General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWell, I guess we won't be seeing Luminous Animal here for awhile...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025104073#post3http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=129546&sub=trans
About a week? March 23+90days
My feelings are mixed. They knew what they were risking by "going there".
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)JI7
(89,174 posts)and would support Hillary Clinton ?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We are free to question.
JI7
(89,174 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Hillary has associated herself with "The Family" in the past.
And "The Family" has praised Hitler for "getting stuff done" - not that it was good to do, just that he was effective at his evil goals.
The problem is people who insist stating those two things means Hillary likes Hitler.
JI7
(89,174 posts)that's what i mean, if she does feel that way why would she want to be on a board that will support her.
i can say this about many others and give examples.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)However, there's plenty of people in that thread making that assumption.
It's unfortunate, because The Family is quite a troublesome entity, even without the Hitler reference.
treestar
(82,383 posts)was not just questioning, come on.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Just like some stories coming out of places like RT are "groundbreaking journalism" to some, and "insane conspiracy theories" to others.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Because we are a democracy where everyone has the right to run for office and because Democrats do not want any candidate PUSHED on them before we even know who else might want to run.
Put it this way, none of this is helping Hillary.
JI7
(89,174 posts)would not be a democrat.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)JI7
(89,174 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Citizen's United? Ever look at how much it costs to run for the WH lately? And just what about that is NOT TRUE. I look forward to you proving me wrong. I would love to be wrong about this so that we could see some good Democrats running for the WH WITHOUT needing one billion dollars to do so.
JI7
(89,174 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)our electoral system now is like a contest between two guys looking for a job with the same boss. Dems, Repubs it doesn't matter to those who are actually running things in the end because they know they have eliminated those, Feingold, eg, Sanders, who also has no chance of winning, who might cause them problems.
Where the people still have a chance is in Congress which is where I will be focusing my time and energy from now on. The WH won't matter if we have a real, Democratic Congress which will do the job it is supposed to do, rather than rubber stamp policies they people do not want. THAT is what we have learned over the past decade.
JI7
(89,174 posts)and that still doesn't explain why republicans can't get black hispanic and gay support.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)IF they find they need them, they will seek those votes. But they appeal to a different demographic. That is how it works, one party gets to go after certain demographics, the other goes after a different demographic. Seems to be working so far. Republicans are in control of the House. How do you think that happened? MONEY! Who needs minorities when you appeal to those who FEAR minorities?? As Edwards said, there are 'two Americas'. The Dems appeal to one America and the Repubs appeal to the other.
But in the end what wins is who has the most money. Which in 2012 were Romney and Obama. Next time same thing, who has the most money will get to the General Election. Anyone WITHOUT money, has no chance in hell of getting there. Are you actually DENYING this fact???
JI7
(89,174 posts)and Republicans DO need blacks, hispanics and gays to win. this is why they have been hurting nationally and only reason they can hang on to the house is gerrymandered districts.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)regarding our Foreign Policies, are they ending the obscene funding for the MIC? Republicans took the House and as I said, if they feel they need minorities, they will work on that. They already have. They have the Log Cabin Republicans eg and Condi Rice. Are you saying that NO minority will ever vote Republican? Are you aware that Minorities are no different from anyone else and that some are pretty conservative, as are whites, on Fiscal issues, on social issues etc. How about SC Justice Thomas? Or Herman Caine? How about Jindal?
But it's not about this. What it's about is that NO ONE gets to the WH who will, eg, prosecute War Criminals. Seen any of that lately? Or who will, prosecute Wall St. Criminals, seen any major Wall St. Criminals prosecuted lately?
They don't care about minorities or gay rights one way or the other. Whatever works. They let the 'little people' fight over those things while they focus on making sure no one gets into a powerful position who might upset the status quo.
JI7
(89,174 posts)as for log cabin and condi rice they are a very small and insignificant number when it comes to republicans.
if nobody who wants to prosecute war criminals runs then it's not anyone else's fault. you talk about feingold a lot but id on't see him even getting into the race and i sure never heard him call for prosecution of bush cheney etc.
genwah
(574 posts)post and someone throws in a comment about a comment-er about nipples. This is something about Clinton and Hitler?
This place is really a bucket-o-crabs. We are taking fights from one thread to another on a personal basis, just to keep whatever potential action, and I repeat, ACTION may happen. Really, are we here to do something, ANYTHING to forward any common goal we may have, or are we a bucket-o-crabs?
Do we have any goals here? Do we want to accomplish anything in toe governance of these United States, or is this just a big circle-jerk?
I'll be posting something about this in about a week, because I have a lot of homework to do about this site.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)There used to be rules about bringing one thread into another, among other rules. We had moderators that would delete that stuff pretty quickly. Now we have the jury system, which is a total crapshoot. People now take their chances with the jury system, because now there's a chance it won't be hidden, whereas with moderators it most certainly would have been, so people were more civil. No longer.
genwah
(574 posts)WHAT THE FUCK WE'RE DOING HERE!!!
You go over to the Big Orange Giant and they say "we're here for more and better Democrats". I don't go there anymore, because "Redskins" is offensive as a football team name, but "chingchongchinaman" isn't offensive as one of their actual ' name.
But are we here for Democrats? Are we here to GOTV? I went to hte "Welcome & Help" and, yeah, nice description of HTML stuff, but are we here for action/activism or are we here to ignore 2014 and talk about Hillary in 2016? Or cat pictures?
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Many people are here for many reasons. It's not strictly an GOTV/activism site, although there is a lot of that. Most people here support Democrats but a good portion of people are further to the left and want Democrats to shift left. Many posters are not American (myself included) but are politically to the left. There is a lot of history on this board - I've been here for more than a decade and it was around for quite some time before that so you are going to get a lot of 'inside jokes' and old rivalries and so on. Like other message boards, my advice to you is to take what you need and leave the rest. General Discussion is a bit of a 'catch all' so maybe if you have a look at the other forums they might be more to your liking.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Few current DUers are involved in real world politics. That is clearly evident.
Julie
cali
(114,904 posts)but then again the real world of politics in Vermont is a different animal altogether from the dogshit of most U.S. politics.
thankfully.
Response to JNelson6563 (Reply #17)
Post removed
Egnever
(21,506 posts)you know nothing John Snow.
Jnelson has been here nearly since this boards creation you by comparison just barely showed up. But you go with your bad self spouting about who knows what about this board.
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)Cause your profile clearly states you joined in 2010
Meanwhile Jnelson joined in 2002.
So unless you were run off before and created a new account She has been here three times as long as you, not to mention a hell of a lot more active.
Response to Egnever (Reply #150)
Post removed
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Statistics and Information
Account status: Active
Member since: Sat Dec 18, 2010, 10:56 PM
Number of posts: 1,418
Number of posts, last 90 days: 125
Favorite forum: General Discussion, 104 posts in the last 90 days (83% of total posts)
Favorite group: Computer Help and Support, 7 posts in the last 90 days (6% of total posts)
Last post: Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:10 PM
So nearly 10% of your entire DU history in this 3.5 year old incarnation is in the last 90 days and of that the vast majority 83% are in GD yet you feel like you can tell someone else..
By comparison to the poster you are splainin to
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 26,149
Number of posts, last 90 days: 285
Favorite forum: General Discussion, 160 posts in the last 90 days (56% of total posts)
Favorite group: Atheists & Agnostics, 41 posts in the last 90 days (14% of total posts)
Your post was off the mark and you look foolish for suggesting someone who has clearly been way more active than you on this board by orders of magnitude A) knows less than you about what goes on here and B) should participate in places other than GD to really know whats going on here.
It makes me wonder why you were so sensitive to what she posted. Hit a little too close to the mark perhaps?
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)Your feigned outrage at having been summarily chastised for your "attack", rings a bit hollow.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Yes, years ago I used to post such things but it seemed like after the 04 primaries and susequent GE many fell away. I can't say I blame them. It can be rather frustrating to try and discuss politics from an in-the-trenches mindset with those who treat it more like an academic exercise.
Julie
.
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,485 posts)here originally to commiserate and attempt to set history straight over the stolen Bush/Gore election and the illegal invasion of Iraq. Since then we've gone off in all different directions. Welcome to DU-
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Or were you banned? I seem to remember one poster who was absolutely obsessed with one other poster with that user handle, and I thought the obsessed one got banned.
The reality is that many people on DK noted that that username was rather offensive, but that kos had made his 'arbitrary and capricious' (as he refers to his style of moderation) decision not to force the guy to change his name. And it's his private empire. Nothing anyone else could do can make him change his mind if he doesn't want to, so to cast aspersions on everybody who posts there because of a single decision kos made is the epitome of broad brushing.
And DK was also constantly fighting over whether the emphasis should be on 'more' or 'better' Dems. I stopped posting there a bit over 3 months ago after a particularly hate-filled rant that attacked anti-corporatists among others by one of the front pagers got massive support from the 'more' camp. Shortly thereafter, kos gave that rant his stamp of approval. So apparently management has decided that 'more Dems' is more important than 'better' Dems, which no doubt means that if she runs, Hillary has the DK endorsement in the bag.
Quixote1818
(28,903 posts)What happened to it? There have been a few times when I tried to alert on someone doing it then not finding the rule anymore and then ditching the alert because there was no way to point to what they did wrong. It's thrown me a couple of times.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)It was a good rule.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)prevention.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)anyone being able to note patterns or hypocrisies.
There are some who really don't like being reminded of their pasts. I am not one of them.
FSogol
(45,357 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)of course, the current is choppy anyway, thanks to both a coarser, more agressive breed of asshole, and the fact that powers that be now how to seed sites with people who act like grassroots folks, but who are paid operatives. If we had the old system, which I miss, they would undoubteldy harass the mods, accuse them of either takign cash payola or being operatives. It would still be an improvement on the Jury system, which certain mischeif makers play like a harp (especially when they want to drive feminists off this board and then brag about it.)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I would guess that the moderators were (or became) more informed than the average juror. That would only make sense.
Pick an issue - a POLICY issue you're interested in - something that is currently part of the legislative process, or something you want to be part of that process.
Read up on the subject. Go to the open government site and sign on to track bills related to your issue of interest.
Post information about your subject here from reputable sources, multiple ones, if possible, and activate your DU journal to serve as an archive for yourself to track how the issue has been presented, how it has fared, and what's next.
Try to avoid becoming associated with one group or another on various sides of an issue about what goes on at DU.
DU is not the world and what goes on here is only as valuable as you make it for yourself. If you get informed about issues here, that's useful. If you get caught up in various personality clashes - you'll be more "invested" in DU, but you won't be accomplishing much by your presence here and it will be more of a social site.
JI7
(89,174 posts)if you want to get involved in things join some local groups.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)for organizing nationally. A lot of what we've been doing locally has been fumbling around in the dark trying to figure things out on our own, and I doubt we're alone. We've also struggled to get locals to pay attention and become active. A truly organized Left would be much more useful than the collection of sporadic and disjoint groups we have. Ah well, maybe one day.
JI7
(89,174 posts)it would be much tougher nationally. also issues are not the same everywhere. local issues matter a lot in outcomes. you just need to stay with it and accept it's difficult. it's just how things are.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)the polls last year at least one person told me that one of the reasons why they were going to vote for my candidate was because DFA endorsed them. They had recently moved and didn't know much about the political scene, but a trustworthy organization helped them to distinguish who the good candidates are. On the other hand their are many new people in our city who aren't voting at all because they don't feel they know who the good candidates are (eh, many people who have lived here for years as well).
Hell, one of the main groups I've worked with is the local DFA, which is a national organization.
Likewise, a network of activists sharing tips and stories would be very useful. A lot of the time it takes me a while just to find a good way to approach a problem (seems true for those I work with as well); being able to bounce ideas and exchange stories with others out in the field would be great.
JI7
(89,174 posts)there are also things like emily's list. people who vote based on things like that will do that. but they still don't have everyone or even most people.
yes, you can do all of those things you mention but in the end it's just talking among yourselves. most of the work is getting out there and talking to people.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)you won't going door to door or standing on the corner. Honestly, we're not in any position to turn away any volunteers, and I don't see any reason why one shouldn't increase the numbers of volunteer or knowledge just because it's viewed as "talking among [ourselves]." "Getting out there and talking to people" is a lot of what activists do, but you usually aren't pulling in tons of volunteers as you go door to door (occasionally happens). If you want to have any effect, you have to find like minded people that are willing to sacrifice their Saturday afternoon to volunteer for cause/candidate X.
You first suggested that I seek out local groups, and as I mentioned, many of the ones that are active are tied to national groups. Isn't the fact that national groups have spurred and informed the groups you think are needed a sign that they are useful?
JI7
(89,174 posts)my point was that DU itself is not about activism. i find local groups to be more effective . but if you prefer national you can do that.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)nationally." Because we always need more volunteers, and we always need better ways to get the word out, and national groups have a visibility that local groups don't (and vice versa, to some extent). Some have attempted this and had limited success, but they remain fairly small. Progressive groups would benefit if the Left's net presence amounted to more than bar arguments.
JI7
(89,174 posts)and they will often have info for volunteers.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)if you know of sites as active as the political bar argument places where people are actually discussing/organizing activism (or hell, even a fraction as active), let me know, because I've been looking for one for some time.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)If you can't have things your own way and cannot compromise....that is often the reaction....
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I am quite content thanks for your concern....
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Apparently you dont know the definition of an ideologue. Dictionaries are our friends...and I have said I will vote for anyone who wins the Democratic Primary without caveats......thats not ideologue!
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)The only possible exception is that a few will get out and work for Das Party come election time but they're not really interested in getting up and actually DOING much about anything else. VERY few (maybe 5 or 6) actually became active with the Occupy movement and I salute those fine patriots but, for the most part, they don't want to hear about anyone else getting up and actually DOING something either. Call to Action threads die a quick death because they're too busy arguing about nipples and privilege. They feel that keeping themselves" informed" is activism. It's not, of course, but it makes them feel better.
I look forward to your post.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)By the way this is Democratic Underground not Occupy Underground
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Hillary Clinton is one like it or not.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)We can elect Democrats and not support H. Clinton.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)indication has HRC made to indicate that she supports the People vice Goldman-Sachs? Just because she is a Democrat doesnt mean she supports the People.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)who are accusing fellow Democrats of blindness? Ideologues thats who
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Maybe the conservative Dems will oblige but I doubt you'll get the liberals to oblige.
I dont care if all the Wall Street money is behind H. Clinton, I do not think she will support THE PEOPLE over Wall Street and Goldman-Sachs.
Take a chance for freedoms and liberties, dump H. Clinton and the oligarch status quo. Make our founders proud.
treestar
(82,383 posts)by the Democratic party, you won't expect us to support her?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I was a supporter even before PBO....
G_j
(40,366 posts)that says we must support the "front runner".
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)G_j
(40,366 posts)pacalo
(24,721 posts)but any researching you do about the cause & effect of the infighting will, unfortunately, be missing the genesis of the down-&-dirty divisive tactics we're seeing now.
A couple of years ago we had a Meta forum, where members could vent their frustrations about whatever was bugging them about DU. Because it turned into a huge daily routine of infighting, call-outs, punitive alerting, etc., the administrators shut it down after one year & scrubbed all the archived posts along with it. It was that ugly.
Now the GD forum has evolved into the old Meta forum because some people cannot seem to quell their appetite for the "gotcha" tactics which were developed in the old no-holds-barred arena.
A belated welcome to DU, genwah.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)Hekate
(90,189 posts)My feelings are not mixed. She took a deep dive into a sewer with that last post -- and kept vigorously defending it with statements on the order of "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Yeah, that will show somebody, something....
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)But that is not the point. The point is, it's the principle of the thing. And I'm sure that's why LA posted it and took the hide too.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It is a fact that the Clintons play with The Family. The facts regarding this group may be in dispute, that is what a discussion is good for: getting at the fact.
cali
(114,904 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)i can work a lot better, but not if one thinks that it was created perfectly and only needs one minor change every 2 years to function properly.
QC
(26,371 posts)someone they don't like, rather than a means of keeping our community together by maintaining some basic level of civility.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Sigh...
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)There have been long, detailed, highly recommended postings over on Daily Kos in the past exposing 'The Family', and noting the Clinton connection as well as the many, many other politicians (mostly Republicans) who buy into their Dominionist power push. So over here bringing that up gets you hidden and timed out? Just sad.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)I mostly stick to my specific interests, where the sane have congregated.
Response to Demeter (Reply #31)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Everything about "placing" a person in the context of their position in society seems VERRRRRRRY INTERESTING in the light of the level of domestic dragnet surveillance and the interest in analyzing all that data....
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/04/04/490211/-Hillary-Clinton-member-of-cell-church-run-by-The-Family
The Pastors develop a hierarchy clergy and lay leaders into an organization which can be drawn on a chart called a "Meta-Map". "Skillful use of a Meta-Map helps staff and boards understand how their churches are configured so they can track such critical important factors as where leaders and potential leaders are, where new people are, how visitors are being handled, and where long-term members are relative to more recent members. A Meta-Map enables leaders to see what happens after everyone has gathered for corporate worship: Where do they go? What tasks to they take with them? What stations in life are they occupying?...Every visual symbol on a Meta-Map represents a leader to be supervised, a training site for producing an apprentice...) (Carl F. George, "The Coming Church Revolution", p. 246) Far from being loosely organized and under the direction of the Holy Spirit, cell groups are tightly controlled within the church hierarchy.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Why not throw in Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, and Darth Vader?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)or other Family members voicing their admiration for the actions or tactics of Khan, Ivan, or Vader?
Your inference that Hillary 'reveres' Hitler, Mao and Stalin is your own.
The reality is what the poster *actually* posted. That she has aligned herself with a group whose leader does say such things.
Kaleva
(36,146 posts)"And yes they openly revere Hitler, Mao and Stalin. And they are a huge supporter of dictators in African countries that hunt down, prosecute, and kill LGBTQ human beings and those that support them."
"They" being the members of the Family of which Hillary is one.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)'not all men' thing again, where everyone has to explicitly note that any inclusive word can indeed have exceptions?
Newsflash - not all members of ANY group actually hold the exact same beliefs on every issue for which a general belief is identified for the group as a whole.
That applies to Democrats, to Republicans, to men, to women, to young people, to old people, and yes, to 'The Family'.
Kaleva
(36,146 posts)Here is your comment:
" The reality is what the poster *actually* posted. That she has aligned herself with a group whose leader does say such things."
But this is what the poster actually said:
"And yes they openly revere Hitler, Mao and Stalin. And they are a huge supporter of dictators in African countries that hunt down, prosecute, and kill LGBTQ human beings and those that support them."
You say it's just one member of the Family, the leader, who has expressed such views. Reading the members post, one concludes that Hillary, as a long time member of the Family, also supports such views.
In the end, I think the jury voted correctly and it was good hide.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)read articles in which his admiration for such was specifically mentioned. I'm pretty sure I've seen that same admiration ascribed to more than just the leader, but since I wasn't absolutely certain, I hedged by mentioning him specifically.
But I would bet that he's not alone in such admiration, since most of the members of the Family are hard core right wing authoritarian theocrat types.
There are a lot of members of The Family. So yeah, I'm pretty sure you could say 'they' and refer to many, or even most of them without having specifically noted that any one regular member (such as Hillary) holds those views.
So if you want to nitpick like that, you're actually only nitpicking my specifically mentioning Coe, not the OP's use of broader brush to describe the group while allowing for the possibility that there are a few members who might disagree specifically with that admiration (while still agreeing with the Dominionist goals of the group.)
Kaleva
(36,146 posts)She could have done so by using "many", "several", "a few", "most" instead of the all inclusive "they".
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Do you think she's gullible enough to do that without knowing their ideology?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)absolutely mean spirited some posters are. Go outside, people. Enjoy this one time you have on planet Earth. Going through life bitter and cynical is no way to live.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)Hillary. However, jury decisions are based on the view that whoever performs that duty randomly represents the DU community, and it should in the long term represent community standards. There will be decisions we won't always agree with, but it isn't a bad system, and if one thinks about it, the entire DU community becomes part of the process
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)or alert, becuase the system is actually quite broken and stinky to hell
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Her/him seems to be so mean spirited and bitter. The posters transparency page is hideous.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)Every thing she said was factual and the one arguing with her even acknowledged he didn't know a damn thing about "The Family" but that her claims were a canard and old news...
How can you both claim you know NOTHING but claim to know the truth? ...wait...REPUBLICANS do that all the time...
YOU WILL KNOW THEM BY THEIR WORDS AND DEEDS...
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I got a threatening DUmail, alerted admin twice, and nothing. not a word. And this mail was by someone who has threatened another DUer in the past but still is a member to do it again. I could put it in ATA, but the few posts there I have had in the last few months get ignored because Skinner and I had words about the ToS and sexism on DU. I could put it in GD or maybe Welcome and Help, but then I'd be Whining About DU and get locked.
All because I supposedly referred to 'street justice' compared to a DU jury. When a jury doesn't hide something here on DU, there are other ways to get 'street justice', like remind people of certain infamous posts. But some took it as a real life threat from me (no they didn't really but it was a good opportunity to make shit up) and ignored the context, so then I get a lock and a real threat in the mail.
Heh.
You want to try some street justice with me, tuffie? Name the place and time.
la dee dah
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)There are frequent disagreements about how to interpret this as personal biases come into play with some hosts.
It's all a coin flip but most hosts do really mean well and try hard, it just takes a couple/few with their own agendas to taint the whole system.
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)We don't punish the people who who post RW talking points, only the people that point out that they're RW talking points.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It is that simple. I will not cast a primary vote for another member of an anti gay religious outfit, Obama was the last and I will never do it again. LA was correct about the Family and the Ugandan pogroms. I assume those who voted to hide favor hunting gay people in the streets.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)??
Did Hillary ever admit that she was part of this group? I mean solid, heavy evidence that she is a more than a yearly prayer meeting kind of member?
Scarey freaking shit... way worse than I first thought what these people are about.
People are way wrong to take this as tin foil conspiracy, this is obviously a real and horrible influence and the easiest way for these filths of humanity to hide is to use the conspiracy nut card.
Nay
(12,051 posts)hidden the fact. In those other threads, some DUers (including myself) tried to discuss this fact, but other posters kept making disingenuous statements about how we were attacking her religion, and by extension, the religion of every DUer. Nice sleight of hand, but it shouldn't have worked with any thinking DUer.
Hillary has been a Methodist all her life. That's fine. The question is: why the hell has she been in a prayer group at The Family for the last 15 years? How does a mainstream Methodist democrat feel comfortable in a Republican group that espouses those Ugandan horrors? That espouses the subservience of women in The Family's house in DC? That believes in Dominionism (the replacement of secular law with Biblical law)?
Unless Hillary has just been a spy all these years, I can't see what she gets out of meeting with these monsters. It's perplexing and, frankly, worrisome.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)But my gawd, this is some unbelievable stuff - if people support this kind of person I can clearly see why the world is so fucked up as it is.
Dominionism! And she is supposedly such a great feminist working for women and children.
I am floored. The more I learn about this person the more disgusted I get.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Hillary Clinton has been active with Family prayer groups since she was First Lady. In her memoir, Living History, Clinton described The Family leader Doug Coe as a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.
When the anti-gay legislation was first introduced in Uganda, the New York Times wrote, You cant preach hate and not accept responsibility for the way that hate is manifested. American political figures who have proudly associated with The Family and with Rick Warren are culpable as well. They cannot feign ignorance at the end of a journey that was ugly all along.
Ugandas anti-gay law is not just an international disgrace. It is an American disgrace. And the American religious and political figures who played a role in spreading vicious homophobia in Uganda, whether actively or by turning a blind eye, should do more than just denounce the countrys law. They should denounce their own role in facilitating it.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/25/obama-the-family-and-uganda-s-anti-gay-christian-mafia.html
Whisp
(24,096 posts)have a surprise question thrown about what she thought of Coe from out of the blue. *Which she is lousy at handling, btw.
If it was real time recorded, I can see a politician using those kinds of words - not necessarily meaning them but not wanting to tell the truth and start some boiling fracas. That's done all the time, handshakes and hugs with war criminals like Kissinger, it's ugly to look at but expecting someone to land a punch instead of an extended hand to shake is a bit much to ask for.
But if it is in her memoirs it is a voluntary comment without pressure and with considerable thought, so this must be what she really means. She was not forced to reply dishonestly, she was not put in some sort of spot and say something that could be misunderstood.
This is what she truly believes. She thinks very highly of a very sick fuck.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)I must be doing something wrong
randome
(34,845 posts)Be grateful you're not so inclined.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)Here's an excellent interview Amy Goodman did with Jeff Sharlet.
A secretive group known as The Fellowship, or "The Family," is one of the most powerful Christian fundamentalist movements in the United States. The Familys devoted membership includes congressmen, corporate leaders, generals and foreign heads of state. Author Jeff Sharlet profiles the group in his book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/12/sharlet
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Happened around 2008, IMO.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)created warring tribes and malicious vendettas. We used to see fantastic discussions on the issues. Now, not so much.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)exist with the moderators? Maybe to a lesser extent. Let's just say I've seen some former mods in action (guns, homosexuality), and I'm not *impressed.*
I'm generally OK with the jury system ("you take your chances" , but it's the dumbing-down (e.g., Swift baby-eating reference hidden), and personal attacks against anyone who dares criticize Obama (e.g., Belafonte/syphilis, Ellsberg/senility, Greenwald/GiGi, and Snowden/epilepsy) that have truly diminished this site. That cartoon hide was absurd... a sanitized DU is not a good thing, and there are too many itchy alert fingers.
And DU at one time felt activist; now, not at all.
QC
(26,371 posts)that there were some serious problems with the old moderator system--and more than a few of the old moderators--but in some ways that system worked better than the new one. There were some consistent rules, whereas now "community standards" permit anything that four random people, any or all of whom might be cave dwellers, are willing to permit.
The dumbing down/meaning up you point to has to do with a change in the membership that happened during the 2007-2008 primary season. A lot of new people joined in a short time, and they could not be bothered to learn the culture of DU and apparently the admins and moderators could not be bothered to teach them. These new members spent most of their time running in packs dispensing trite insults (You just want a pony! You are obvious very concerned! Bitter much!), giggling at dreamy pinup photos of politicians, and setting up celebration threads when they got longtime members banned. They were allowed to stalk and bully and attack other DUers with absolute impunity, and soon enough, quite a few of them became moderators.
This is how the more activist and informed DU ended. I don't see any way to go back, either. The jury system certainly isn't the answer, but neither is a moderator pool full of people who learned their DU chops accusing the LGBT members here of being bitter pony-demanders.
7
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)You've summed it up quite well.
thank you!!!!!!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And lied knows some if is have lived through harness tempt as well
zappaman
(20,605 posts)theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)We lost a lot of good LGBT DUers who never came back. No one has to put up with that crap but it became apparent to me the other day that mocking LGBTs is still considered fine sport here. Just warming up for the primaries, I guess. The same thing happened the previous election cycle.
QC
(26,371 posts)That's also when the level of civility here fell into the basement.
Interesting.
Skittles
(152,964 posts)the hypocrites can stop embarrassing themselves and DU
G_j
(40,366 posts)mike_c
(36,214 posts)The biggest problem with the jury system is that if you can offend four people on a jury, a post gets hidden whether it's factual or not, or whether it's otherwise a useful post for discussion or not. Add lingering antipathies between posters and jury members and the system is ripe for abuse.
For the record, I don't think that hide was justified, period. Discussing posts like LA's is exactly what DU should be about.
JEB
(4,748 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)It seems this site has gone into total denial about a best selling book whose author appeared on Rachel's show, NBC, and many other credible sites.
I can see why people get frustrated at this and perhaps post too emotionally. Trust me I am tempted right now as I have the book, have read it....took forever. It's called The Family.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)For some reason, a number of DUers don't like to see information about the traitors, fascists, crooks, gangsters, banksters, warmongers and war profiteers running America and the planet to hell get brought up. So, they work to get such posts hidden and the posters who make them banned. They are most un-democratic.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)and so I posted this....would like a rec if possible.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025106628
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Luminous Animal is a good DUer. From 2006, the "fuss" is more than just separation of church and state:
Know your BFEE: The Fellowship Preys for America
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)I forget that many here do not realize the depths of discussions on this in 2008 and 2009.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Part of an ugly pattern of hides by the resident Third Way thought police and propaganda team.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)hmmm.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)from another uninformed Jury. The New and improved DU...
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)the 20% that was taken away as a result.
Am I the only one to this think this is weird ... ?
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I am going to retroactively Rec LA's Thread.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)zappaman
(20,605 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)So now we get hides if we post the truth?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025106628
Iggo
(47,487 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Both.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)...and course the jury system needs 4 people to hide. So that means there would have to be at least 4 authoritarian censors on a given jury.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)One gets invited to join such groups.
As for gaming the jury pool, I have a good idea about how to do that, but I keep information that can hurt innocent people to myself.
treestar
(82,383 posts)by a jury - constitutes authoritarian censorship?
MH1
(17,537 posts)I have no idea whether I like that poster or not, but out of curiosity I clicked their transparency page.
Since when did it become offensive to post on a LIBERAL message board that state execution is murder? Or was it that easy to find 4 people here who don't recognize the "generalized you" when they see it.
I think the Family thread may have been over the top, but take away the invective and assumption of evil, and it might be a worthy topic of discussion.
Still smh over the execution hide, though.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)But that is not what she posted.
Full disclosure...LA haven't gotten along ever since she accused me of plagarizing my own post. Yes...that happened.
flamingdem
(39,304 posts)sound like a troll. Most of us know where to draw the line.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)William769
(55,124 posts)JI7
(89,174 posts)William769
(55,124 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)That's one who said we were all "homophobic if we used GG to refer to Greenwald" while they had done it back in the day of META. It's was quoted in that thread.
More than a bit Hypocritical.... and dumb in the first place.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)is such a change from the DU that used to be.
It was never easy here, there was always great disagreement all the time.....but posts like this one would not remain.
I think we need the old "calling out" rule again.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Don't know what they are trying to prove, but they surely are getting away with it. It's what I call "gotcha" stuff....trying to catch someone doing or saying something or other proving nothing.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)we are hiding facts now on DU? The Family was covered extensively by Rachel Maddow a few years ago in which she uncovered most of what was stated in that OP.
Is Rachel under the bus also?
Response to Electric Monk (Original post)
Tarheel_Dem This message was self-deleted by its author.