Can someone explain

[BlackVelvet04]

why all these threads that are nothing but attacks against our Democratic candidates are being allowed?

I've seen nicer sentiments about Democratic candidates from freepers.

[Warpy]

1. We're DEMOCRATS

We argue and we dis each other's candidates all the time. This is normal for Democrats.

It's that other party that values lock step marching.

[MonkeyFunk]

2. Arguing is one thing

disagreement is one thing. But these threads that just drag back right-wing attacks against our candidates are something else entirely.

[BlackVelvet04]

4. Exactly....

I don't mind disagreement. Hell, I thrive on disagreement. I just don't think it's productive to repeat gossip or just plain lie about our Democratic candidates.

[Atman]

8. They only seem to be "right wing attacks" if they're about YOUR candidate.

And I don't mean you, MonkeyFunk, in particular, I mean anyone whose candidate is the "victim" of such an attack. It's okay to point out the flaws of others because, of course, you just want people to understand. But if they say anything bad about the person you are supporting, then, BAM, it's an "attack."

It's pretty tiring.

.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. Nope

not at all.

I have defended Obama plenty of times, but he's not my candidate. I know you said it's not about me personally, but there are plenty of people here who defend candidates other than their own, because we recognize a valid criticism from a baseless attack.

[Atman]

22. I've defended Clinton plenty of times

She's not 'my candidate,' not by a longshot. I've slapped down posters for posting utter nonsense about her, as I have done to posters who just post crap about Obama or Edwards, etc. But I also reserve the right to post smack about a candidate if they deserve it. I've done so about Obama and Edwards, as well as Hillary. Of course, it depends upon what you call "smack." I remember, for instance, posting about Obama's definition of "green" energy as outlined on his web site. The man defines coal as a "green" fuel for the future. He deserves to be called on that. I've posted similarly about Edwards. I'm not posting about them PERSONALLY when I do so. This is an election, after all, and what it sounds like the OP wants us to do is simply post happy stories about all the candidates.

Do they like puppies? Do they like the same movies we do? What's their spouse's opinion of their laundry habits?

THAT is exactly the kind of shit the media fed us for too long, which has led up to this horse race without any substance. In order to cast informed votes, we need to know each candidate's positions, and sometimes those positions aren't what a particular candidate's supporters want to hear. The Obama/coal issue is a prime example. When I first posted about it I had taken the information directly off his web site, but I was flamed unmercifully for it. How dare I try to smear a great man!

I think boards like DU have opened up the process to too many people who don't have the temerity to actually be "involved." Mind you, EVERYONE should be involved, but some people just aren't capable of handling criticism, and those people would probably be better off just reading and absorbing rather than posting every time their panties are in a bunch.

.

[BlackVelvet04]

12. I haven't even definitely

decided on a candidate. It doesn't help in the decision making to have to dig through a bunch of lies, exaggerations and stupidity to get more information.

[Atman]

23. Actually, I'd argue that it DOES help to have to dig through the shit.

You don't seem to want to have to actually research. If you know your candidate's positions, you don't have to be concerned with digging through the lies because you know they're lies, because you've thoroughly researched the candidates. If you haven't, then you should, and you can respond even-handedly by pointing out the TRUTH.

.

[BlackVelvet04]

27. I've done lots of research, thanks very much,

and I think you are being deliberately obtuse because you like slinging shit.

[Warpy]

26. Those attacks are coming

and we'd better figure out how to deal with them.

If we hash it out here, it will be to the party's advantage. They do read this site, you know.

[BlackVelvet04]

6. People can disagree and discuss

differences without being assholes. Is Democrat now synonymous with asshole?

[Atman]

3. Sure, if you explain what would be accomplished by allowing only POSITIVE threads.

If every candidate is presented as perfect, how the hell is anyone supposed to know who to vote for? If they're all just fine, what is the point of an election? Just appoint the first candidate to declare. Do you even realize why we hold elections? So that people can weigh the positives as well as the negatives of the particular candidates. I don't log in here for a love-fest.

.

[BlackVelvet04]

5. I'm not looking for a love-fest....

just a little less gossip, innuendos and lies.

[Atman]

10. One supporter's gossip, innuendos and lies are another's stone-cold truth.

It's called politics. If you can't take the heat...

:shrug:

.

[BlackVelvet04]

13. BULLSHIT....

lies are lies no matter who tells them.

[Jamastiene]

14. That's all well and good, but I do wish

people would bring up talking points that didn't originate with Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh 5 years ago.

[Atman]

24. But a LOT of people still believe those talking points, and will hear them elsewhere

Like at cocktail parties or from their friends. What better way to be able to refute them than to be armed with the facts. The facts which inevitably come about when the ignorant poster is smacked down and shown the truth via a nice solid linky-poo?

.

[Rex]

7. The year is 2008, the place DU GD

SSDY

[Jamastiene]

9. Recommended.

My sentiments exactly.

[BlackVelvet04]

16. Thanks....

how are we to make good decisions if we are inundated with a bunch of stupid crap, much of which are lies, gossip or misrepresentations.

[stillcool]

15. Drive-by, gang bangs..

are all the rage! Complete with regurgitated mis-information delivered with the same syntax. The new definition of discussion? If you have nothing nasty to say, don't say anything at all.

[BlackVelvet04]

17. It's really very juvenile, isn't it? n/t

[stillcool]

25. I guess if it's all you've got...

it's all you've got. I've been impressed, yet again, by many DU'ers who have provided links to the actual words spoken by the attacked candidate dujour. Of course the day turns into a week, or however long it takes until the next opportunity arises to launch a gang-bang against said candidate. I really need to refrain from entering such false arguments that distort reality. Time to take a break from the echo chamber of DU.

[Kingofalldems]

18. Agreed. I don't favor one candidate over the other but

reading these posts one would think none of them are any good.

[BlackVelvet04]

19. Maybe we should just give up and vote

for "none of the above"?

[Kingofalldems]

21. No way

I like 'em all and intend to vote for the nominee.

[Kingofalldems]

20. delete --wrong thread

[applegrove]

28. Just taking our lead from the candidates themselves. I wonder if the debate

will be a huge dustup.