It is a strange and amazing phenomenon, though.

After all, we all know the mark of a real Democrat is unremitting hostility to people elected to office as Democrats, while support for Democrats elected to office is the mark of people pretending to be Democrats....

Your avatar should be a hammer descending squarely onto the head of a nail.

I have expressed on many occasions displeasure with our President's course in various matters.

It does not mean I do not support him, and it does not mean I support people who engage in continual, frequently outlandish criticisms, many of which could be dropped down on right-wing sites without much change in vocabulary and none in tone, or consider people who behave in this manner to be 'true Democrats'. In many instances they are simply splinterist wreckers....

I have seen DUers that are tired of the cheer leading echo chamber claiming such piffle and even more tired of said POTUS appointing such people as;

Penny Pritzker: (see banking failure),

Michael Froman: Citigroup (see Wall Street failure),

Tom Wheeler: (see venture capitalist and former communications-industry lobbyist),

and the close and until recent specter of Larry Summers:

supposedly representing the 99%...while appointing just the 1%.


As to your offering the suggestion that criticisms of said POTUS "could be dropped down on right-wing sites" I also and more accurately suggest that fawning admiration of said POTUS could have been "dropped down on right-wing sites" with just as much validity...meaning none. The only difference is party affiliation, but the exhortations remain roughly the same: lacking in substance.

The term "splinterist wreckers" could easily be applied to any partisan that will hold his leader above reproach and or criticism. They divide the party with their purist and puerile nature, and it is that very nature which undermines the party with calls of impurity, litmus tests and echo chambers.

The critics job is the hard path...the straight path, and we are doing exactly what the POTUS asked of us.

The partisan path is based on illusion and not asking questions: so very third way.

You have a splendid job of demonstrating that for some, criticism is the point, and that the concepts of unity and compromise, so essential to actual governing and actual success in a democratic polity, are closed books to them.

I am sure you can be counted on to do so again in future, should there be need to point out that there are a number of people here who take as their leading objective attacks on President Obama, and that that they consider that because they do so, it is they who are the real Democrats, and that people who defend and support President Obama against their attacks are not really Democrats at all.

Penny Pritzker: (see banking failure),

Michael Froman: Citigroup (see Wall Street failure),

Tom Wheeler: (see venture capitalist and former communications-industry lobbyist),


And to attacks? No, Sir. That is what is known as criticism.

The thin skinned always see criticism as attacks, and they always label it as such to gain a rather undeserved sympathy from others.

The point under discussion here, and the sole point of interest to me, is the odd spectacle of people who clearly do believe the mark of a true Democrat is attacks on Democrats elected to high office, and that people who defend and support Democrats elected to high office just are not Democrats, not really....

No one is even slightly distracted by his laundry list--he can't get off that retort, though.

It's all he's got.

It's very telling as to where you really stand.

Good for you.

A bit tired, maybe?

Perhaps you might want some rest; your post makes almost no sense.

You're obvious, clumsy, baiting like a grade schooler, and just not a good enough internet magician to pull it off, you see. You're also having a bit of trouble typing a straight line, I notice. Has someone taken your keys, I hope?

If you really want to discuss, you'll be a Big Boy, a civil DUer, and start your own doggone OP and hope your post is sufficiently compelling that people are drawn to it and want to engage you....not rudely fling a laundry list in the middle of someone else's OP with a hope that you'll disrupt their thread.

I'm afraid your attempt at pot-stirring is a major fail--you might want to deploy the lifeboats.

It's just too bad this isn't the BOG. You could make all the posts you don't want to respond to just disappear.


And actually, I did really want to discuss (see my post above), but apparently you weren't up to it.

was the condescending,completely arrogant tone really necessary ?

I am not easily derailed and I call 'em like I see 'em. If that bothers you, you've got an ignore button-go on and use it.

your childish attemp to make this sub about me won't work....it was..at best a 7th grade attempt to deflect and wholly undeserving of this fine site...you used to be good at this...are you sure you don't need the keys taken away? It's ok to admit you are a drunk...it's the first step

And if you've been drinking, that's a personal problem for you and one you probably shouldn't be discussing on this board.

that they are in over their heads and should have stopped like, a lifetime ago. LORD, have mercy.



I would refer anyone that thinks such spectacular stupidity to Ego's fabulous speech at the end of Rattatouille voiced by the incomparable Peter O'Toole.

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends.

Good job ignoring The Magistrate's fans so that you could engage in it. You have skill.

Wiretaps, gulags, secret law, kleptocracy. To liberals and progressives, these are still bad things.

I am, personally, not inclined to view the Democratic Party as an ideal medium for securing a variety of progressive and left-rooted measures.

It is, however, and however unfortunately, and however imperfect an instrument for it, the only tool available at present, in our political system as it is actually constituted.

Accepting that there is an imperfect fit between the Democratic Party and the furthest aims of left and progressive people, several things must be accepted.

First, it has to be acknowledged that left and progressive people really do not have solid ground to proclaim they and only they are true Democrats, or are the real base of the Democratic Party, and that people who are left of center or center-left or even centerists are not really Democrats.

Second, left and progressive people need to consider whether the tactic of attacking people who are perhaps a bit to the right of them, though generally well to the left of a national average, or of the average in the local where they reside, as rightists who do not belong in the Democratic Party, is likely to expand and increase their influence in the Democratic Party, and advance the prospects of actually getting laws and regulations they would like to see adopted come to pass.

Accepting the sound distinction you draw requires debating pragmatic questions, and accepting facts of contingency. It highlights that the real debate is not so much over what should be done, as what actually can be done, in present circumstances. Obviously, views will differ concerning what is or is not possible at present, over what a practical and achievable goal might be, and over what the best means of getting the best possible result would be. Put bluntly, it is here, and most particularly in the last of these things, that most of my disagreements with our President center: I would prefer a more combative attitude, prefer a staking out initial positions much more in advance of what an acceptable final compromise would likely be, and suspect more could be got than his brain-trust seems to suspect, or even seems to desire.

Argument by hyperbole is fun, and used sparingly, can be quite effective in getting someone to see, and take, a point. But taking argument by hyperbole for one's principal means is like serving a dinner composed of mounds of spice and little else; it will not be palatable and will not fulfill the purpose of a meal. People who habitually argue by hyperbole tend in time to lose consciousness they are employing a rhetorical device, and come to take what began as deliberate exaggerations for effect to be statements of fact, accurate descriptions of people and events. When they do, to put it bluntly, they come to appear as clowns as best and as demons at worst, and in either case, forfeit all credibility with people who do not already agree with them, and lose any ability to sway people to come to agreement with them from a neutral, or even a hostile, view.

of president barack hussein obama and the office he holds as leader of our country.

i proudly post there, neither blindly nor pretending to be anything more than what i am.

Penny Pritzker: (see banking failure),

Michael Froman: Citigroup (see Wall Street failure),

Tom Wheeler: (see venture capitalist and former communications-industry lobbyist),



On respect. I seem to recall that the last person to exist in the Oval Office supposedly deserved our respect as well, or at least the office of the POTUS did.

To that I call total and unequivocal bullshit. The POTUS is the servant of We the People.

He is not a King.

He is not royalty.

We are not his fawning subjects although it is apparent that he has a few of those with blinders and a growing list of unwelcomes in their club.

not my choices either.

why do you think the president would select them? i questioned the appointments as well as you may have, and since i cannot ask him directly - nor receive a direct response, i did the same research, perhaps, you have also conducted, and am still questioning. there is nothing i can really do about by myself. so i move on and focus on what i can do.

right now, i am focused on stopping the xl pipeline and monsanto because safe, clean water & safe soil & a healthy food supply without heinous genetic altering are critical to our health and quality of life.

i make phone calls & write letters on many issue to my legislators and to the president expressing my thoughts , feelings, beliefs, & the realities challenging many folks hard hit by the recession such as myself & family. but, i'll be damned if i am going to ruin my life by being a squalling chicken and sulking & pissing and moaning and shitting all over my life because everything isn't perfect or done right now (dammit!) like i want. this just isn't how life is anywhere.

and just as president obama is certainly not a king nor royalty, nor a magic man, many, many have a hand in the decisions made to govern our country. so, i do not have him on a pedestal. but i do respect him and i appreciate that he is willing to listen and hear us, the people.

You have some substance.
Keep those emails, calls, cards and letters moving.
I'm doing the same.

We may different levels of disappointment in our pres.,and we'll surely have our disagreements about them, but if we both stay on task , we together are a stronger voice, than either of us alone.

to honestly question and even to offer pertinent or even critical consideration of another is one thing. but to disparage, curse, disrespect, or harshly criticize another without having even heard their explanation for their actions is an unjust form of judgement.

yes, let's keep on keep'in on!

"never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - margaret mead

it is beautiful.

united we stand, divided we fall.

it is my understanding the president has followed a long held (since Lincoln) belief that choosing persons of other parties to hold positions in their cabinet to be an expression of true democracy and protection of our constitution. however, now such thinking is proving to be folly because the corporatists and republicans are blood and guts deceivers. they seem to only see our government and our citizens as their "precious" gold mine.they do not care for the people much less our environment. it is all only a means to an end - a big fat bank account.

as for the xl pipeline, president obama has said that he will not support anything which endangers the safety of our environment and people's lives. yet, there are those in high government offices who are interfering with investigations which have uncovered evidence of contamination & who are shutting down these very investigations.

we, the people who care about these issues cannot shut up nor let up at this point. sometimes i think the president hears us and other times, i'm not so sure. he heard us about climate change - but then signed for added drilling off our coasts. ???? wtf? yes, i am upset about this - having grown up in santa barbara and having witnessed our coastline dotted with oil platforms - and the horrible oil spill washed up on our beaches. i was in high school and a budding activist/environmentalist.

the environment is an important issue. did you know the head of the usda is former monsanto? along with toxic dna in our food supply, i see fracking and reckless mining of natural resources as destructive to the future of our loved ones and our planet.

many people in government & across the country have their hands in the financial pot, perhaps even our potus (i hope not !) through their investment portfolios. if you know folks with 401k's or 401c3's, they may not be fully aware of exactly where their retirement funds are invested (but they should!). when i had mine, i went green. not many investment firms offer this option. but i chose one that did.

as for my personal situation, it is not good. but i'm grateful because it could be worse. in fact, i know it would be worse if another goper was our potus.

Either I have forgotten that or I didn't know it.

*

It is civil, it is beautifully argued and it is balanced.
Balanced not in the meaning of 'fair and balanced' of course, but you lay out your position nicely and then go on to support it with reasoning without glorifying or denigrating anything/anyone.

And you are very right in your approach of not wasting your energy on what you won't be able to change anyway but instead doing what actually can be done to influence important developments. Keep it up, it's really good to hear from the likes of you.

Also, it's good to be reminded that substantial differences in the level of satisfaction/disappointment does not necessarily equal substantial differences in what we'd like to see happen.
Well done.