and making little shit-stiring jabs. That's all it is when no one is fighting, and you roll in and try to pick a fight. And that's what you do when you come in to a thread that has NOTHING TO DO with any previous infighting and start throwing around terms like "poutrage" and "lies" all over again.

Enough is enough.

When you refuse get over things, and continue to RE-STIR the same pot, then you are the one who has become disruptive. And that's exactly what you've done to this thread. Look at it. It's ALL YOU, refusing to get the fuck over it. I've done nothing but respond - TO YOU freaking out. And now the entire thread has been detrailed, you've had multiple responses deleted, and the whole thing just needs to be locked as cluster-fuck mainly of YOUR CREATION/

See my prior reply. Responsible engaged adults do not ignore what's happened in the very recent past in order to insist that
others "march in mindless drooling lockstep" to their insistance that all has been sunshine and light at DU regarding President
Obama.

Reasonable adults don't come into every new thread and re-stir up old shit. Making flippant snide comments in response to no one, and addressing nothing isn't "adult" in any sense. It's silly and petulant and does nothing but re-ignite old fights. Worse still, it tends to piss off moderate voices who tend to get sucked up in the mass generalizations.

Anyway, now you've been at this for an entire day, and have now taken to Private mailing as well. Look at what you've done to the thread, and figure out how perhaps it could have gone different.

[ClarkUSA]

116. I wish I could say the same.

I've done nothing but state the facts yet you continue to belittle me. That says alot about you, none of it flattering or worth reading,
as everything you've written seems to be from a perjorative perspective which makes me oddly sleepy.

Anyway, now you've been at this for an entire day... Look at what you've done to the thread, and figure out how perhaps it could have
gone different.

Look in the mirror. Remember, it takes two. Or did you forget? :)

[Political Heretic]

123. I'm putting a stop to all these threads by giving you the last word.

Go ahead and take the last word. I have work to do today.

[Political Heretic]

87. Back on point - this dovetails in nicely with Obama's earlier statements:

that unions are "part of the solution, not part of the problem."

He is saying the right things, and I believe he personally believes the right things. But I'm still waiting with held breath to see if it makes the right things will get done.

We've got EFCA, in critical condition but still breathing - will the administration lean hard on congressional Dems who went off the reservation, if Biden is able to push Specter to re-flip?

I was disappointed in the administrations great silence after EFCA was introdcued (they had spoken about it before, I had interpreted Obama saying he "supported" it to mean more than just he would sign it - I expected a PR campaign and high pressure to get this done and that didn't happen.

But what's going on behind the scenes? Will we see anything? If not, then what are Obama's plans to fix labor? It is currently BROKEN. So just talking about standing with unions isn't going to be enough.

[Egnever]

89. I honestly dont think he has had the time he would like to devote to it yet

He is on record time and again speaking in support of unions. He is not a dictator he cant just make everything happen by decree. I think a little patience on this particular item on the agenda will see you clapping loudly for what he does accomplish.

The guy is a long term thinker his policies so far seem to reflect that pretty clearly. He seems to be the type that builds the foundatiuon first to me.

Maybe I have too much faith in him. Time will tell. Meanwhile I like what he had to say here a lot.

Keep pushing though but I would suggest concentrating more on congress as obama seems on board.

[Political Heretic]

97. I think you might be right. Except one thing I would say about congress:

My belief is that the President must use his power as "head" of his party (I know there's the DNC chair too) to apply pressure to democrats to fall in line or face political retribution. And I think up to a popular president to use that political capital with the public to change minds and help mobilize the populace to also pressure congress.

Still, I think you might be right about the first part about not having the time or resources to do everything as fully as he might want. I'm aware of that... what sucks is that this is one issue that is so time critical (aren't they all I guess!)

[readmoreoften]

93. Cool. Any specifics on what he's doing? I like the idea of a pro-union Obama.

I'm not really impressed by talk. Clinton said she "stood by" my union in 2005, but she didn't do anything to help us when she had the chance. Is there anything he's doing *specifically* that I should take note of? I know a lot of union folks weren't happy with his handling of the last big three negotiation.

[question everything]

109. There is, with links

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8382338

[Better Believe It]

125. So that means President Obama won't force Chrysler into bankruptcy?