Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
182 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Well, I guess we won't be seeing Luminous Animal here for awhile... (Original Post) Electric Monk Jun 2014 OP
Do not touch Golden Calfs. Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #1
if she really feels that way why would she come on a board that supports Democrats JI7 Jun 2014 #2
Because "support" is not "worship". jeff47 Jun 2014 #5
the stuff she posted about hitler isn't what i would consider just questioning JI7 Jun 2014 #6
Well, it's technically factual. jeff47 Jun 2014 #9
so did she post it because she thinks Hillary is like Hitler ? JI7 Jun 2014 #10
I have no idea what she things. I'm not in her head. jeff47 Jun 2014 #11
Questioning is one thing but that thread treestar Jun 2014 #84
Whether or not it was greatly depends on your opinion of Clinton jeff47 Jun 2014 #96
Because she's a Democrat who doesn't think the presidency is something anyone has a 'right' to. sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #128
yet you just claimed how everythign is corrupt in another thread , seriously, if i felt that way i JI7 Jun 2014 #129
Post a link to where I said 'everything is corrupt'. Thank you! n/t sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #132
where you claimed people were prevented from voting for feingold JI7 Jun 2014 #133
You mean where I stated a fact. That money controls politics in this country. Ever hear of sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #134
so why doesn't it help republicans get black, hispanic, gay votes ? JI7 Jun 2014 #136
It helps Republicans get the votes they need. As someone pointed out earlier very correctly, sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #138
Feingold eliminated himself by support Obama and Hillary instead of running JI7 Jun 2014 #139
Do you need an explanation regarding why Repubs don't get minority votes? sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #143
Romney lost the election, if it was just about money California would be dominated by Republicans JI7 Jun 2014 #147
Sigh. You just don't get it, it seems. Who cares if Ca is dominated by Dems, what are they DOING sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #158
huh ? CAlifornia like all states have senators and congress members JI7 Jun 2014 #161
I don't understand this place at all. I'm reading comments on a political genwah Jun 2014 #3
It didn't used to be like this laundry_queen Jun 2014 #4
Thank you! That's a great starting point for me. But I'm still wondering genwah Jun 2014 #7
Well. laundry_queen Jun 2014 #12
both parties have ideologues... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #55
101st Chairborne HQ. JNelson6563 Jun 2014 #17
I have been. cali Jun 2014 #26
Post removed Post removed Jun 2014 #140
LOL Egnever Jun 2014 #148
Actually that just shows you know nothing of who I am and how long I have really been here. Drew Richards Jun 2014 #149
Oh so this is incarnation number what for you? Egnever Jun 2014 #150
Post removed Post removed Jun 2014 #153
Sadly your post runs counter to the reality that is your history. Egnever Jun 2014 #156
I see comprehension is not your strong point I forgive your short comings. Drew Richards Jun 2014 #159
You should re-read your post to JNelson, and tell us again who's on the "attack". Tarheel_Dem Jun 2014 #169
You are correct. Here is the proof ... Scuba Jun 2014 #176
Yes, years ago I used to post such things. JNelson6563 Jun 2014 #177
We are (or were) Dyedinthewoolliberal Jun 2014 #45
You sure you don't go there anymore because of that? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #131
I liked the rule about not bringing one thread into another Quixote1818 Jun 2014 #13
I've done the same thing. laundry_queen Jun 2014 #14
Why???? Reminding other posters of what an OP claimed in the past is great troll msanthrope Jun 2014 #24
That rule allowed trolls like "You Better Believe It" to post the same crap over and over, without msanthrope Jun 2014 #23
Agreed. n/t FSogol Jun 2014 #34
+1. And let's not forget the infamous "emilyg" who trolled for years. Tarheel_Dem Jun 2014 #170
agreed DonCoquixote Jun 2014 #21
in a very large sense hfojvt Jun 2014 #64
my advice RainDog Jun 2014 #16
DU isn't really a place for activism JI7 Jun 2014 #18
There are some pretty good local groups, but it's a shame that the internet isn't really being used Chathamization Jun 2014 #141
you just need to work at it, if you find it difficult at the local level JI7 Jun 2014 #145
A national organization can be useful at the local level though. For instance, when I was working Chathamization Jun 2014 #151
but not everyone follows those groups JI7 Jun 2014 #160
That's somewhat odd reasoning. Of course you won't reach everyone in any particular group, just as Chathamization Jun 2014 #162
you can paticipate, volunteer, join whatever you want JI7 Jun 2014 #163
And my point, as I said, is "it's a shame that the internet isn't really being used for organizing Chathamization Jun 2014 #167
the internet is used in that way, you can go to websites for certain causes, candidates JI7 Jun 2014 #168
And as I said, "Some have attempted this and had limited success, but they remain fairly small." But Chathamization Jun 2014 #175
I stopped taking DU seriously long ago Katashi_itto Jun 2014 #20
we've noticed.....seems to be a few that also do... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #56
Lol! from you that is to funny Katashi_itto Jun 2014 #100
Why..... what I wanted I got....no sour grapes here... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #101
True, an authoritarian state. Katashi_itto Jun 2014 #114
a more perfect example of ideologue I have never seen! VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #127
You are that, I agree Katashi_itto Jun 2014 #172
oh the Pee Wee Herman response "I know you are but what am I"? VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #174
DU is mostly made up of keyboard warriors. Le Taz Hot Jun 2014 #44
and you know this how? VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #57
yes the stated goal is obstensively to elect more democrats and last i checked VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #54
And who is talking about not electing more DEmocrats? STRAWMAN alert. rhett o rick Jun 2014 #66
who are trashing the front runner who IS Democrat? Ideologues thats who! VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #67
So we are to blindly support the "front runner"? That's not very DEmocratic. What rhett o rick Jun 2014 #68
and VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #70
Blind support. You want us all to follow you and treat H. Clinton as the chosen one. rhett o rick Jun 2014 #104
If Elizabeth decides to run and is nominated treestar Jun 2014 #154
who said anything about blindly except you? VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #102
there is nothing G_j Jun 2014 #98
there is nothing that says you HAVE to trash her like a Freeper would either! VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #103
No kidding? G_j Jun 2014 #105
You're fairly new here, genway... pacalo Jun 2014 #157
You better believe it!!! N/t zappaman Jun 2014 #8
Well, I followed the links and it looks like someone needs a long time-out in the corner Hekate Jun 2014 #15
Thanks for telling me, so I could rec her post. Waiting For Everyman Jun 2014 #19
What's the point? Bobbie Jo Jun 2014 #22
Yep, apparently it did. Waiting For Everyman Jun 2014 #97
Why the heck did a jury hide that? Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #25
I don't get that either. cali Jun 2014 #27
i agree. nt m-lekktor Jun 2014 #29
because the jury system doesn't work a significant period of the time CreekDog Jun 2014 #42
Because too many view jury duty as an opportunity to fuck over QC Jun 2014 #58
When Facts... Are Also Unpleasant Truths... Watch The Hell Out !!! WillyT Jun 2014 #69
That's sad. That IS what 'The Family' believe. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #28
There are no adults in charge, anymore Demeter Jun 2014 #31
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2014 #110
Damn, this story from 2008 seems strangely relevant to my pet issue.... Pholus Jun 2014 #32
Suggesting that Hillary "reveres Hitler, Mao and Stalin"? Nye Bevan Jun 2014 #30
Because there are no documented instances of Coe Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #33
No. Poster said "they" which thus includes Hillary Kaleva Jun 2014 #36
Ah, so now we're back to the Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #41
But you said the poster had only mentioned the leader. Kaleva Jun 2014 #89
I mentioned Coe specifically because I know I've Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #90
However, poster didn't make an allowance for possible exceptions. Kaleva Jun 2014 #111
Hillary chose to join this group, and stayed with them for at least 15 years. Maedhros Jun 2014 #88
Jeez, those hides are pathetic. I didn't realize how JaneyVee Jun 2014 #35
Yes, the hides are inappropriate, but the post that initiated the hide is extreme hyperbole about lostincalifornia Jun 2014 #76
That is why many of us do not play juries nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #80
Oh, I was referring to the suspended poster. JaneyVee Jun 2014 #81
+1...nt SidDithers Jun 2014 #180
That is a bullshit whiney Hide by babies that can't handle the truth...very UN-Democratic of them. Drew Richards Jun 2014 #37
The jury system is a pathetic joke and so is the alert system to admin. Whisp Jun 2014 #48
but dont we still have forum moderators? I thought they still had some power over the groups? Drew Richards Jun 2014 #49
Hosts can only lock posts if the posts do not meet the Statement of Purpose of said forum. Whisp Jun 2014 #50
Unfortunate :( Drew Richards Jun 2014 #137
But this is contrary to DU's SOP. baldguy Jun 2014 #38
If her supporters refuse to discuss the Family and Uganda then forget about Clinton Bluenorthwest Jun 2014 #39
Even Rachel Maddow reported on the Family Oilwellian Jun 2014 #40
Rachel didn't mention Hillary, the book must have included that... Whisp Jun 2014 #52
Hillary has been a member since Bill was in the WH. She has never Nay Jun 2014 #62
I didn't need to know this about her to know that she should not be near the WH. Whisp Jun 2014 #65
Hillary reveres Doug Coe in her own book Oilwellian Jun 2014 #71
It makes quite the difference to have written that in a memoir than to Whisp Jun 2014 #73
11+ years here, and I've never been put on hiatus... Blue_Tires Jun 2014 #43
It's self-immolation for some. randome Jun 2014 #82
Stupid hide. octoberlib Jun 2014 #46
Agree. New DU doesn't seem as informed as Old DU. WorseBeforeBetter Jun 2014 #47
The jury system Oilwellian Jun 2014 #51
Didn't those same wars and vendettas... WorseBeforeBetter Jun 2014 #60
As a survivor of The Great 2009 Homopurge, I know well QC Jun 2014 #75
I'd rec your post if I could. WorseBeforeBetter Jun 2014 #95
///REC\\\\ G_j Jun 2014 #107
Yup nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #125
Could not have said it better! n/t zappaman Jun 2014 #126
That was a nightmare and shameful time at DU theHandpuppet Jun 2014 #173
You're right about the date. QC Jun 2014 #59
yup, and it will end in 2017 Skittles Jun 2014 #165
agreed, and I thought this one was even stupider G_j Jun 2014 #99
the jury system has encouraged extreme partisanship and petty retribution.... mike_c Jun 2014 #53
The "Family" deserves all the exposure possible. JEB Jun 2014 #61
There is an unkindness about this post. madfloridian Jun 2014 #63
+ Infinity Octafish Jun 2014 #74
Correct... madfloridian Jun 2014 #77
Rotten shame, too. Octafish Jun 2014 #72
Yes, she is. She posted out of frustration at the denial. madfloridian Jun 2014 #79
+10000000 woo me with science Jun 2014 #112
and notice who is defending the hide on this thread bobduca Jun 2014 #135
Another stupid hide nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #78
Rec because of MadFloridian's OP. I think this is weird and LA's OP should be unhidden and restore Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2014 #83
I agree I just dedicated my post to Luminous Animal and told her so. madfloridian Jun 2014 #86
That is generous and kind of you, madfloridian. I stand with you on this. I will K&R your thread and Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2014 #87
No...I agree with you and many others do, also. KoKo Jun 2014 #92
Good hide. n/t zappaman Jun 2014 #85
I bet she appreciates your calling attention to it so loudly. madfloridian Jun 2014 #91
Meta! Iggo Jun 2014 #93
Blatant authoritarian censorship. Is this discussion of "The Family" hitting too close to home? n Zorra Jun 2014 #94
Who do you think is behind this kind of 'blatant authoritarian censorship'? Cali_Democrat Jun 2014 #106
Conservative authoritarians, of course. Probably Third Way party supporters. nt Zorra Jun 2014 #108
Volunteers and Employees... Octafish Jun 2014 #109
How does one become an authoritarian employee who censors posts on boards like DU? Cali_Democrat Jun 2014 #113
You forgot the alerter. Zorra Jun 2014 #115
I'll PM you a link to the DLCNSAFBI recruitment center. You get paid by the Bilderbergers, though. msanthrope Jun 2014 #117
That's tinfoil conspiracy hooey. Goldman-Sachs pays the bills. Zorra Jun 2014 #119
Goldman-Sachs is merely the front. You couldn't handle the truth! nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #120
Could it be... Zorra Jun 2014 #124
FWIU: It's not an assignment to which one applies. Octafish Jun 2014 #123
Mere hides on DU treestar Jun 2014 #155
Well I can see the Family hide (maybe) but one of their other hides was BULLSHIT. MH1 Jun 2014 #116
I think if she had posted merely that state execution was murder, it would not have been hidden. msanthrope Jun 2014 #118
There are ways to communicate and there are ways to flamingdem Jun 2014 #121
Quite Telling HangOnKids Jun 2014 #179
Too bad. He or she rocks. Vattel Jun 2014 #122
With the PM'S I received from that person last night, thats a good thing. nt William769 Jun 2014 #130
were they angry ? JI7 Jun 2014 #142
Let's just say they weren't full of rainbows & glitter. William769 Jun 2014 #144
Post them. joshcryer Jun 2014 #166
... In_The_Wind Jun 2014 #181
.. Cha Jun 2014 #164
That a post like this stands, a ridicule post so to speak.... madfloridian Jun 2014 #146
DUers posting threads about other DUers just seems...small. We're all adults here. (I think.) randome Jun 2014 #178
Someone here makes it a habit to dig up old posts of mine to post. madfloridian Jun 2014 #182
Was there something incorrect about that OP that got hidden? I fail to see why sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #152
This message was self-deleted by its author Tarheel_Dem Jun 2014 #171

JI7

(89,174 posts)
2. if she really feels that way why would she come on a board that supports Democrats
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:25 AM
Jun 2014

and would support Hillary Clinton ?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
9. Well, it's technically factual.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 02:09 AM
Jun 2014

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)
10. so did she post it because she thinks Hillary is like Hitler ?
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 02:13 AM
Jun 2014

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)
11. I have no idea what she things. I'm not in her head.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 02:14 AM
Jun 2014

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.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
96. Whether or not it was greatly depends on your opinion of Clinton
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 04:42 PM
Jun 2014

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)
128. Because she's a Democrat who doesn't think the presidency is something anyone has a 'right' to.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 09:32 PM
Jun 2014

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)
129. yet you just claimed how everythign is corrupt in another thread , seriously, if i felt that way i
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 09:38 PM
Jun 2014

would not be a democrat.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
134. You mean where I stated a fact. That money controls politics in this country. Ever hear of
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 09:46 PM
Jun 2014

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.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
138. It helps Republicans get the votes they need. As someone pointed out earlier very correctly,
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 09:59 PM
Jun 2014

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)
139. Feingold eliminated himself by support Obama and Hillary instead of running
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:04 PM
Jun 2014

and that still doesn't explain why republicans can't get black hispanic and gay support.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
143. Do you need an explanation regarding why Repubs don't get minority votes?
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:19 PM
Jun 2014

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)
147. Romney lost the election, if it was just about money California would be dominated by Republicans
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:24 PM
Jun 2014

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)
158. Sigh. You just don't get it, it seems. Who cares if Ca is dominated by Dems, what are they DOING
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:21 PM
Jun 2014

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)
161. huh ? CAlifornia like all states have senators and congress members
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:36 PM
Jun 2014

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)
3. I don't understand this place at all. I'm reading comments on a political
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:50 AM
Jun 2014

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)
4. It didn't used to be like this
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:55 AM
Jun 2014

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)
7. Thank you! That's a great starting point for me. But I'm still wondering
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 02:05 AM
Jun 2014

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)
12. Well.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 02:17 AM
Jun 2014

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.

JNelson6563

(28,151 posts)
17. 101st Chairborne HQ.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 03:36 AM
Jun 2014

Few current DUers are involved in real world politics. That is clearly evident.

Julie

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
26. I have been.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 07:56 AM
Jun 2014

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)

 

Egnever

(21,506 posts)
148. LOL
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:26 PM
Jun 2014

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.

 

Egnever

(21,506 posts)
150. Oh so this is incarnation number what for you?
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:32 PM
Jun 2014

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)

 

Egnever

(21,506 posts)
156. Sadly your post runs counter to the reality that is your history.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:10 PM
Jun 2014
About Drew Richards

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..

Maybe you should try a different forum than GD


By comparison to the poster you are splainin to

Account status: Active
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?

Tarheel_Dem

(31,207 posts)
169. You should re-read your post to JNelson, and tell us again who's on the "attack".
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 12:42 AM
Jun 2014

Your feigned outrage at having been summarily chastised for your "attack", rings a bit hollow.

JNelson6563

(28,151 posts)
177. Yes, years ago I used to post such things.
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 08:56 AM
Jun 2014

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)
45. We are (or were)
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:15 AM
Jun 2014

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)
131. You sure you don't go there anymore because of that?
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 09:40 PM
Jun 2014

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)
13. I liked the rule about not bringing one thread into another
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 02:43 AM
Jun 2014

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.
 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
23. That rule allowed trolls like "You Better Believe It" to post the same crap over and over, without
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 07:47 AM
Jun 2014

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.

DonCoquixote

(13,615 posts)
21. agreed
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 06:08 AM
Jun 2014

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)
64. in a very large sense
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 12:18 PM
Jun 2014

I would guess that the moderators were (or became) more informed than the average juror. That would only make sense.

RainDog

(28,784 posts)
16. my advice
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 03:13 AM
Jun 2014

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)
18. DU isn't really a place for activism
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 03:38 AM
Jun 2014

if you want to get involved in things join some local groups.

Chathamization

(1,638 posts)
141. There are some pretty good local groups, but it's a shame that the internet isn't really being used
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:17 PM
Jun 2014

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)
145. you just need to work at it, if you find it difficult at the local level
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:21 PM
Jun 2014

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)
151. A national organization can be useful at the local level though. For instance, when I was working
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:35 PM
Jun 2014

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)
160. but not everyone follows those groups
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:32 PM
Jun 2014

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)
162. That's somewhat odd reasoning. Of course you won't reach everyone in any particular group, just as
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:59 PM
Jun 2014

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)
163. you can paticipate, volunteer, join whatever you want
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 12:01 AM
Jun 2014

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)
167. And my point, as I said, is "it's a shame that the internet isn't really being used for organizing
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 12:21 AM
Jun 2014

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)
168. the internet is used in that way, you can go to websites for certain causes, candidates
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 12:28 AM
Jun 2014

and they will often have info for volunteers.

Chathamization

(1,638 posts)
175. And as I said, "Some have attempted this and had limited success, but they remain fairly small." But
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 07:11 AM
Jun 2014

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.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
56. we've noticed.....seems to be a few that also do...
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:30 AM
Jun 2014

If you can't have things your own way and cannot compromise....that is often the reaction....

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
174. oh the Pee Wee Herman response "I know you are but what am I"?
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 06:48 AM
Jun 2014

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)
44. DU is mostly made up of keyboard warriors.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:09 AM
Jun 2014

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)
54. yes the stated goal is obstensively to elect more democrats and last i checked
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:25 AM
Jun 2014

Hillary Clinton is one like it or not.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
66. And who is talking about not electing more DEmocrats? STRAWMAN alert.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:11 PM
Jun 2014

We can elect Democrats and not support H. Clinton.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
68. So we are to blindly support the "front runner"? That's not very DEmocratic. What
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:20 PM
Jun 2014

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.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
104. Blind support. You want us all to follow you and treat H. Clinton as the chosen one.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 06:31 PM
Jun 2014

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)
154. If Elizabeth decides to run and is nominated
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:03 PM
Jun 2014

by the Democratic party, you won't expect us to support her?

pacalo

(24,721 posts)
157. You're fairly new here, genway...
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:16 PM
Jun 2014

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.

Hekate

(90,189 posts)
15. Well, I followed the links and it looks like someone needs a long time-out in the corner
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 03:12 AM
Jun 2014

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)
97. Yep, apparently it did.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 05:00 PM
Jun 2014

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)
25. Why the heck did a jury hide that?
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 07:52 AM
Jun 2014

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.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
42. because the jury system doesn't work a significant period of the time
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 09:40 AM
Jun 2014

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)
58. Because too many view jury duty as an opportunity to fuck over
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:37 AM
Jun 2014

someone they don't like, rather than a means of keeping our community together by maintaining some basic level of civility.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
28. That's sad. That IS what 'The Family' believe.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 08:11 AM
Jun 2014

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)
31. There are no adults in charge, anymore
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 08:28 AM
Jun 2014

I mostly stick to my specific interests, where the sane have congregated.

Response to Demeter (Reply #31)

Pholus

(4,062 posts)
32. Damn, this story from 2008 seems strangely relevant to my pet issue....
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 08:32 AM
Jun 2014

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)
30. Suggesting that Hillary "reveres Hitler, Mao and Stalin"?
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 08:21 AM
Jun 2014

Why not throw in Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, and Darth Vader?

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
33. Because there are no documented instances of Coe
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 08:32 AM
Jun 2014

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)
36. No. Poster said "they" which thus includes Hillary
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 08:38 AM
Jun 2014

"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)
41. Ah, so now we're back to the
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 09:36 AM
Jun 2014

'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)
89. But you said the poster had only mentioned the leader.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 03:20 PM
Jun 2014

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)
90. I mentioned Coe specifically because I know I've
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 03:37 PM
Jun 2014

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)
111. However, poster didn't make an allowance for possible exceptions.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 07:04 PM
Jun 2014

She could have done so by using "many", "several", "a few", "most" instead of the all inclusive "they".

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
88. Hillary chose to join this group, and stayed with them for at least 15 years.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 03:11 PM
Jun 2014

Do you think she's gullible enough to do that without knowing their ideology?

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
35. Jeez, those hides are pathetic. I didn't realize how
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 08:36 AM
Jun 2014

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)
76. Yes, the hides are inappropriate, but the post that initiated the hide is extreme hyperbole about
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:59 PM
Jun 2014

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)
80. That is why many of us do not play juries
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 02:14 PM
Jun 2014

or alert, becuase the system is actually quite broken and stinky to hell

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
81. Oh, I was referring to the suspended poster.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 02:16 PM
Jun 2014

Her/him seems to be so mean spirited and bitter. The posters transparency page is hideous.

Drew Richards

(1,558 posts)
37. That is a bullshit whiney Hide by babies that can't handle the truth...very UN-Democratic of them.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 08:41 AM
Jun 2014

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)
48. The jury system is a pathetic joke and so is the alert system to admin.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:44 AM
Jun 2014

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

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
50. Hosts can only lock posts if the posts do not meet the Statement of Purpose of said forum.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:55 AM
Jun 2014

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.

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
38. But this is contrary to DU's SOP.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 09:05 AM
Jun 2014

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)
39. If her supporters refuse to discuss the Family and Uganda then forget about Clinton
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 09:13 AM
Jun 2014

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.

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
52. Rachel didn't mention Hillary, the book must have included that...
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:07 AM
Jun 2014

??

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)
62. Hillary has been a member since Bill was in the WH. She has never
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 12:09 PM
Jun 2014

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)
65. I didn't need to know this about her to know that she should not be near the WH.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 12:19 PM
Jun 2014

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)
71. Hillary reveres Doug Coe in her own book
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:34 PM
Jun 2014

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 can’t 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.

Uganda’s 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 country’s 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)
73. It makes quite the difference to have written that in a memoir than to
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:40 PM
Jun 2014

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.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
82. It's self-immolation for some.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 02:19 PM
Jun 2014

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)
46. Stupid hide.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:16 AM
Jun 2014

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 Family’s 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

Oilwellian

(12,647 posts)
51. The jury system
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:55 AM
Jun 2014

created warring tribes and malicious vendettas. We used to see fantastic discussions on the issues. Now, not so much.

WorseBeforeBetter

(11,441 posts)
60. Didn't those same wars and vendettas...
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:50 AM
Jun 2014

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&quot , 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)
75. As a survivor of The Great 2009 Homopurge, I know well
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:47 PM
Jun 2014

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

theHandpuppet

(19,964 posts)
173. That was a nightmare and shameful time at DU
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 06:07 AM
Jun 2014

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)
59. You're right about the date.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:40 AM
Jun 2014

That's also when the level of civility here fell into the basement.

Interesting.

mike_c

(36,214 posts)
53. the jury system has encouraged extreme partisanship and petty retribution....
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:13 AM
Jun 2014

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.

madfloridian

(88,117 posts)
63. There is an unkindness about this post.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 12:10 PM
Jun 2014

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)
74. + Infinity
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:41 PM
Jun 2014

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)
79. Yes, she is. She posted out of frustration at the denial.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 02:11 PM
Jun 2014

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)
112. +10000000
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 07:35 PM
Jun 2014

Part of an ugly pattern of hides by the resident Third Way thought police and propaganda team.

Tuesday Afternoon

(56,912 posts)
83. Rec because of MadFloridian's OP. I think this is weird and LA's OP should be unhidden and restore
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 02:20 PM
Jun 2014

the 20% that was taken away as a result.

Am I the only one to this think this is weird ... ?

Tuesday Afternoon

(56,912 posts)
87. That is generous and kind of you, madfloridian. I stand with you on this. I will K&R your thread and
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 02:29 PM
Jun 2014

I am going to retroactively Rec LA's Thread.

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
113. How does one become an authoritarian employee who censors posts on boards like DU?
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 07:37 PM
Jun 2014

...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.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
123. FWIU: It's not an assignment to which one applies.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 08:48 PM
Jun 2014

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.

MH1

(17,537 posts)
116. Well I can see the Family hide (maybe) but one of their other hides was BULLSHIT.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 07:47 PM
Jun 2014

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)
118. I think if she had posted merely that state execution was murder, it would not have been hidden.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 08:22 PM
Jun 2014

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)
121. There are ways to communicate and there are ways to
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 08:44 PM
Jun 2014

sound like a troll. Most of us know where to draw the line.

Cha

(295,912 posts)
164. ..
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 12:05 AM
Jun 2014

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)
146. That a post like this stands, a ridicule post so to speak....
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:22 PM
Jun 2014

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)
178. DUers posting threads about other DUers just seems...small. We're all adults here. (I think.)
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 09:08 AM
Jun 2014

[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)
182. Someone here makes it a habit to dig up old posts of mine to post.
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 01:18 PM
Jun 2014

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)
152. Was there something incorrect about that OP that got hidden? I fail to see why
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:37 PM
Jun 2014

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)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Well, I guess we won't be...