primitive notices things have changed on Skins's island; squabble breaks out

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002194270

Oh my yes.

MadHound (29,966 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

My, how things have changed in a decade.

Ten years ago, when Bush implemented the Patriot Act, the AUMF, and other draconian measures, the DU community was justifiably outraged. front page articles were written, the boards lit up with outrage(go search for yourself), we mounted campaigns, time and again, to not just publicize this outrage, but to overturn it.

But now that a Democrat is in the office, it doesn't seem to matter. Civil rights go by the wayside, and when people dare to criticize the codifying of the AUMF, including provisions for indefinite detentions, hosts swarm any thread critical of this action all because it is Obama who is signing this atrocity into law.

What a sad statement about DU. Attacks on civil rights are just fine if they are instigated by a Dem, but damned if instigated by a 'Pug? Is that what we're saying? It sure looks like it. Makes me long for the early days of DU, when hypocrisy didn't reign supreme, and civil rights weren't held hostage because a Dem was in the White House.

Stinky The Clown (44,575 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

1. "hosts swarm any thread critical of this action"

I am not commenting on any other part of your post, but that statement is simply not true.

Hosts can only do something about off topic posts.

Juries decide what stands after an alert.

The MIR Team and the admins decide who gets booted.

This is not DU2.

MadHound (29,966 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

4. I'm not using "hosts" in the way you are taking it,

I waxed more poetic, using "hosts" to signify many, lots, a host of people, etc.

joshcryer (31,176 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

5. How many Bush era bullshit laws did you help overturn?

Yeah? OK.

Moral purity is grand.

Moral purity doesn't do much in a right wing country that keeps electing fascists.

The pragmatists are indeed a "new" face of DU, but if you click "profile->join date" you will see that the vast majority of those "people who have changed" lived with a fascist in office for 8 years, and are tired of the moral purity tests.

Why you insist on falsely characterizing these DUers, I don't know. Certainly I find the implication to be absurd at best.

MadHound (29,966 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

6. Not looking for moral purity, simply consistency

Really now, is it that difficult to support and defend our civil liberties, no matter who is in the office? 

I dunno; ask Beth.

lol

joshcryer (31,176 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

9. I see no evidence that those people "don't support and defend our civil liberties."

It merely appears that those people feel that the allegations in question don't merit discussion or effort outside of derision.

I saw the post kicked and bumped all evening.

For me, it didn't even merit derision. That's how asinine the discussion is. Unworthy.

Does that then mean that somehow I "don't support and defend our civil liberties"? No, I'm equipped to completely demolish such trivialities, I simply chose not to.

MadHound (29,966 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

13. What I see is conditional support of our civil liberties,

The condition being who is in office. If the Bush administration had actually codified the AUMF, this place would have exploded with rage. But now, with Obama, we see people rushing to defend the actions of the president. That is rather hypocritical in my opinion. If you don't see that sort of hypocrisy, well, that's on you

Tell me, would you have supported the same sort of codification of the AUMF under Bush?

joshcryer (31,176 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

16. Nah, that's merely a failure to rally to a known Obama detractor.

Very few are "defending the President" in that thread. Some are trying, a very few, the vast majority are merely being derisive and mocking, because they know it's not worth their time. I myself do not spend any length of time on known flyby posters.

I don't support the same sort of codification of the AUMF under Obama, why would I support it under Bush?

Democrats tried to completely repeal AUMF. It failed by 75%.

Why?

Because we're a right wing country.

bvar22 (26,115 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

19. "a known Obama Detractor"?

Do you have any idea how McCarthy-esque that is? 

"Ideals" and "Values" should be PURE.
They are goals that exist in the mind, in an ideal state.
These Pure Ideals are our goals, and we can measure progress by how far we fall short of the Pure Ideal.

Commitment to Pure Ideals is a Good thing, and measuring progress by these ideals is also a Good thing.
These Pure Ideals ARE our Moral Compass.

When these Ideals are replaced by Purity of Commitment to a Person or a Party, we are in real trouble. Historically, that has never worked very well.

There has been an increase in Purity Commissars on DU who ARE measuring Purity of Commitment to a PERSON
and are using this Purity Measurement to attack regular DU posters.

I have never observed the above poster attack (or detract) President Obama.
Every single post I can recall is Issues Oriented.

Like me, He/She is a loyal FDR/LBJ Democrat who has observed and documented our Party's Lurch to the Right,
and is NOT happy or supportive of the implementation of Republican Policies and the abandonment of Traditional Democratic Values, which is the point of the OP.

This is very different from attacking a person or being a "detractor", which is what YOU did in your reply.

emilyg (21,533 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

10. It's not that difficutl - if you put the welfare of the country before party.

neverforget (5,405 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

7. If you can't beat em, join em?

joshcryer (31,176 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

12. Nah, more like, "we finally got a foot in the door and we're going to blow it."

We're still a minority. The moral purists are attempting to slam the door shut over single issues, completely overlooking the bigger picture.

rudycantfail (8 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

24. We never had a foot in the door.

We were led through the wrong door into the wrong room. We are now being told we are free to leave the way we came in.

VioletLake (1,386 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

18. When I joined DU in 2002, most of us had a view of the "enemy" that was incomplete, to say the least. The view now is considerably clearer.

Bad things continue to happen because our adversaries are still doing what they were doing to arouse us in the first place. If anything, our resistance & offense has caused them to step up the pace and fight harder.

We have knocked out the Republican Party, but that was only part of the problem.

The one thing I recommend as a veteran of 10 years, is to develop an appreciation of the long game. Not Barack Obama's long game, (although he is part of it), but OUR long game.

woo me with science (12,956 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

21. The purpose of DU has changed.

That is what is confusing people. It used to be first and foremost a gathering place for liberal discussion. People came here for wide-ranging and in-depth discussions of liberal principles, values, and policies.

But that's not the purpose of DU anymore. It has been retooled as an outpost of the re-election campaign, a site for the dissemination of a limited range of election talking points. Anything that is not flattering to the candidate will be shouted down, alerted upon, and mocked. The goal here is to enforce only positive messages about the Democratic candidate, who happens not to be a liberal in most areas, but a right-leaning corporatist and centrist.

The very purpose of the board has changed, and that is what is confusing people. It is about message control, not discussion.

Liberal principles be damned.

Tierra_y_Libertad (33,069 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

22. The Father Knows Best wing of the party consider any criticism of Obama or the party dangersous.

Ironically, they call the Left "Purists" while demanding support for their guy.

Lizzie Poppet (265 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

23. Yep. Utter the slightest criticism, and the sycophants howl in anger.

And all because the current Oval Office corporate sock puppet happens to have a (D) after his name...

fascisthunter (25,839 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

26. the Hypocrisy is Alarming

a great Eye-Opener for me and many others here. This political party is moving to the right while shitting on the left because it has no guts nor strength to stand for the truth.... the party is on disaffected republican life-support(republicans who have come to the democratic party and are now taking it over from within).

Hmmmmm.

There seems to be a lot of racist primitives on Skins's island; they don't like the Magic One.

[Skul]

A regular little slapfest going on there.
 

 

[Ballygrl]

I soooooooo remember a Dem in 2008 saying to me in a condescending tone "now you know Bush has been out of control with spending and we need to rein it in" of course the person was totally oblivious to the fact that the Dems were in control of Congress at the time, FF to now, out of control spending is OK because her guy is doing it. At least I was critical of Bush and his allowing and taking part in out of control spending!