I Was Fooled by DU

I joined DU a bit over two years ago. I thought I had found a message board full of folks who shared my views on civil liberties and the rule of law - a bastion of small d democracy and all that. It sure seemed like a majority did.

But so much changed after Obama won. These issues seem to matter so much less now. In recent months I've come to realize that I'm in the minority here on issues like government accountability and free speech. Few seem to worry about such things under our new administration. And now the insistence that right-wing pundits are complicit in the murder of Dr. Tiller have driven this point home yet again.

I realize now that many of the people howling about civil liberties, torture, rendition, secret wiretapping, unitary executive, etc for the last eight years were in fact not doing so out of some deeply held belief in the underlying principles of freedom. They were instead simply hopping on the civil liberties bandwagon out of Party loyalty and hate for Bush/Cheney. The underlying necessity of the Bill of Rights to a functioning democracy does not appear to be widely grasped.

Kind of disappointing. But we soldier on. Maybe this all provides a "teaching moment?" Or whatever.

There's a lot of things that Obama is doing that I more than disagree with him on. Like single payer and the refusal to prosecute those responsible for torture is just a couple of things. But since you are someone who supports freedom of speech, even when opinions are unpopular, then here's my two cents worth. I think it's been the other way around if you ask me. Anyone who still supports Obama is quickly chewed up and spat out on DU. You're can't unless you want to be called a coward who compromises his principles. Well I'm not compromising my principles! I'm telling you what I believe in!

Well, maybe I'm comparing apples and oranges................

Under federal law, a riot is a public disturbance involving an act of violence by one or more persons who are assembled in a group of at least three people. The act of violence must be one that presents a clear and present danger of injury to another person or damage to another person's property. Threatening to commit a violent act in such a group situation that could injure another person or damage property is also considered a riot if one of the persons in the group has the ability at the time to carry out the threatened violence.

Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. It can apply to one who urges or instigates others to riot. It does not apply to someone who merely advocates ideas or expresses beliefs, if those ideas and beliefs do not involve advocating violence.

The federal crime of inciting a riot carries a possible penalty of up to five years in prison an a fine.

State and local governments also have laws that make it a crime to incite a riot. The penalties range from fines only to jail time. It is important that the law, even if only a municipal ordinance, specify the conduct that that is prohibited with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited.

Does this apply to talk show hosts who have an audience of far more than three? It would be interesting to see this argued in court.

I'm not going anywhere. Just bitching. Still all the same great people here. And many who do share my point of view. Just fewer than I thought, that's all.

the tiller/oreilly posts are especially damning. unfortunately, there are plenty on the left (just like there are plenty on the right) whose fealty to principles takes a back seat to the politics of the players, and the metanarrative.

Americans and the Left should just sit idly by while a well organized and well funded political group does as much as they can to exterminate their opposition.

they CAN be held accountable, by their fellow citizens.

it's when alleged "liberals" (lol) want to use the power of the government to suppress oreilly's rights and/or prosecute him for executing his rights.

the kneejerk, let's use govt. power to punish somebody, reaction here is the exact same one many on the right (the ones who don't respect the constitution), advocate(d) after tragedies as well.

it's the exact same disease.

the constitution does not matter to these people

how much power WE have. In more 'primitive' times, people were often ostracized by the community for anti-social behavior.
In modern times, we can contact Mr Oreilly's advertisers and let them hear it. We can hound him Code Pink style.
There are outrageous, creative ways to deal with the situation, and maybe even make his life more miserable than it already is.

when it is self-righteously proclaimed something like

"that a$$wipe,mofo, fumbduck, POS, lying SOB is a hate-monger stirring up all the mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging morans and you are just as bad for defending him/her."

Our own hate-mongering is not so attractive to me. Couldn't we talk about something positive, other than how absolutely evil the other tribe is?

Because, while few may notice or want to admit it, the more we spew about "the other tribe," the more we look and sound just like them. :(

:pals: hfojvt:spray:

i am all for holding people accountable

WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE CONSTITUTION

that means that you counter BAD speech with good speech. boycotts, etc. are also good

you do not say he should be prosecuted or banished from the airwaves, or brought in for questioning.

grok the difference?

And calling for the prosecution of such speech is not against the principles of the 1st amendment. And investigation has yielded in the case of Turner enough evidence to prove a prima facia case that is set to be tried. The tail is nothing but the presentation of evidence for the prosecution and the defense. Ultimately the legal process will end with a jury deciding if the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt if he is guilty of inciting violence. It is a HIGH bar for speech but the bar is important. No one can be allowed to, for instance, call for an assassination of the President to millions of listeners or viewers and then be allowed to hide behind the first amendment.

In the case of Bill O'Reilly as of now there is a reason to at least investigate if there is a legally prosecutable link between O'Reilly's speech and the murder of Dr. Tiller. Maybe there isn't. But the first amendment does not and should not protect the targeting of ANY person for extra-legal violence and or illegal harassment.

and maybe I'd have been better advised to have left that particular issue out of it due to the highly emotional nature of it.

I agree that speech intended to incite violence is not protected, but I think it's a reach to suggest that anything Billo said crosses that line (at least nothing I have seen). And reaching for such links sets a dangerous precedent IMO.

....and I don't even necessarily disagree with your assessment of his link to the Tiller murder. But I also think there is enough there to warrant an investigation. I am not a lawyer, much less a prosecutor, so as with you. It is just my opinion. PS for a more expanded direct response to the OP see my direct response further down thread.

Thanks.


ON EDIT:

P.S. Having some doubt about whether or not O'Reilly's speech meets the fire in a crowded theater" exception to protected speech, doesn't make me or anyone else an enemy of the first amendment, any more than your opinion that it doesn't makes you an advocate of protecting calls murder. I think every one - including me - would do well to just stop going over the top on so many things. It isn't necessary to take extreme positions to prove oneself a supporter of a social, political or political position.

Who knows maybe you can win over some hearts and minds. Getting Democrats to agree is a lot like herding cats. Or something like that. With the right, they're just a bunch of bobble heads.

I'm one of the guilty who is suffering from bush exhaustion, frustration, and anger. I too, have a hard time criticizing Obama.

Perhaps now that my insurance company is denying me benefits and are trying to kill me, I will have to pay attention to Obama and the various Democrat plans for health care reform.

:hi:

:thumbsup:

You and the OP are two of a couple of dozen people that keeps me coming back to DU.

I want government that respects human rights including privacy, free speech and freedom of religion and that does not torture or wiretap without a warrant based on probably cause. I'm with you, Truth2Tell.

feel the same, then an authentic shift for positive change will occur.

Your statement would make a good sigline. Can I borrow it for awhile?

I took you off ignore, read your whining gas-bag of a thread and you're not leaving?

Fuck!

So where do you get your Truth(TM) then? :shrug:

victimhood.

.

But that's the nature of these kinds of posts.

nice.

you don't care about civil liberties.

WHy are people not grasping the difference between someone discussing something, even an unpopular opinion, and someone saying that someone needs to be killed for their crimes?

For what it's worth, and as an example, I support the right of Phelps to be a loud dickhead all he wants even though I strongly disagree with his message. But if he starts calling for gay people to be assaulted or killed, then he crosses a line. The SCOTUS agrees that this line of speech is not protected and has not been protected for quite some time.

I for one sympathize with the OP. A lot of people around here have pulled a 180 pretty quick on issues of accountability, rule of law, and protecting unpopular speech, now that Democrats are in charge. Can't wait to hear all the good reasons not to pass EFCA or a single-payer option.

and look at some of the trite, nasty answers above, not one of them bothers to try to explain their responses, at least the OP is attempting to convey why they feel the way they do.

:thumbsup:

I can't wait to hear their canned reasons either. I am wondering if those who put party and candidate loyalty above country really understand what the hell we were so pissed about the last 8 years since they're doing the exact same thing the Bushies did in being blindly loyal to their leader even when he's dead wrong.

Rp

and being right to say something. The latter is not a legal distinction and is very much subject to the same use of free speech exercised in the first place.

For the record, nor does the right to free speech have anything to do with the censorship of a private entity, which DU is. You may feel free to say whatever you want on your own bandwidth.

I happen to think that FOX should pull O'Reilly off the air, for instance. And that we should all boycott his show and put his advertisers out of business by voting with our wallets. But I don't think he should go to jail or be charged with a crime.

And of course DU admins can censor me. Absolutely their right. My post had nothing to do with that.

I admit, I have been MIA the last couple of days. I don't see a radical shift away from where things ever were, however. I just think the radical fringe has gotten a lot louder and a lot larger in recent months.

charged with a crime.

I hold him responsible for hate radio, and do not feel he should be on the air promoting murder.

But I also do not think he should be in jail or charged with a crime.

O'Reilly makes FOX money. Why would they pull him, it's not like they have a liberal reputation to uphold. To be honest, O'Reilly and a few others are propping up FOX news, and removing them would leave the right with nothing to call their own.

You're missing one thing about collective action too. While it's perfectly commendable that you call for a boycot of something you disagree with, and I'm on your side of this personally that's about as far as you can go with it. You can't chastise people that don't boycott with you or disagree with you about the details.

It's not a black and white world, it's mostly grey. I hope you find the comfort of identifying the shades, so that we may exchange flexible views and debate, rather than snap ultimatums and judgments at one another.

and lynching - and FOX just let it slide. I was enraged. I have not landed on that channel since, nor will I. The only time I ever have an experience that involves FOX is when they are an issue of another organization or website or journalist offering criticism.

I still can't believe how shocked I was the night I heard that hateful, dangerous missive. I can happily say my life is far better post-FOX. I would watch out of curiosity, but that crossed the line and I will never regret it. I always urge everyone to turn them off - permanently. (Psst! Guess what? You lose _nothing_ by doing so...! They add nothing to the presentation and reporting of the events of the day. Nothing!)

I see a group of people very committed to civil liberties, justice and peace, and no less so since President Obama came into office. Just because he is well-liked does not mean we don't write letters and call when he puts forth a policy that we don't feel holds to our values. I don't know how someone can judge the thousands of people on DU as you just have. You have no fucking idea what each of us goes through and what we have struggled with. Is being sanctimonious kind of like a good beer buzz?

making generalizations based on my observations. And I don't really see a core commitment to these things by a majority here. By many, yes.

by claiming you're in the "minority" here.

There are many here that defend Obama's decision to suppress the photos -- they don't know what's in them, but they want us to trust his judgment.

There are some here who think O'Reilly should be prosecuted.

There are some who have no problem with Obama's admin trying to keep many of the Bush admin most secretive behavior protected. -- We're told to trust him. We're told he's doing this to fool the right etc.


There is a minority of people here who are willing to defend every aspect of free speech and criticize every thing they view as being anti-Constitutional.

People seem to think that by being critical of him, you're not supporting him.

The desperation level has been turned down quite a bit, and that's taken the edge off some, and there's no doubt that things are heading in a better direction now than they were under The Idiot.

I know President Obama has a lot of things to tend to right now, and some of them are more important than others, so I'm going to give him as much rope as I can and hope he eventually does what he promised he was going to do during his campaign.

Didn't Obama say something about us holding him accountable if he screws up?

Well, I do expect him to uphold the laws of the land and the Constitution and his oath of office. So far, he has skirted a bit close to the edge on a few things, but sometimes with time we understand why, and things have a way of getting corrected down the road.

Barack Obama is a smart, shrewd man. I think he has a plan, and I believe he intends to honor his campaign promises.

Given time, I hope he does. And in this instance, considering the stink pile * handed him in January, it may take longer than we'd like to get everything done.

I think there's more to it than party loyalty, we've entered a new era and I wonder if most still aren't sure exactly which direction we're heading.

responsibility.

of individuals.

And for the most part, no one is calling for incarceration except for most egregious demonization of specific individuals.

But to not recognize and call out those who are INTENTIONALLY causing division and hatred and inciting violence?

You have a serious problem if you #1. don't know by know the extent to which this is planned #2. think holding peole accountable for their actions.

What we say and do in public effects others.

a very organized one. anyone who still refuses to recognize that is an idiot.

"And now the insistence that right-wing pundits are complicit in the murder of Dr. Tiller have driven this point home yet again."

Not really sure what you mean here. Are you complaining that people find them complicit?

As for the rest of it. This is a dynamic place with people coming and going all the time. More importantly, the distribution of posts will vary with the topics. It's not "what you found" because of the dynamic nature of the content and what drives it.

As was true before the election, DU is a big campground filled with little tents housing one or two pet issues. Each camper has their own little fire burning. There's some common ground among some DUers, but we're just a collective of non-rightwing ideas and ideals.

People will stump for their pet issues with great passion.

When the rallying for the pet issues is accompanied by, "Obama has let us down because..." or "Obama broke his campaign promise on ...", some of us will push back because we simply cannot tell where all his priorities lie.

In my opinion, DU can be a total cesspool, but the lack of free speech has never been a problem (unless you love George Bush).

There is plenty of free speech here (not as much as I'd personally like, but quite a lot).

My issue is with the apparent lack of understanding for the core necessity of free speech in a functioning democracy, outside of DU. Different thing.

a violent state of mind is essential for the protection of free speech?

They had free speech in Rawanda, too.

"harangue people into a violent state of mind"

is not a legal standard. The legal standard is what the Constitution, as interpreted by Supreme Court, says it is. We need to remain a nation of laws. I don't agree with pushing the limits of speech restriction beyond that.

http://www.truthtellers.org/hatecrimes.html

Basically, the Bible is hate speech --

Organized patriarchal religion which still preaches and teaches hatred from
it's pulpits is outraged that their ability to demonize women, Jews, Homosexuals
people of other races/religions could be consider hate speech!

Evidently, the subject that has most aroused you here is the idea that the large
network of "pro-life" accomplices to murder -- those elites who have encouraged
violence against choice/women's clinics from radio microphones and church pulpits --
could be held accountable?

I just saw a bunch of posts on the issue of going after hate radio hosts legally and so it was on my mind when I posted. I'm more "aroused" by not prosecuting Bush/Cheney, continuing to wiretap illegally, continuing military commissions, continuing illegal detention here and overseas, etc.

If it can be proven that a real "network" has conspired, in the legal sense, to encourage violence against anyone, then I support legal action. I haven't seen evidence of that, only of people holding and expressing hateful and abhorrent views. When you use such an amorphous and loose definition of the word "accomplice," don't be surprised if the same definition is someday applied to you, me or those with whom we agree.

I did see your other posts on holding the hate speech broadcasters accountable
and your objections which seem pretty foggy to me if you understand hate speech -

No one is saying arrest O'Reilly -- what most are saying is that it needs to be
toned down. Same with Limbaugh. Hate speech isn't free speech . . . it's the first
step in demonization.

Again -- what people are saying is that more people need to know what these
broadcasters are saying, in fact. And that hate speech is linked to moving religious
fanatics with guns into action. That certainly has to be recognized. More people
have to understand that. We saw it with Clinton, of course and NRA nuts firing from
outside the WH -- and a guy flying a plane into the WH!

I think many of us have concerns about the use of "terrorism" or "accomplice" since we
have seen the attacks on peace groups!!

But this has been "pro-life" domestic terrorism for decades. There is no denying that.
Decades ago, women's groups investigated and found it linked to the "Christian" militia
groups. Law enforcement is very reluctant for many reasons to act to protect women and
women's clinics. There's a great interview by Amy Goodman* which is still up with two
guys investigating all of this and making clear the political complications which still
exist in simply getting laws enforced; laws like FACE.

The right wing -- whether religious fanatics or fanatical elites which use religion --
moves forward in only one way: violence, stolen elections, assassinations --
the opening subleties are intimidation and hate speech/demonization. If they have to
go further after that they do.

The right wing's propanda wasn't even focused upon until fairly recently, though the GOP
resurrected and began using propaganda in the Nazi style decades ago.
Nixon's White House was studying old Nazi films and very interested in the subject.
Peace, dreams, peace, dreams, peace, dreams.

* HERE'S THE LINK TO THE AMY GOODMAN ARTICLE . . .
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/3/anti_abortion_movements

And, if you haven't seen the Rachel Maddow interview with the former "pro-lifer"
and his report on what the elite in the movement "know they are doing," then
I'd recommend that as well. Probably still on Home page?

This is the Democratic Underground, not the Angry-Left Underground! Some of us understand there is more to life than staying mad 24/7. Some of us see the change that is happening while at the same time realizing that the wrongs of the past 8 YEARS can't be corrected in FOUR MONTHS.

To claim you are "in the minority here on issues like government accountability and free speech" is narcissistic and not based in reality.

and many others here - so I think that does put me in the minority.

Unless you've questioned me and everyone else on said issues you are simply guessing.

If we are to stand for anything - we must hold ALL politicians - democrats and republicans - equally accountable. Not be apologists for a President because we "like" him. Obama has disappointed me on several issues, from his appointments of Raum Emmanuel and Lawrence Summers, etc. to his siding with the Bush administration on secrecy issues. To express such opinions on DU can now get you slammed with obnoxious, rude and insulting responses. Yeah, it will take more than 4 months to undo the damage caused by Bush, but some of the actions that Obama has taken have done nothing but continue the madness.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

have driven this point home yet again."


Um... what?

Tiller's death.

For calling him "Tiller the baby killer"?

Just for saying Tiller was "executing babies" for "no reason whatsoever" in a "death mill." ?

I'd say that's definitely up for discussion/debate. :shrug:

I get that many here don't think others are as liberal or progressive as they should be... I see rants about it all the fucking time (wondering when a certain someone will show up to tell you that you spend too much time here and you should log off for a while)... anyway... I don't understand this point about the RW's part in Tiller's murder. Do you just want people to stop talking about it? Is it another sign of people's lack of liberalness that they don't agree with you about it? What?

I'm just making observations and disagreeing with some people.

Unless, of course, it calls for violence.

shares it.

"I hate Dick Cheney."

Isn't that hate speech?

for hate speech?

You're not alone! :hi:

Gotta keep telling the truth and fighting the good fight, no matter how unpopular it is.

interview with Frank Schaeffer? Just curious.

I'm not sure what you'd have us do. Are we supposed to just shut up about it?

and I don't claim that mine is the one.

I think that many of us see this as a political message board and in politics you have to compromise. The goal is to gain power and control and in order to do this you have to, yes, appeal to the lowest common denominator. Why, do you think, did the Republicans win so many times? They had a simple message that, unfortunately, resonates with too many voters: "sanctity of marriage," "baby killers" "feminazi" etc.

The reality in politics is that voters follow the old Maslow's hierarchy of needs. They care, first, about their families: jobs, food, shelter, schools, etc. Then they start caring about their neighborhood "law and order" that was exploited by the Republicans before they selected abortion and gays. And one really has to be secure in one's immediate needs to start worrying about loftier goals of justice for all, Bill of Rights, and the environment.

I am not sure about your complains of not caring about free speech. Yes, there are many here who like to refer to our government as "fascist" even to the Bush one. These individuals have never lived in a real fascist country where, as a start, Skinner et al. would be hauled to prison for even attempting a forum like DU. Where any revelations by the New York Times would never see the light of day.

Sure, you can have places and forums where people seek "purity of..." not sure. But I don't think that such groups are interested in gaining control which means, as a start is more balanced Supreme Court to counter Bush's wish of a court full of "Thomases and Scalias."

And Obama and this Congress may not be what many wanted, but at least they care about regular folks, about jobs, health care, as opposed to the Republicans' "survival of the fittest" which is an irony, come to think of it, seeing that they claim to not believe in evolution.

So keep expressing your opinions and angst. But don't complain about DU. Like all humans - we have many opinions about many ideas. Sometimes you will find a lot of cheering, others - your post will just sink.

:hi:

"The underlying necessity of the Bill of Rights to a functioning democracy does not appear to be widely grasped."

Those (met) needs cannot exist without a (barely) functioning democracy.

against Obama's u-turns, just as we did about the Bush Administration. If that gets us banned, I don't know about anyone else, but that's just the way it will be, but I will NOT be complicit in my own silencing and I will not worship Obama.

And if you look at my sig line, you will see a quotation from O himself asking us to hold him accountable. To not do so, as many here refrain from doing, is irresponsible and contrary to his express wishes. And yes, where he succeeds, we should applaud.

I know what you're talking about, but I'll take the bandwagon-jumpers over the alternative.

You may be in the minority, but it's a hell of a lot bigger a minority than it used to be...and there are a hell of a lot more people on the fence who can be convinced to legitimately embrace and attack those issues you raise...convinced, I might add, in no small npart by your mind-bendingly extraordinary posts here. I think I have most of your big threads bookmarked in their own file.

Keep your chin up. And thanks.

:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:

But thanks.

:rofl:

I know we've gone at it a few times, so I appreciate that. :toast:

:toast:

:hug:

All your right to free speech means is that the government cannot (should not) prevent you a priori from speaking based solely on the content of your speech.

It does not mean that you can't later be held accountable for the speech.

For example, if I go around the neighborhood passing out fliers accusing you of being a child molester, you are perfectly free to sue me for libel and slander, and you could probably win. This does not impinge on my right to free speech at all.

I don't think O'Reilly and others should be prevented from speaking -- but I do think they should be held accountable if they incite people to murder.

And, yes, words can result in action. And the preachers believe this -- otherwise why would they bother giving sermons every Sunday trying to get people to do one thing or another. Heck, even Obama went on teevee telling people to wash their hands. I assume he assumed that his words would cause people to act.

the person you accused of being a molester- should you be held legally accountable for inciting murder?

I'm not sure why discussing the murderous results of someone's free speech is in any way an argument against the speech in the first place. This is about accountability.

I wish some of the people arguing for Bill O'Reilly's right to free-speech could differentiate between the two.

And how 'DU used to be this' and 'DU used to be that'...

The truth is, DU has no requirements for membership, save an email address. There is no reason to think that a cross-section of DU membership is much different than that of any other online community. The fact that most DUers are self-professed Democrats doesn't change that.

All through the country, there are Democrats who have wildly varying opinions on a number of hot-button issues. Abortion, capital punishment, environmentalism, social engineering, foreign policy, economic policy, et al. That these same schisms exist here on DU should not be a surprise.

Until there is a test for membership here, everyone should get used to the fact that there will be all kinds of people from the human spectrum represented here, from the hardcore leftist, to the moderate, to the disaffected conservative, to the RW troll.

:shrug:

edit for spelling

Well said, thank you.

There's only 140k+ members so it's not like they will purify the crowd down to only those that are left of center.

We have never broadcast messages telling people that violence against RW activists is justified because they offend god and because they are enemies of civilization.

This is not a symetrical situation. Out extremists are not just as guilty as theirs. For one thing, there really are not many left wing extremists in this country. The RWers OTOH own newspapers, radio and TV stations, a cable network and control churches and industry. The Dr. Tiller murder may not have been specifically ordered by Pat Robertson or Billo or whomever. Nonetheless, it was an inevitable result of their incitments to violence, partly because it has happened before. The right has orchestrated a deliberate plan of harassment to deny needy women the access to a vital health service and that plan has largely been successful. We may have won the legal battle, but the Christian right has won the war.

I came here for context and stayed for the beer and pretzels.

Though we've run out of beer and pretzels quite some time ago, there's always an ample supply of nuance, contrast, and context that lead me to believe that differences are always there-- I just have to get off my lazy behind and look for them sometimes.

I tend to look at most things as degrees founded upon previous and/or habitual actions.

Reason enough for me.

Additional bonus, we get to write "We told you so" so often.
:evilgrin:
:kick: & R (just to piss 'em off some more)

:evilgrin:

You asked for it...

but I posted part of it again and left out what was probably the objectionable part.

My motto is what someone posted in reply to me when I first joined DU: Never Give Up! :hi:

Stay and win.

What's the quote, "90% of success is showing up"? Put another way, "Don't let the bastards keep you down".

Who knew? :shrug:

One of my favorites!

In EXACTLY the same way that the Radio Rwanda hosts were complicit in the genocide there.

Incitement to murder is not free speech. And deliberately walking as close to that line as you can fucking get for YEARS, and never backing away from it in the slightest, is just as bad because the intent is the same.

When are you going to understand that the RW christofascists WANT US ALL DEAD?

did Orielly call for violence against abortion doctors?

playing semantics. His intent is to incite murder.

I never watch the guy.
I think if a case can made that his intent is to incite murder, or other violence, then the case should be made.

it's the emotional connection.

It's the slick graphics, the background music, the images.

CNN does a masterful job of background images. The idea is to subliminally arouse emotions. FOXNEWS does the same thing but I haven't watched that crap for years.

It is always what you don't See Clearly that matters in cases of emotional manipulation and "they" are masters.

when watched and listened backwards, say "Kill! Kill!Kill!":rofl:

what you might learn :P if you ever grow up.

...over and over again - if you are reading the entire thread like me, your self-promotion looks excessive.

He was executed for his part in poisoning the minds of the german people after WWII.

Speech that incites hatred or violence is considered a crime against humanity.

as incitement to murder; otherwise, a lot of DUers would be up on charges.

When i say "George bush is a murdering SOB responsible for the deaths of millions," i'm inciting others to hate him, same as someone saying "Dr. abortion is a murdering SOB responsible for the deaths of a million babies."

i don't see that either equals saying "He should be killed."

women certainly know that -- "Hammer of Witches"

Jews certainly know that - 1,100 years of Vatican ghettoes followed
by 100 years of vile propaganda against them

Homosexuals certainly know that -- Christian pulpits are still used to
call them an "abomination"


As the interview by Rachel Maddow with the former "pro-lifer" revealed very
cleary, they "do know what they are doing." He makes clear, which we can
all easily understanding for ourselves, that if you keep up this demonization
long enough you will activate a few nuts with guns -- viola the murder of
Dr. Tiller.

We also saw that quite clearly in the Clinton Administration with "gun nuts"
outside the White House firing in on a number of occasion!
We also had a guy in a plane running it into the White House quite near where
the President slept!

This right-wing propaganda -- "hate speech" -- is something that we all have
to be aware of.

O'Reilly, Limbaugh and others are responsible for "hate" speech and it should be
toned down.

I don't necessarily think that it is prosecutable . . . but if the concern grows,
I think we might put a bigger spotlight on their activities --
and where necessary, such as in the case of the NY broadcaster, investigate.

:eyes:

Along with some that I shant repeat in public.

-Hoot

Watch out cause that motherfucking spear is going to get your ass

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykwqXuMPsoc

Narwhals swimming in the ocean....

Maybe some people do, but I've had the experience time and again: I come across a group that I seem to fit into, where people seem to be in synch with my views of the universe - and then something will come up where I realize I am in fact way way OUT of synch with these people on some critical issue, and that I could ultimately never be "one of them."

The first few times, it was disappointing. Then I finally figured it out: I'll never find a group to which I totally and completely "belong." That's okay. Appreciate what's good about the group, learn from them, but don't expect them to be your surrogate family of unconditional acceptance. There will always be areas where your outlook differs from the majority opinion. In response to that, you can either knuckle under and join the groupthink (not recommended), denounce the whole group in anger as idiots-after-all (kinda throwing out the baby with the bathwater) - or, let them be them, and you be you, and be okay with that.

For what it's worth.

You're not alone here.

relevant to the success of this nation as a democracy ruled by law. The constitution and the support of it, have made this a great nation; Lack of support for that constitution and its laws will see it and this nations downfall.

must not be allowed to prevail.

although the op is not entirely clear about this free speech issue, i take it that some people think o'reilly has crossed the free speech line into incitement to crime of some sort. so what? i'm really not clear on what the hubbub is all about.

It is everything in our lives and we, generally, can't be bothered to even know who our representatives are. We are killing ourselves with/through ignorance.

polite conversation --

Americans aren't educated to understand that politics effects your life every
day of your life.

How many American males do you see sitting around a bar talking about politics?
Hardly, sports is the great distraction for the American male.

The internet is waking up many Americans -- but not fast enough.

Meanwhile, true that in large part this is about "Party over politics" --
HOWEVER, DU is dedicated to the Democratic Party -- not to small "d" democracy...
and that's something that many of us continue to argue against.

I've never been a Camp Follower.
I've always been an issues oriented activist.
It never matter which political personality occupied the White House, the issues worth fighting for have remained constant.
It is NEVER about The Person.
It is always about The Policy and The Direction.

I am an advocate for the IMMEDIATE withdrawal of ALL US Military Forces from the Middle East.

I am an advocate for the REDUCTION of Defense Spending by at least 50%.

I am an advocate for Civil Rights and Equal Protections for ALL....no exceptions.

I am an advocate for Single Payer Universal HealthCare.

I am an advocate for FREE Universal Education at ALL levels.

I am an advocate for Rule of Law, no exceptions for the Elite Class.

I am an advocate for The Constitution.

I am a advocate for The Poor and the Disenfranchised.

I am an advocate for Working Americans and Organized LABOR.
(Wall Street Bankers can go bust and stand in bread lines with the rest of us.)

I am an advocate for Economic Justice where Mom & Pop and the small Farmer can compete with Big Corpo on a level playing field.

I am a STRONG opponent to "Free Trade" (Race to the Bottom).

I am an opponent of the MIC.

I am an opponent to the concentration of Wealth & Power into fewer hands.

I am an opponent to Corporate/Republican Influence INSIDE the Democratic Party.

When a politician move TOWARD those goals, I will support and applaud him/her.
When they move AWAY from those goals, I will OPPOSE.

DU was more "unified" when the Republicans were in control.
We had a common enemy, though my enemy has always been the Corporatists and a rigged systm that favors the Rich and Connected.
Now that the Democrats are in control, Corporatists are still In Power, and many of them have a "D" after their name.

I actually hold Democrats to a higher standard.
I EXPECT Republicans to represent The RICH.
I expect Democrats to represent ME (Middle Class Working American).
I am more outraged when the Party I belong to betrays me.

This has caused a split on DU between the issues oriented activists, and the Party Line Loyalists. I won't be one who abandons "the Issues" and adopts the "Party Line" just because "Our Guy" won an election.
I just can't march in that parade.
Never have.
Never will.

:applause:

(I was wondering if I was going to say anything on this thread... You did well.)

ever betray you? I think most of what you stated is more in line with the Green Party then with the Democrat Party.

eom

....and it disappoints me every day.

add to your list: strong opponent of corruption in govt. and proponent of need to expose bush, inc crimes, to unlock the vaults on secret govt activity, and to expose complicity of democrats.

great post!

I reserve the right to gush about Obama when I think he's done exactly the right thing. . Oh, and also kvell over Jackeens pic threads and swoon over the First Lady's style...

But if I didn't, that wouldn't make me a traitor. Everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe, WITHOUT being harassed and spat upon about it.

I agree with this 1,000,000%!

And on every single issue as well. Great minds think alike. The problem I think occuring here is that when Obama brought over Republicans that were unhappy with Bush and many moderates as well, those people began to identify themselves as "DEMOCRAT" and thus thought "DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND" was the place for them and they have been here trying to push progressives around since the primaries. It's sort of sad. Yes, we are not "PROGRESSIVE UNDERGROUND" or "LIBERAL UNDERGROUND" but as a community we used to be much stronger as a progressive core. Now there are enough Obama worshippers here to smack down or disrupt any criticism of him regardless of how completely wrong he is on a topic or policy. It's sort of sickening that all the things that made Bush unpopular are pretty much still in continuance (with the lone exception of torture) but we're supposed to be excited that there is so much change from this guy.

All of the issues we're fighting for become more difficult if we have a Democrat denying them to try his own corporatist policy. After all if a socialist tried that corporatist thing and it fails (as most of these policies might) then obviously we can't go further to the left because the media will bury these as 'failures of the left'. It couldn't be further from the truth but that's not what the media cares about anyway.

Rp

This post would make a great OP for it's own thread.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And welcome to DU. Isn't it fun? :)

Wonder now what was said that I missed...

I have had some of my own posts deleted (Never understood why sometimes, other times I find I posted a link to a "banned" site)

Most of the time deletions are simply because someone broke the rules, quite often accidentally (other times deliberately). The mods are usually quite fair.

Other times the reasons are rather disturbing.

For example, anytime I call Wyld**lf on anything and ask him to provide some sort of argument other than poking fun of liberals I get deleted. He enjoys and expects it. It is rare (thankfully) but some folks just have friends. others have enemies.

The good news is that 99% of the time the mods simply enforce the board rules, so I forgive them the occasional wrong call based on a request by a friend. In the end it is a private board, so it is silly to call foul, they can delete anything they want for any reason, part and parcel of a privately owned discussion board.

The smart thing to do is try to follow the rules and learn which posters one is not allowed to criticize or question.
It has worked for me quite well.

Apparently not.

:kick:

Who can say??

are usually only opinions. They come with no guarantees.

All of these pearl-clutching posts bemoaning what DU 'used to be' or 'should be' are so pointless.

If you want one point of view, go start a forum of one. It's fluid here and has been from the start.

surely there's a site on the internet(s) like DU but with more duped, fooled, disappointed former supporters of Obama.

My friend Tom is like you and he's found himself now believing in Alex Jones. No doubt you've watched "The Obama Deception". Tom did and ate it up like big plate of spaghetti. Never bothered to check the background of this Alex Jones guy....nope...one little documentary by some guy who... IMO is a bit of a nut, no make that a huge wingnut and now Obama is as bad as Cheney.

There's plenty out there, use the Google and enjoy the Obama haters who used to be Obama supporters who are pissed he didn't fix everything after 2 months.

but that he's ACTIVELY continuing many of the worst Bush policies (or Pinochet's, really): "he's only had N months" as nothing whatsoever to do with hiring asswads like Geithner. The complaint is not that he's fixing things, but too slowly, but that he's hiring the people who got us into the mess and is continuing policies worthy of Hideki Tojo

Hussein, Little Kim Jong Il, “Papa Doc”, Al-Bashir, Mugabe and other evil dictators & insane Prime Minister comparisons.

Maybe it's time to find a site where everyone thinks as poorly of President Obama as you do.

things you would criticize Bush for.

It's so bizarre when people blindly worship any politician without caring about the damage they do.

Obama has done some good things, but just as often he has turned his back on the progressive cause. I was already reeling then came health care and his insipid remark that we could have single payer if we didn't already have the "system we have". What a poor excuse, other countries have cast aside the giant leeches known as insurance companies. If Obama had championed single payer non profit health care it would have had a much better chance of happening. Thom Hartmann made this good point today - that if Obama really was serious about reducing medical costs for average folks he would have already looked to reverse the lame law that does not allow negotiating for lower drug prices within Medicare part D. Thom thought it was entirely possible Obama could change that by executive order, but he hasn't lifted a finger to address this awful rule at all.

and always will be one of my most favorite, most civil, most consistently civil liberties issues-oriented and bookmarked posters. Hang in T2T. DU wouldn't be the same without you.

:hug:

:hug:

over and over again. I don't understand the blind followers either, but there is a difference here. I'm also not a fan of abortion, but I has to be there in the case where a mother life is in danger and rape, incest etc. Why did they call that Doctor out by name? If they hadn't would Scott Roeder have gone after him?

met at the HUGE anti-war protests in DC and NYC before and shortly after the war began were actually there to protest BUSH more than they were the war. it's funny how all this right wing crap we wouldn't put up with under Bush is just a.o.k. under a DEM president. but we soldier on. I am not one of those who "feels betrayed" because i have not been surprised by anything yet really. I do agree and applaud Obama's stance on no more Israeli settlements and find him to be a very brave person to take that position as the head politician . he is gonna get reemed by the whacko right and some others on that one. But his stances on GLBT and afghanistan war escalation issues I adamently opposed. I am a 10 year navy vet who served on the battleship Missouri during Desert STorm (yeah,not that big deal of a war, i know)so the DU chickenhawks who want to call me names, like one particular DUer with the Stormfront screenname, can FUCK OFF.

I am of the opinion that anyone who would want to attempt to straighten out this mess that was created starting with the Reagan administration was either naive or very brave. I will hang in there with President Obama since he is my only hope at this time and I thank God that McCain and that total incompetent idiot Palin weren't elected. I welcome the division in the Democratic Party that is a total contrast to the Republican lock-step machine that rubber stamped every rotten bill that Cheney and his trained monkey could dream up.

I would like nothing better than a single payer health insurance option for a number of reasons. An important aspect that seems to not get much attention is that it could do wonders in making our products more competitive when manufacturers were relieved of providing health insurance. Let those who want to pay for their health insurance continue to do so since they must enjoy being ripped off by CEOs making ten of millions of dollars a year for doing absolutely nothing except denying their claims.

within the "democratic" party.

Give me "D"! Yay team!

Too much party line towing happening. Too much criticism of dissenters.

We're much better off with Obama, that's for sure, but that doesn't mean we should stop pushing for more... It's not about Dems winning, the world is much too important for such a narrow outlook. We need REAL change, total and utter turnaround. I'll be patient for Obama, but I won't hold back criticism.

I don't know if it is against DU rules to say this, but I don't believe in political parties at all. I would never join one. This is just a place that I have found a few like minded people, and a few more reasonable people to debate and share points of view.

Salam, everybody.

believe in the same things you do but are more willing to give Obama time to make real changes. And they also understand that he is juggling an awful lot of challenges.

After 8 years of hell some of us are so relieved to have a president in office who isn't completely foolish and reckless. With Bush you had to wonder if we were just going to survive his term without having a complete meltdown, another war or another attack etc. You didn't know what to expect when you got up, every single day it seemed like we were finding out something awful that administration had done or was doing. With Obama it's just such a relief to know you don't have to worry about the guy going off half-crocked and bombing another country etc, I think many here just are naturally giving him some space. I did for awhile. I was so relieved that he was in office and worn out from the previous years that I took a bit of a break from politics. I had to think about something else for a change, it's been getting to me for years. So I think many of us have taken a step back from the fight for awhile and in the process have not been as tough on Obama as we maybe could or should be.

And I don't take issue with people who want to give accolades to Obama for the good things he does or praise him in general. It's the defenses some people make of certain policies - not releasing torture photos, continuing military tribunals, continuing warrant-less wiretapping, etc. - that I find disappointing from people I thought were more liberal in their core beliefs.

The Tiller murder case is a bit more nuanced in my mind and I can see why People are very concerned about O'Reily etc. It's those calling for his arrest and the arrest of other radio or TV personalities with whom I cannot agree.

I think Obama deserves both praise and criticism. In the end, it's up to us to hold his feet to the fire on this stuff, so we all do need to get back into the game.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So, aside from pontificating on the tubes, what have you been doing?

Julie

to support candidates who share my values. I work for and with organizations fighting to change the system from without and within. The intertubes are only a small part of how I spend my time. In fact, I see posting on DU and elsewhere as mostly therapeutic, and a way to share thoughts with like-minded friends while the real fight happens in the real world. Whether the things I do off-line are effective is hard to say, but I do my best and I spend a lot of time and energy on political action.

And if real world politics is the world you're anchored to, why would you care what DU thinks/says? Do you not see enough criticism of Obama here?

Julie

the real world and DU? I think most people here do both.

Don't jump the ship - Please!

Hang in there, partner! We Will Overcome even this facade.

by the time I got here, it was all Dean Folk!

I too have noticed how easily many DU'ers would act like "Nazis" if given the chance against others they claim to be "Nazis". Freedom of Speech and Civil Liberties applies to EVERYONE!

illegal incarceration at Gitmo and even death for anti-choice folks. It is only human to lash out in anger when you are afraid---as people here were. Who wants to think that they or their doctor can be shot down at any moment? However, people who are really afraid often do not recognize their own knee jerk reaction as being extreme. They think that calls for illegal incarceration, torture etc. are the way to protect the public. Sort of like how all those people heard Bush say "terrorist" and they willingly gave up their civil rights.

but don't be fooled again.

Except it wasn't anyone here who fooled you into believing DU was some perfect place for you ...

You know where the door is ....

of Bushbots.

That is, they assume that if a Dem is doing something, it must be all right. They're party loyalists who treat politics as a team sport instead of as a way of guiding the future of our country.

Yes, a party has to be in power to get what it wants, but hello? The Dems have more power than they have had in thirty years, and they're still acting as if they have to have Republican approval for every initiative, and worst of all, they can't even rein in their Blue Dog faction, who walk like Republicans and even quack like them.

Reagan didn't wait for Democratic approval to implement his agenda. He got it through with a mostly Democratic Congress in the early years.

Looking back into Democratic history, FDR was so bold early in his term that he even tried packing the Supreme Court with judges favorable to him. He sent representatives out into the heartland to find out actual economic conditions. He was not afraid to let Republicans loathe him.

Clinton and Obama share a common weakness: Wanting to be liked by everybody. It won't happen. The Republicans are out for blood, and they will hate any Democratic politician, whether that politician is a fighter or not.

So one may as well be a fighter.

FDR lost every ounce of political capital and goodwill he earned from the 1936 election by doing this.

without waiting to see if the Republicans or the corporations approved, and he knew how to appeal directly to the American people to explain his positions.

If I felt like that I'd leave. I don't see it though. I guess I'm not a deep enough thinker.

I don't know that I consider us a "minority" re accountability . . .
I think we're here to raise consciousness . . .

It's not so much the DU'ers on the other side don't see the evidence
it's that they seem to fear accountability!

Don't rock the boat, or something -- don't look back!
A lot of nonsense.

Fascism has crossed the threshold in America because right-wing propanda/lies
and political violence, stolen elections have succeeded.
Indeed, that's the only way that the right can come to power; that's true,
historically.

Had we, even at the point of the JFK assassination had people who understood this --
though, we have to recognize that it was a very powerful conspiracy which seemingly
those who wanted to couldn't overturn -- and the absolute need to push for
true investigation, we might not now be where we are now.

I do understand that in many cases lives were threatened, families threatened . . .
however, if you simply look back to the Clarence Thomas hearings where Biden so very
definitely collapsed in permitting the truth to be told about Thomas' personal perversions --
which the hearings were supposed to investigate, though the GOP turned them into a
demonization of Prof. Anita Hill, instead -- you recognize that the next step in fascistd
advancement came from that vile appointment . . .

Had Thomas not been on the court there would not have been the decision to put W into
the Oval Office -- there would not have been a 9/11 -- and our nation would not be involved
in two inhumane and illegal wars which have bankrupted our country.

Some say that after the attack on Reagan, it was Bush who was really president.
Violence permits fascism to move ahead.

after all who could have possibly imagined that the DEMOCRATIC Underground would support rather than undermine Democratic politicians and office holders.:eyes:

It's interesting how you managed to tie Pres. Obama into your apologizing for O'Reilly... Are you even clear on what you're upset about?

even though you are clearly the only one who is right about anything :sarcasm: People can have ideas different than yours of different priorities and still be ethical.

I try to keep in mind that Obama has only been in office for 3 1/2 months. Change takes time. It is impossible to change things overnight.

I too am concerned about civil liberties and accountability. I think if Obama does the same thing Bush does, it is still wrong, regardless of party.

looking for thermite tiles :rofl: