First, I don't have a problem with criticism of the President where it's warranted, but too often on DU this criticism runs into the realm of the speculative - criticizing Mr. Obama over theoretical situations.

Second, I don't appreciate criticism that closely mirrors the RW opinion. For example, I don't see a problem with criticism over NSA hoovering-up terabytes of data for perusal at their leisure, but when someone criticizes him for mollycoddling the downtrodden, then I DO see a problem.

The RW thugs slobbered all over Bush when he was doing even worse things. DU members who actually believe in Democratic party values blasted Bush even worse than Obama. If you don't believe that, check out DU2. We expect better from Obama, and we will keep saying so.

Put up or shut up

The national security state is a bad thing, period. Conservatives (whether Republican or DLC) disagree. They are kvelling that Obama has admitted that they and the Bush whackjobs were right all along, though that doesn't deter them from using against Obama at the same time. People who care more about issues , and want to see the American empire dismantled, than personalities agree.

the definition of strawman.

a criticism is on target or not. serious and sane people cannot think otherwise.

That would betray their identity as a rightie mole.

and it did betray their identity. MIRT got right on it, however.

because, honestly, if someone who said he or she was a liberal and made that claim - I would have to assume that person is dumber than a ton of bricks.

and anyone who signs up for this board and makes that claim fits that description to a tee.

it's just that some trolls come here too.

could not agree with you more , cirque , this knee-jerk whining about every pseudo scandal is getting very tiresome . No one is perfect , life is a series of compromises , progress ,and set-backs . But panicking every time things don't go your way is unproductive , and detrimental to the way forward .

First of all, I resent how you are characterizing people, like myself, who are upset about the recent revelations of wholesale spying. "Whining" is not something that we are doing. And, we very seldom even MENTION Obama's name in our posts about this topic, although he DID come into office with a promise to put an end to it. A promise he did not keep.

Next, we are not "panicking" every time "things don't go" our way. This is a MAJOR issue here, and it concerns some rights that I, for one, don't want to give up--my privacy.

The NSA needs to stop spying on Americans. Period. That is true whether Bush, Obama, Hillary, or Popeye The Sailor is in the White House.

Someone could say you are whining. (I'm not saying that because that would be rude. And dismissive. And tacky.)

As soon as you give me any evidence that he has. Then I will be happy to say he hasn't done it enough.

however, it's a common refrain from the right.

I have seen on DU would be the right wing Du'ers that support cutting SS benefits. They seem to think the elderly have it too good.

Yes, right wing DU'ers, we have a lot of them, but few that openly criticize the poor for not being poor enough.

not even a modest one.

I'm just saying.

And, honestly, so should everyone else who is a TRUE Democrat.

This President was elected to begin the process of putting an end to Bush policies. The people threw Republicans OUT in 2008 because they did not want them in power.

This President has appointed Republicans to powerful positions in his cabinet, many of them them. So it seems to many Democrats that he is telling us 'thanks for your votes now I'm going to use what you gave me to restore Republicans to power'. This is a major slap in the face to those who worked to get rid of Republicans, that they are finding their way back into power at the invitation of the President who was elected to replace them.

Why is he doing this? Are there no Democrats who can do these jobs?

First, there’s constructive criticism, a stark and necessary component to the preservation of the democratic process.

Second, there’s unrelenting hand-rubbing glee over every opportunity to trash any utterance or effort of this president or members of his team.

Frankly, there’s far too little of the first and far too much of the second pretending to be the first.

I have no problem with commentators and opinion pieces that truly take an objective look at Obama's record and see where he is falling short of the promises made or Democratic Party ideals.

But all the bashing and just seemingly 24/7 devotion to finding any smear material on Obama is gross. There are already plenty of websites and even a news channel or two devoted to that.

the 'constructive criticism' and 'holding his feet to the fire' (I use those terms loosely) threads are all there are on DU now. And when there is a thread that is complimentary to the president or his wife, someone has to come dump on the thread and let everyone there know they're not criticizing enough. His feet aren't sufficiently burning.

So I call bullshit on this lecture, and say it's been an all out free for all....

When you see DU'ers being called shitbags, fuckers, and all sorts of vile names because they disagree with the oh so righteous ones--AND those posts standing--juries leaving them--then it's more than just holding feet to the fire.

Those are my thoughts on the situation.

attacking anyone at all who, no matter who they are, in any way possibly conceived could be perceived as having negative implications or mpact in any real or imagined way, shape or form in even the slightest possble real or imagined amount against the President, whether they actually do or not?

Of course there is.

We cannot pretend we are not being spied on.
We cannot pretend that spying is okay - or Constitutional.
We cannot pretend that we are not being lied to.

The ONLY way to constructively criticize this is to admit it - and denounce it.

anyone at all who, no matter who they are, in any way possibly conceived could be perceived as having negative implications or mpact in any real or imagined way, shape or form in even the slightest possble real or imagined amount against the President, whether they actually do or not?

Of course there is.

and When someone is off base they deserve to be tagged out

What with facts and history and the three branches of government and all that crap.

However it is very hard to find balance in a place where the prevailing mood is Obama Derangement Syndrome 24/7 with large pockets of fact-free zone.

Tell me what you expect when we beat up on Democrats relentlessly so as to damage the brand?

How pleased are we with what's going on in the various states where there aren't enough Democrats in office to stop the Bronze-Agers from trying to turn back the clock on things like women's rights, workers' rights, civil rights, and voting rights? Or are those things merely a bunch of bothersome annoyances that we really don't need anymore? You're pleased, then, with what's going on in Wisconsin, Kansas, Michigan, Virginia, Texas, and more - with republi-CONS in total control?

I never loved him.

I opposed him from the first. Not because I'm a fan of HRC; she's a neoliberal too, and I've never been her fan, either. Not because I'm racist. Anyone who knows me in the real world knows that to be ludicrous, including my 2 black nieces. Not because I'm a libertarian; I'm not. I'm a Democrat. I'm a Democrat with high standards and no patience for political bullshit. I opposed him.

Because he's a neoliberal, and neoliberals are bad for the nation. Because he told FOX, in an '08 interview, that one of the things Republicans "do better" than Democrats is education, and I'm a teacher. I could go on, and on, and on. I wasn't starstruck. I wasn't inspired. I actually listened to what he said.

Still, I shed some tears and cheered on election night. Partially in relief that GWB was gone; more because, even if he was the wrong man, America elected a person of color, which I still see as a giant leap forward.

Then I watched his appointments. I knew he was not good news before he was inaugurated.

Even so, I have been shocked and awed at HOW bad it's been. At HOW far to the right he has been willing to go.

I never loved him. I don't love him now. The damage he's done is enough that I don't hold out any hope that will change. I have no reason to gush over public relation photos or vague speeches. He's said some decent things; they are usually vague enough to justify the things he does later. He's done at least one thing in the last 5 years I support. I said so at the time. It pales in comparison to the rest.

I feel no glee every time he or his administration does something else worthy of criticism. I feel despair. I feel anger. I feel hopeless. There's no glee involved.

Like you I cheere because the rethugs lost on election night, and I loved having the first African-American Prez, but I always feared his politics. He is a far better POTUS than any rethug in the race would have been, but he does not uphold Democratic, much less progressive, principles.

but neither of us frequent this place much anymore i don't think. I come in and then leave for long periods of time. Been back a while to catch the news mostly.

What you have said here is exactly what it is for most of us who never loved him (is there anything more childish and absurd than that?). You said this very well.

I would love nothing better than to see him do well as a freaking lefty. Sadly he is no liberal.

"I feel no glee every time he or his administration does something else worthy of criticism. I feel despair. I feel anger. I feel hopeless. There's no glee involved." Exactly.

I'm not here much during the school year; I have time in the summer.

It amazes me the way I've "changed" over the years here, starting out as more moderate than many, and now too "left" for the board.

Yet I haven't changed at all.

I have run up against the insurmountable brick wall which is euphemistically labeled "Race to the Top." Arne "I play basketball!" Duncan is a HUGE disappointment.

I find it ironic that so many DUers have invested so much time and energy to this debate about 'threads that attack Obama' versus 'threads that fawn over Obama.' Frankly, these threads seem to generate the same responses from the same handful of DUers, over and over ad nauseam.

Meanwhile, the corporate megalomaniacs who've usurped our media, our politics AND our global economy continue their coordinated efforts to insure that we, the Hoi Polloi, remain divided and divisive -- thusly, posing little to no threat to their hegemony.

Still, I remain hopeful that more of us are paying attention, and more of us are preparing for the inevitable. I hope we are successful at taking back our democracy.

We HAVE TO keep it in Democratic hands.

There is no alternative.

Frankly, the only reason you need is the Supreme Court. I grow more concerned if the rush to criticize and trash and take-down people on our side, who might actually have a few redeeming qualities as far as policy positions and such, begins to trash the whole Democratic brand to the point where it becomes more possible for a republi-CON to take the White House back. You think scalia, alito, and thomas are bad, how'd you like two or three MORE of them? If Ruth Bader Ginsburg can't serve any longer - which mentality and political world view would YOU find acceptable in picking her successor? Five-to-four is bad enough. Would you care to risk six-to-three?

In the public perception, a weakened Obama has a bad effect on the rest of the party, especially down-ticket races. And since we're stuck with two parties, we're stuck with the lesser of two evils. I'd love it to be perfect, I'd love for everyone on our side to be sinless. President Obama isn't perfect. But GOD FORBID it had been mitt romney...

This:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023161009

There is GREAT risk to damaging our brand. Hate to sound all Kardashian on you but the brand is everything. If we help damage and weaken the Democratic brand, we will get stuck with more republi-CONS. And that, to me, is NOT ACCEPTABLE under ANY circumstances.

for the same coach and same owners.

Was it the Dems leading the charge to deny a woman the right to have the last word over what happens to that little piece of real estate between HER OWN neck and HER OWN knees?

Who was most likely to be active in the Occupy movement? The CONS?

Who is it - more interested in cutting taxes for the wealthy so we can pile on the poor and the working poor?

Which party is it that's more likely to want to push for a minimum wage? Oh yeah, that's a BIG heart's-desire thing for the GOP, now, isn't it?

I can't subscribe to the "meh, they're all the same" line of thinking. BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ALL THE SAME!!!!! Unless one considers a brick to be identical to a grain of aquarium gravel, just because they both happen to be really hard.

THEIR side would have no room for an Elizabeth Warren. OURS made her a United States Senator. THEIR Side will gladly saddle you with the rand pauls and ted cruzes.

Nope. I can't concur that both sides are just basically the same.

what has changed 90% of profits went to the 1% since the crash. We get wins on distraction issues and the 1% get corporate personhood, no fault generic drugs, mandated insurance for the insurance companies, increase in payroll taxes and half assed tax increase on 1%ers, no crack down on offshoreing jobs or income continuing wars without end, free out of jail banking, chained cpi, sequestered, spying etc.....

And we're NOT getting wins on that, which further underscores my point. There's a psychology to this. You damage the Democratic brand by adding to the public perception that Dems are a gang that can't shoot straight or at fault for everything and then the general gullible impressionable and easily manipulated public take-away is simply "oooh, Democrats baaaaaaad." That, in turn, translates to republi-CON votes, OR it leads Democratic voters to throw up their hands and stay home on Election Day - while the GOP is motivated and fired up as all hell and their voters show up to vote and they win.

And then you start getting Kansas. Ohio. Wisconsin. Michigan. Virginia. Texas. And on.

This kind of thing Does. NOT. Happen. when Dems are in charge! And frequently, when Dems are in charge, you also have more women in charge because there are more female politicians among the Dems than among the GOP. To me as a woman, and as the mother of a young woman of childbearing age, this adverse turn of events is distressing as hell! It's become THE issue for me as a voter, first, last, and damn near always. ANY politician who is against a woman's right to choose is a non-starter for me as far as whether I'm ever gonna vote for that person, and it doesn't matter WHERE he or she stands on any other issue. Including other issues I care about deeply. But I care about this more. I have at times been forced to be reduced to one-issue voter status - it's THAT important to me. As Joe Biden would say, "this is a big fuckin' deal." I see our rights as women being eroded by the day, in state after state, in situations where men have the governing majority and that same majority is also republi-CON. We fought hard for that right, and it's systematically being taken from us, at a rate I've never seen before - and I'm 60-years-old this year. I dread seeing the GOP with such a hammer-lock on so many states. It's no good for women's rights. And they've started coming after you, too, voters-and-potential-voters-who-are-not-white-skinned. They've already gained a lot of ground going after unions also. And DAMMIT, IT'S NOT THE DEMOCRATS DOING THAT OR INITIATING THAT OR PUSHING IT THROUGH BEHIND CLOSED DOORS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT WITHOUT WARNING OR SIGNING IT INTO LAW!!!

Sorry to yell. But that's the way I feel about it. It's starts and ends with that, for me. A woman's right to choose is an absolute. It's not up for discussion, or up to ANYONE but the individual woman. It is non-negotiable. And I see an astonishing few republi-CONS on my side of this issue, while Democrats are visible everywhere. The two parties are NOT the same. There IS a difference. A big one. And when a woman controls her own body, she controls her own destiny, her own future, and her own economics, both within her own domicile and filtering out into the surrounding community at large. Which, btw, sooner or later impacts and addresses every one of your concerns.

and the majority of their elected politicians that have and are selling out. The republican senators are not that smarter and more effective than the Democratic they are being helped because both are part of the 1%.

... you are playing for, when you peddle that false equivalence bullshit.

And while I concede your point about the Supreme Court, I wonder if we would have seen a stronger, more vigorous Democratic opposition to Bush's continued policies if the POTUS had not been a Democrat.

I think you are overestimating the influence of DU if you think that anything that is said here will have any real influence on how the political process plays out. How many regular readers does DU have? A few thousand? I'm not sure. But it pales in comparison to the millions who will vote in the 2016 election. I feel quite comfortable with saying anything I want here without worrying that what I say might have a negative affect on Democratic fortunes in upcoming elections. It just won't.

Trim tabs are small end pieces on a wing or a rudder or something, that facilitates a change in direction of a very much larger object, like a ship or plane. Large objects like those are hard to move. You have to start small with something that's easy to manipulate. The trim tab moves the rudder and the rudder moves the larger vehicle.

It's remarkable how little and seemingly insignificant things can launch or accelerate something much larger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trim_tab

You never know who's reading in, here. Alan Grayson does. Elizabeth Edwards used to. Fans of higher-profile writers like Will Pitt. We ALL have the potential to be trim tabs here. I just read a report linked from here that cited the Daily Kos and DU as manifestations of the Obama-is-fucked-and-nobody-supports-him-anymore interpretation. There's another level of extension beyond those "few thousand" regular readers of DU. The effect compounds and can start metastasizing like a cancer.

I just worry about damaging the brand. It can lead directly to republi-CONS snatching the White House again.

as sole judge and jury of such matters, then it is 'unrelenting hand rubbing glee over every opportunity to trash any utterance or effort of this president or members of his team'. There is no in between. Madame pronounces the binary choices. Madame is the sole judge and jury.
Why this need to paint vicious adjective graffito around those with whom you do not agree? Why would you expect others to see you as the judge of that which is and is not worthy opinion? Seriously. Why do you expect that?

Nor can you point out where I said otherwise.

It's no secret that there are those who have daily pissed on this president since before he was inaugurated. They've crapped all over his every effort and called it "constructive criticism". Such postings are not only non-constructive, they are counter-productive.

Conversely, there are those who bring measured argument with their points of view. Sources are given, ideas are offered, alternatives are suggested. It's done with civility and no resort to name-calling and accusation.

One is intended to inflame, the other is intended to edify. If noting the difference between the two makes me "judge and jury" in your mind, there's nothing I can do about that.

That's what you are saying. You fail to even attempt to state metrics as to what is 'constructive' or 'unacceptable' other than 'I say so'.
I you agree, it's good, if not it is subject to characterization and hyperbole from you as the natural and serene human metric of such things. 'If I like it, it is good, if I don't, then it is very bad'.

desperation stage and throwing disparage at anyone that doesnt agree with you.

The TeaBagger's hate Obama and openly disparage him.

When liberals try to hold Obama accountable to Democratic Principles, they get lumped in with the TeaBaggers because the opposition has no argument and has to resort to name calling and ridicule.

there's the venoumous drip of crap that's very touching.. to reptiles, I'm sure.

That's been going on since 2009 and no.. I'm not leaving Politics. We have an outstanding President and it's been my pleasure to be part of this fight for our Democracy against the koch republicons and anyone else who thinks they're going to bring down our current government.

Your "Hand rubbing glee" comment is utter BS. I have seen very few posts on DU that I would characterize in this way, and those that do fall in this description are usually RW trolls that don't last very long here.

"Hand rubbing glee?" hardly...more like painful disappointment, especially for those of us that worked so hard to get him into office.

I am hardly one to agree with everything that President Obama does.

Perhaps it is because I have lived through too many Presidential election cycles where RW provocateurs easily split liberals so that a truly disastrous GOP win occurred, e.g., 1968, 1980, 1984, 1988 and most recently, 2000 and 2004.

Yes, we should question Presidential actions - of whatever person holds that office - and we should always be alert to encroachments on our own civil rights, as well as on the rights of others, especially when we encroach on the rights of others even outside our country as a not-too-sterling example of "democracy." The price of liberty is indeed eternal vigilance - not with guns but by keeping ourselves informed with facts, not rumors.

The fact that there seems to be wholesale desertion of our own best champions every single time that there is the slightest hint that not all may be perfect does not provide them with "warm fuzzies" or with the support that they must have to stand strong or to change things. We are fickle followers. This has been demonstrated often enough.

There are frequent posters on DU who absolutely NEVER miss an opportunity to say something nasty about President Obama and many of them have been here far too long to be simply RW trolls.

Criticize away, but maintain support - and make that support clear even while criticizing.

And when criticism spills over into insulting those who do not agree, it's far from constructive.

"Hand-rubbing glee" is a very good way to put it.

making fun and sport of obama's multitude of failings is to be expected. well-deserved mocking perhaps, but i don't see glee. for the most part i see (and feel) rage at obama and the democratic party's consistent kowtowing to the rich, which is obviously of long standing. i feel rage at obama's ability to maintain support among the naive.

Can you imagine if there was no criticism??

But, I don't think Obama or others should be blamed for what they have no control over and often that happens here, when it's Congress that should be blamed or any number of other agencies or institutions within the government who are directly responsible.

Hope littlePitt enjoys the fireworks

It's kind of more like how Frodo Baggins got stuck with the job of delivering the ring. It's not choice, it's by bad chance and curiosity. Sometimes it's you, sometimes it's the people you choose as friends and for the majority it's the place we mostly find ourselves in.

Pardon me, but i am trying to dream my way out of this, just about now

Yes.

Same as it ever was.

Same as it ever was.

....though from experience, it is as futile in most cases as is attempting to move obama and the democratic party in a progressive direction.

generally we preach to our own choirs and fight with the other choirs to little avail.

one of them.

One reason to post is simply to have one's say.

Another, and closely related one, is to vent.

A third is to voice agreement with another who believes as you do.

A fourth is to elicit agreement/reinforcement from those who already believe as you do.

A fifth is to get information.

But, the OP claimed criticizing the President here holds the feet of the President to the fire.

I wish that were so, but I see zero evidence of that.

...DU considered itself a think tank of sorts. People came here to become informed and inspired, and to carry that information and inspiration out into the wider world.

In the spring of 2002, as the country still sat in a fearful crouch after 9/11 and the motherfuckers in the Bush administration were running wild, a few of us here decided to do something. We crafted a pamphlet, photocopied it a thousand times, and stood in a busy Boston square to hand them out. We talked to anyone willing to talk, argued with those who wanted to argue, and spent a day together in a revolutionary act of simple education.

...which seems quaint And maybe even a little silly after twelve years. We were genuinely worried about being assaulted or targeted in some way - if you think things are more paranoid now, I would argue you've blocked out the darkness that was late-'01 and all of '02-'03 - but we did it, and came back here to DU, and shared our story and our pamphlet...and in the weeks and months that followed, piles and piles of DUers followed suit where they lived, and came back to share their experiences here.

And if you think that didn't make a difference - even a little one - then you are cynical past the point of redemption. DU-as-think-tank and DU-as-activism facilitated that...and it still is those things. It takes a truly cynical person to look at what happens here and sees only an echo chamber.

People are informed here, inspired here, enraged here, engaged here, and that carries into the wider world...where real people have real conversations, cast real votes, donate real money, and volunteer real time for or against what they may.

That is "feet to the fire," and it matters.

Toss even a small stone into a still pool, and the ripples spread in all directions in an ever-widening circle.

It matters.

One issue is whether posting matters. That was not what I thought you were claiming, though.

What you described seems to have mattered to you and some others eleven years ago. I would point out though, that posting was only one part of what you did.

The other is whether it holds the feet of the POTUS to the fire, which is what your OP mentioned. Your Reply 145 does not say a word about that.

ETA:

And if you think that didn't make a difference - even a little one - then you are cynical past the point of redemption.

If you don't see the one-to-one relationship between civic action and how that action eventually translates up to those in power, than I shrug and move on down the line.

If your posts have had some impact on a President you would be able to point to it.

You can't, so you keep trying to (a) move the goal post and (b) pretend something about me is defective.

You have not proved your claim and you apparently cannot. It's really that simple.

-Laelth

I hear they can be fun.

My brain.

sit down and shut up. I voted to not hide since though it was rude, it is a fair take on this last bit "If you don't like criticism of Obama, I suggest you drop politics as a hobby and try something else. If you like criticism of Obama and meet resistance, remember where you are."

I tire of not criticism but bashing of Obama and also resent being told it is "just criticism and if you don't like it, try something else". Which leads us into the whole question of what is criticism and what is bashing and I'd rather not even try to go there today.

should have been in quotes though.

yeah, nobody's "leaving politics".

And he doesn't really strike me as an aficionado of the rah-rah mentality.

Your OP was spot on Will. Enjoy your 4th!

Problem is, Obama is being conflated with Snowden who, in turn, is being conflated with the NSA. In doing so, we end up with posts arguing the nuance of one of these separate entities followed by post arguing one of the other two.

This is why "DU has always been like this." Everyone is quick to assume insult rather than address the actual nuances.

burning them off at the ankles is another.

I've seen some of the most ridiculous OTT nonsense posted here that goes FAR beyond criticism.

I

DU has always been like this.

The worst offenders were shown the door.

Now, they're embraced and applauded.

No, this is decidedly different, IMO.

DU has always been relatively abrasive, but this is a whole new level of WTF....

Or would you prefer to be yelling at a Republican president behind a hurricane fence?

No.

This is what happens when it's your party in power.

Coping skills not included.

(Though I just lurked until 2006; 2004 scared me too much...)

January 10, 2007 and with just over 500 posts made, you can tell I don't talk a whole lot.

However I read every day and take in what is posted. I prefer the debate here over other places that quite often just devolves into name calling and spewing talking points. And as long as we can disagree with civility, then perhaps all parties can come from it for the better.

As I have to explain to my Conservative family members, Yes, I supported this President over what what put up against him last election, and yes I believe he has done, and is doing, so great things for the country.

However that does NOT mean that I agree with him all the time, and sometimes get really pissed off at what he does or says. And when that happens, I am sure to voice my disagreement.

It is a GOP concept to be required to be in lockstep with all that your leaders tell you. And frankly, that seems to be what is hurting them so much now.

You are not the behavior police. And you might want to think a little bit about not turning into a crusty old curmudgeon. DU is a place where one can express their opinion. All are entitled to do so. It is called free speech, of which I know you are a proponent. By and large, you have generally been right, in my opinion, but a little self-reflection might be in order.

Enjoy the 4th. I know you are a patriot and the celebration certainly is as much for you as any
American.

My brain.

Pretty sure that's exactly, precisely what I said.

Ow.

and thanks WilliamPitt.

The last time was 2008, with the PUMA invasion. And it would be ludicrous to not recognize who those people were, what their agenda was, and who their paymasters turned out to be.

This may not be the same, but it has a very familiar aroma nonetheless.

Intelligent people making reasoned criticisms of their democratically elected leaders. Great, this is how a Democracy works, right. And after all, what kind of Government would think of keeping tabs on it's fine and noble citizens. Then you read the comments under articles on Yahoo News, or even The Huffington Post, and you realize what's out there - unbelievable hatred, ignorance, and racism. And you lose all hope. Being called a Muslim is one of the kinder things our POTUS is called. That is the reality. So now he needs fellow Democrats piling on too. Frankly, I'd thrown in the towel, let the Republicans have control. I'm just glad our POTUS has more patience and strength than I could ever hope to have. I that makes me an Obama "apologist" fine. I don't agree with everything he has done. I just see what he's up against.

about unprecedented tractor tire production and before breaking for popular folks songs sung across the land like, Here's to the workers' democratic collectives."

I think some people would want us to spend all day talking about how great the Democratic Party and its leaders are and how wonderful it will be in the future.

K&R

I am grateful that we had enough people to stand up to the entrenched powers and "NO!'
those many years ago.
There were ALSO many who sided with the King back then too!
I'm glad they lost.

[center][/font]

DU HAS changed - these cheerleader types WILL disappear in 21016 and we will have real debates again - right now it is like trying to have serious discussions with a group of five year olds in the room

Hmm?

seeing what your approach can produce as long as you can admit when and if it fails and are willing to try other suggestions. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing game here.

that is what makes it special

n/t

Last edited Thu Jul 4, 2013, 07:20 AM - Edit history (1)

hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

You have a nice holiday too.

On the eve of July 4th- hail to free speech and independent thought!

Most people who post here are extremely interesting, informative and often hilarious. I make myself read widely, even though I may disagree, appreciate respect


Happy Fourth

It's too bad that none of that will be remembered in 2016, when "rally round the flag, boys" will be the dominant paradigm.

. . . just as long as we don't pretend like all criticism is unassailable and sacrosanct. Quite a lot of it is uninformed twaddle generated inside of this echo chamber. Critics need to have a tough skin too if they're shooting from the hip as if it doesn't matter who they hit in their diatribes and self-serving manifestos. If you can't stand being corrected, maybe you should 'drop politics as a hobby and try something else.' (not my words)

. . . just another angle to 'holding feet to fire.'