Cherchez la Femme's Journal - Archives
First, the subject is Obama, not ancient history; nor comparing the two as exactly equal or in equitable circumstances.
Although I'd be hard-pressed to find a NAFTA-type or Trade Agreement they mutually didn't like!
Secondly, Clinton's phraseology, as fake-sounding as it was, in itself no way ameliorates or excuses Obama completely dropping the ball on his statements towards the 99% of U.S. citizens who are hurting or suffering-- hungry, freezing, living in poverty, evicted and/or otherwise homeless-- to the ever increasing and tightening of our societal downward spiral
That's comparing apples and oranges,
or should I say comparing one to a mild cold/or similar flu and the other with with rattling bronchial pneumonia and no Health Insurance
...Oops I should have meant ROMNEY\OBAMACare---where the healthiest by far are the Insurance Profiteers, Investors and of course Profits Earnings and Dividends?
Thirdly, just because "Politicians have been doing this fake empathy for centuries."
Does this still mean, in this long-past post-age of enlightenment,
we should still be tolerating such outright Lies and Greed which contribute directly to the plebes quality of care, best possible health, nutrition, comfort, welfare, who gets the choice extraneous body-parts, and therefore who lives or dies as least upon the fullness of their wallet?
And STILL be tolerating professional,mostly if not all wealthy, politicians LIES??!
Educate me as to what a equally-based, classless society we are!
Please, ENLIGHTEN me!
Oh, and Major HOGwash --a very fitting name in more ways than one-- since you took the time to tell me in no uncertain terms I am banned from the sight of your sore eyes, not even to a Private Message
(as if I would!)
do not worry -- my words here will not sully your Hagiographic world-view!
Heh, double negative. Sry
DU should be grateful for the complaints -- its shows at least people care and wish to change it back
rather than fleeing.
"Complainers" care. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be here and wouldn't put forth the effort to complain. They'd just leave, shaking the DU dust off their inter-webbed feet.
Well, some have stayed. Many have left here because it's become too DLC, because many posters are way too far to the right. I was truly shocked to see a DUer strongly buy into the Right Wing crap about teachers, including that 'it's ruining her state' that some teachers can take early retirement in their forties.
Yep, early retirement from a teacher's salary, and money they've also paid into may I add, is going to bankrupt their state!
She wasn't banned ... she wasn't even called on it! <---I wish I could say that example was shocking, but I can't.
And as if putting 20 years into a job doesn't give those teachers the right to take early retirement.
And there's been plenty more said here, tolerated here on a "Progressive Board" (LOL) that comes straight out of the Repuke Reich-Wing playbook;
emulated by the DLC & "Third Wayers".
Many have left and many have been given a gift of granite because of the hate & bigotry against LGBTQI's here,
(Hey mom! Lookit me, I'm a vampire! )
to which mods look the other way (some appear to be, let's say, more than fairly virulent themselves). If a mere fraction of the hateful things had ever been posted against race, any race, those posters would have been squished by a big slab of grey granite like a cockroach.
In less than a NY minute.
Many in this group have been banned outright; those left were forbade upon pain of pizza (not the good kind. Not even Dominos) to even discuss what has come to be known as "the Gay Purge". Something which has never been demanded before, or since (and it took a good long while for that to even be addressed here).
Just to mention those who were banned got one banned.
One was tombstoned for posting just a number: "Seven".
There's more, but these are what comes to my mind immediately based on what pages I read most here.
I still don't post often in GLBT (a sandwich!)
(but it's OK to sound like a sandwich just as long as L for Lesbians isn't put before G for Gays, i.e. male. Patriarchal priorities, people!)
because it's simply, for me, not a 'safe place'.
I've read at least a few relatively recent OP's by Skinner, trying to 'make things right'.
He brought back, or at least tried to, (at least some) members of The Purge... to my understanding, many more than those who returned refused to come back.
And did you know that 'being a homophobe didn't mean that gays were hated'?
Yes! It's true!
...according to at least one DUer: You can be a proud homophobe and LOVE gays!
The next time a LGBTQI gets her face slashed & loses an eye because she dared to walk down the street, when women get raped "to show them what they're missing";
when one gets beaten, attacked, stabbed, or shot for choosing their "lifestyle" (funny, it's not a style but simply my life, to me) or for being "different",
when one gets towed behind a vehicle, sans trailer, with a rope around their neck
Oops! There goes the head!
when one gets tied to a fencepost after a vicious gang-beating to die in the snow --the vast majority of these crimes (and more) done by multiple attackers against one person--
when gay's (using the general term) commit suicide because of depression, because of bullying, because they don't fit in this Christian, moral society,
because it's unGodly and condemned as a horrid sin a sin against Gawd HIMself! by all right-thinking priests, pastors, rabbis, mullah's, etc. to their nodding congregations (it's not just Westboro Baptist who believe that "God Hates Fags", you know)
I'll be sure to remember that lovely, so-creative ideation, but I'll leave it to that OP to console the grieving families with their contention that ALL homophobes aren't bad... there's homophobia out of LOVE ya know!
Just like Racists aren't all bad.
Wait. Nevermind that last sentence. Ha. Silly me.
But still, at least some 'phobes are OK!
Srsly, it's come to a point where one can write all the apologetic, Make it Right posts one wants but when there are no firm commitments, when nothing is ever done about it but more OP's and the hateful, bigoted posters are still more than gladly tolerated and allowed to continue their apparent raison d'etre
in short, as the saying goes: You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
All MHO&O ('& observations')of course, but I'm sure that other groups are affected
maybe not to the extent, punishment nor abuse of the Gay community here
but still are affected to one extent or another.
So sorry, it may be a breath of fresh air to you; YOU may not mind but it is inevitable you will find complaints on a Democratic Progressive board when it appears to become anti-Progressive
and even worse: anti-Democratic (re: party principles).
edit: What else? Typos
that we're letting these foreign countries completely control and implement their anti-terror actions:
"in Europe, Asia and other regions with functioning governments. The DOJ is collaborating with police forces around the world, as is the Treasury department. We are not blowing up terrorists in those countries"
Even with "collaborating... police forces (governments)" we don't have our people in there?
Are you serious?
Nor do I think we should "be crawling all over those countries".
What I think is that we should definitely address the terrorists grievances -- most ARE quite legitimate and, if done to/within this country wouldn't be tolerated for one damn minute.
How many foreign bases are on U.S. soil?
--and that's not to mention that our "Freeing" (by bombing or invading) those countries only causes many more terrorists. It's like cutting off the head of the Hydra, yet we're most definitely not Hercules!
Nor could we ever be, by any stretch of the imagination.
We are NOT the Police force of the world, but we can control the damage we do not only to other peoples and our standing in the world but to ourselves.
Remember, for one, this entire OBL thing started because we, under Reagan wanted to have a nice long session of gloating & schadenfreude;
then we understood that Afghanistan was the graveyard of empires (although we wanted to hasten Russia's 'progress' towards that end). Now, we seem to have forgotten that lesson we knew such as short time ago.
On top of that, & for instance, once we gained a foothold into our "friends", the Saudi's country and once our mission to "save" Kuwait was over we never left! The only thing we 'left', permanently so it appeared, was our soldiers who violated their deeply held beliefs; those regarding alcohol, halal, "exposure" of women, proselytizing, etc.
I'm not saying their system is great, IMO it sux big time; but until the people change their own system of government because they want to I just don't think our insulting them time & time again, within their own country nor even without, is conducive to good will towards the U.S., its people or to the soldiers stationed under my example of Saudi Arabia.
Well, not until after the tragedies of 9/11 had occurred did we leave -- then even the idiot Dubya had enough sense to finally close our bases!
We are in so many countries that we have absolutely no contemporary reason to be in, other than our "national interests" whatever they may be, even when our interests are far from the actual host countries interests; but what do their interests regarding their own country matter?
(Why do we have any reason to be in Germany, for instance? The Cold War is long past!)
They should ALL have governments just like ours, & certainly not like those damn Socialist European countries, righty-right? What do 'their interests' *scoff* matter? We're "exceptional" and "morally superior" so we must "help" all those 'backwards countries' and forget about concern for their people -- we gladly intervene even at the expense of the welfare of our many U.S. citizens -- children and elderly alike!
See, it's OK for US to decide our own system of government (& don't forget we fought a revolution to achieve that) but for others, well, we can pick the system of government that's good for them. Perfectly fair!
We engineered, trained & otherwise helped many dictators overthrow their democratically elected presidents because their "Democracies" were too "Communistic"!
--I'm talking about forcing upon others our beloved, good-for-everyone!!1! system of government: Capitalism, Yay!
Sure, the worst in recent past was was in South America but now we're virtually doing the same damn thing to those regions & continents half a world away (except China, our BFF, of course!) And it's passing strange how we're doing the same thing, or outright invading, to force them A-rab Mooslims to just love "Democracy", even if they're not ready for it!
It's just the latest --but so similar to be considered pretty much exact, we being a 'Christian nation' & all-- version of the millennium+ of war our European ancestors exacted to make other countries Christian!
'We want you to live just like us' has turned into, as the great poster says: "We're gonna Free the shit out of you!"
Oh the hell with it, I've been working on this post way too long so I'm going to leave it, gaps & grammar be damned -- I've got things to do
and I have this nagging suspicion that nothing I say is going to make one bit of difference to those who are bound & determined to knock others, to wit: them Libruls (which they wish were out of 'their' party anyhow)
Yes, this entire episode has been VERY educational.
did, however, act in a serious, somber, respectful (& I don't mean respectful as towards OBL), statesmanlike way.
--what some of these people are doing are taking any criticism of the public, hypocritical displays of wild jubilation in the streets which we decry others doing as barbaric, even subhuman
as a rebuke against our President! Go figure. You would think that sub-set would declaim the frat-party atmosphere and suggest perhaps people should follow Obama's lead! Oh, but no...
Others, so I believe, are being critical because they themselves reacted that way.
And personally, IMO the "Deather" slander used against DU'ers here is pathetic and patently untrue. Nowhere have I seen any doubt that OBL is indeed dead.
What I have seen is the desire for the U.S. to follow the Rule of Law, to practice what they preach so to speak; along with the huge benefit of being able to actually interview/interrogate bin Laden
--no, he wouldn't give up any future operations but we've got all those hard drives anyhow; still, he would brag, IMO, (and that bragging could or could not be released to the country & the world at the government's discretion)
We'd learn much in that way.
Seriously, what are his wives (that we're 'so eager to interview') or children going to tell us? I don't think for a New York second that OBL shared operations with his wives. Their duty, y'know, is to bear children, keep up the household and to bring honor to him (or die!). He'd probably figure their poor female brains couldn't possibly comprehend! Why on earth would we think that his wives, and now we know even his children (as he stipulated in his will that none of his children were to join Al Qaeda) would be 'in on' any details regarding his evil schemes?
...the entire thing is just outright ridiculous.
WASHINGTON (AFP) – The United States said Tuesday it is "deeply concerned" about the rise in attacks against Christians in parts of the Middle East and Africa.
and looks like I'll have to say again and again and again
Is he or is he not the President of the United States and the most influential and important member of the Democratic Party?
there was no arm-twisting,
there was no use of the bully pulpit
there were no meetings,
there was not even basic camaraderie with Democratic Congresspeople -- they were locked out of discussions!
Heck, he wasn't even NICE to Democrats to the Left of him -- which isn't saying much as he's so very far Right.
Why the fuck do you think at least one (just that we know of) Democratic legislator was so disgusted by their treatment courtesy of Obama s/he voiced probably what most, other than Lieberman (who was booted out of the Party) et. al., were thinking:
"Fuck the President".
Jeebus, if that doesn't tell you there are serious problems on Capitol Hill, I don't know WHAT will!
Obama, if he even talked to any Democrats about the Health Insurance Bill,
oops I mean Health CARE -- yeah, right
picked some of the most conservative, Blue Dog, negative and reactionary "Democrats", i.e. DINO;s
he could find -- and chose precious few of them;
then he chose the most radical and again; the most conservative, negative and reactionary Repukes for his darling "Bipartisanship" Committees.
When he meets with them, does he wear a sign on his back saying "Kick me"?
How the President responds to the Republicans demand to jump is to immediately say: 'Yes sir, right away. How high?' and after that then drop prone on the floor so they could use them as a doormat.
Obama either has a non-Democratic agenda or he is a masochist.
...But it's all, so I understand, a game of chess in at least 11 dimensions and who knows how many levels per dimension? We're told not to believe our own lying eyes because it's something we fucking retarded peons will NEVER be able to comprehend.
--but as we've been told here time and time again, complete with nice graphics; Obama sez:
"Chill the fuck out, I got this"
Maybe he does -- but it sure appears, time and again, that what he has is NOT We, The People's back
nor does he have the welfare and prosperity of We, The People
just big business. Corporations. THEY deserve a bail-out ya know. We, The People can go into foreclosure due to the predatory Corporations and one wonders where is THEIR bail-out?
I'll tell ya: to all events and purposes, it's nonexistent.
With such a Democratic President,
who the hell needs a Republican one? Prior to Obama's precedents, even the Repuglicans wouldn't have tried half of what he's done.
But from this presidency forward, heck:
especially on the poor, the Dirty Hippie Libruls and even the Middle Class
...what remnant is left of it!
It's so sad to live through what's happened these past 2 years
--and it seems to become worse & worser by the very DAY-- mostly a continuation of the Bush 'policies' (I stress that word because to me, they're not simply policies... they're bloody evil and an obvious challenge to the Class status quo. -- and the adage is quite true: It's only Class War when WE fight back!)
In fact, what's come from this White House has even exceeded Bush.
Now THAT'S truly alarming!
It hurts even more, and happens to an exponential degree, that a Democratic President is continuing those 'policies' and in some cases, dare I say many, exceeds where even Dubya feared to tread --- sorry to be redundant, but that deserves stressing.
--and not merely minor incidents... these Republican wet-dreams are highly important,
even to the survival of our nation.
Yes, I'm dead serious, and anyone who's been paying attention with a critical mind rather than adulating one man no matter what, can see this as plain as the non-neoCON citizens knowing the "Mission Accomplished" sign was nothing more than hot air and propaganda!
This is all too much.
Waay too much, and it must stop; even if he has to be primaried. I'm sorry to finally come to that conclusion, but this past week I've seen, many many times, Zappa's brick at the back of the theatre.
What is most alarming, even more than the actions themselves, is that the White House and the DLC don't even care anymore that it's become so very obvious.
If you are not rich or powerful, there are many good reasons to be very, very scared.
He left Democratic congresscritters out of the loop and out in the cold.
He did his secretive backroom deals with only Republicans, who by now KNOW they can manipulate him with merely saying 'Oh, Mr. President...'.
They treat him like a doormat, and he just keeps lying back down for them to walk over him.
Unless of course all he's done is actually his agenda.
I'm beginning to think that he indeed needed much more seasoning in DC
--yes, I said it: more experience--
to understand how that difficult, complicated town REALLY works instead of depending on the unique (to put it nicely) Chicago-style politics. How many 'deals' was he able to do with his political peers, how many favors was he able to accrue to call in IOU's when due?
And I didn't have a dog in the primary fight. My pick was Kucinich, and I knew that he wouldn't get very far just for the fact he 'doesn't look presidential' not matter how intelligent and cogent and principled his platform was.
Fuck. Lincoln would NEVER be electable to the presidency in this day & age!
Because I'm --or was, I'm seriously thinking of quitting the party-- a Democrat born I just waited to see who won the primary and would work, volunteer as many hours as I could to get she or he elected; just as I always do, I didn't like the DLC hawk (those two identifiers far outweighed her very good stance on LGBTQI rights) Clinton very much
but I also saw that both Obama's and Clinton's platforms were virtually identical
-- but nooooo, if you DARED say that here during the primaries you were shouted down, called racist (but those hating Hillary weren NEVER sexist of course! ) and were very likely to --and many did-- get a pizza delivery
The whole thing is pathetic and embarrassing.
And if you call the Health Care INSURANCE bill anything to be proud of, as worthy of 'using capital'
--he's actually acted as if he had no capital, and no mandate from the people, whatsoever--
then you certainly haven't been paying attention
or you are blinded by your expectations, not reality.
My face is perfectly straight -- and I aver, strongly, He. Has. Not. Tried!
****updated to rant. These days what can one do but rant?
Posted by Cherchez la Femme in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sat Dec 11th 2010, 04:45 PM
"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."
Obama hand-picked the absolute wrong people to chair his Cat Food Commission --something he didn't even need to create, nor in that way. At at time when Social Security is in no imminent danger they come out with all these ways to 'save', all of them fairly immediate,
but all at the cost of the people.
Their sentiments weren't popular.
Now, if one wants to exacerbate a shortage problem there are two ways to do so:
1) Take even more money directly out (as was tried with Bush's failed Social Security privatization plan), or
2) Put less money into the accruing fund.
So what does the Pres do?
First thing, he cuts money going in to Social Security and gives it a happy, happy, joy, joy
Bushie little name like 'Holiday'!
The cuts will mean next to nothing to the individual who won't see any appreciable savings, but taken as a whole it will definitely impact Social Security
--perhaps even more alarming than that, it sets a precedent that Social Security can be messed with even more than it already is!
And that this Republican tactic is driven by a Democratic President!
Yes, I think I espied brick showing at the back of the theatre,
and Zappa was, as usual, correct.
edit: I'm thinking of posting that as an OP or poll, to see who/how many agree or disagree; who needs glasses or actually can clearly see a certain thing -- I hope that's within the rules here...
Posted by Cherchez la Femme in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Wed Sep 22nd 2010, 09:01 PM
Obama (Disclaimer: Obama is better than Bush!) did;
instead of replacing U.S. Attorneys (2 for each State, if memory serves me correctly) as is his right and which every single incoming president has done for...hell, ages...
Obama kept every single U.S. Attorney he could --you know, all those fervent "Loyal Bushies"
"Loyal Bushies" being a self-proclaimed descriptive many used to reassure Bush, Ashcroft, Gonzales, the DOJ & the rest of the cadre of their undying liege during/after Bush/Gonzales/et.al. fired those other damn upstarts who dared to want to prosecute *actual criminals* by applying the honest Rule of Law instead of being paid, official attack dogs for the benefit of the Republican Party and their candidates.
For instance, look at the case of Don Siegelman:
Former Alabama Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Lieutenant Governor & Convicted Criminal
in whose case both the Bush *and* the Obama Department of Justice had, and still does, ignore/refuse to hand over related documents and has outright refused to cooperate in any (post conviction) investigation.
This is a truly frightening story about politically motivated American (In)Justice and how has it NOT been corrected. In 2009 the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals "refused his request for a new trial, finding no evidence that the conviction was unjust."
No evidence?! Not unjust??! As much as I despise Wikipedia and hate to promote it, their article on Don Siegelman does give a decent overview of many of the horrifying actions, words, half-truths, outright lies and yes, conspiracies perpetrated by Republican officials & their operatives before and during (and probably after) his trial. The Wikipedia Talk Page for this article (accessed at the top of the Wikipedia page under 'Discussion') is also enlightening, it shows how many try --and too often succeed-- in skewing articles to reflect "both sides"
....as if truth had two different sides!
One of the U.S. States Attorneys was/is Leura Canary, who is a great friend of Rove and who is married to a top-level Alabaman Republican Party operative. This peach is STILL "doing her job" in Alabama as a part of Obama's DOJ.
I know I feel safer!*
*As long as I'm not in Alabama!
*Nor any of the other states still having Loyal Bushie Attorney Generals still in place. There were 100 of them ya know... (if I'm wrong on that please someone give me a definitive link).
The other U.S. attorney for Alabama (the current one), however, was picked by President Obama. That choice was hailed as"the start to changing leadership in 93 U.S. attorney offices" (Birmingham News)
The "start"?! But she was not appointed to the post until AFTER her predecessor, the Very Loyal Bushie, Alice Martin, finally resigned in June, 2009! ("Martin tendered her resignation from office in June 2009, five months after the inauguration of Democratic President Barack Obama.")
Good old Loyal Bushie Alice had many ethical problems. Along with having to endure mere criticism for her involvement in the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman:
--she was criticized and investigated for perjury in Brown v. Ashcroft, which dealt with a FOIA request concerning Martin firing a black assistant attorney. As Scott Horton wrote in his Harpers piece (The Alice Martin Perjury Inquiry), 'the perjury investigation against Alice Martin was "deep-sixed". The DOJ concluded on November 28, 2007, with
"a finding by the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility that Alice Martin “did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment.” "This perjury case was decided by a certain Judge Mark Fuller, who coincidentally served as judge in the Siegelman case. Surprise, surprise.
--she has also been accused of getting a critic at an Alabaman University fired. Of course she denies this
--as a matching set with the above case, she has has also been involved in the politically controversial investigation of an Alabama college, including her indicting State Legislators
And somebody --Gee, who knows?-- has been leaking information about this prosecution (persecution? /snark) of her to the media!
--the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility is currently investigating her for misconduct in two cases including the Siegelman and Axion Corp. The Axion Corporation complaint says "Martin and two of her deputies allegedly told defense lawyers that their goal was to put the company owner out of business whether or not he was convicted."
She just may be misunderstood
(I refudiate she was misunderestimated!)
Scott Horton, in the same Harpers article linked to above, wrote:
I got flooded with personal accounts of dealings and encounters with Alice Martin—they came in from attorneys, businessmen, political figures, and prosecutors who work for her, and even a judge. And not a single person had a positive thing to say about Martin. Many expressed questions about her professional competence—and her handling of the HealthSouth case may be the basis for some lasting judgments on that score. But in others she was characterized as mean-spirited, mercurial, petty, vindictive, and extremely partisan. Indeed, her extreme partisanship was a consistent theme of comment.
This sorry excuse for an attorney, much less a U.S. Attorney, much LESS a human being, is what Obama WANTED in his Justice Department?! Why? for Goddess' sake? Could it be just because he was skeered those mean, mean (but Bipartisan!) Republicans would criticize him for doing what every other president has legally done: make his (sorry I cannot say 'her' when referring to past or present presidents) selections for the positions of U.S. Attorneys directly after his swearing-in?
Mind you, this is something they would advocate THEIR candidate to do whenever they regain the presidency. No doubt!
***Note: Yes, there was indeed a petition signed by 44 former Attorneys General, but I believe former is the keyword here. I would be incredibly surprised if any Loyal Bushies signed it -- they wouldn't be Loyal anymore, would they?
***Another note: From what I can glean from different sources, both Bush's & Obama's DOJ have refused to hand over documents to Siegelman's attorneys; it appears they are going to fairly police themselves though, doing their own internal investigation.
Don't you understand that was "dealt with" LONG ago. There is nothing to get over.
I don't think I know one single Kucinich backer who even thought he would actually get anywhere.
He's short, he's 'older', he's not very good-looking (and godnose we need a handsome President! Now that's important!, and he's way too liberal for the rightward-shifting Democrats, much less the mainstream U.S. to have elected (although he would have done the best job, still MHO);
even though he's got a gorgeous hot wife.
I, and most other Kucinich backers I know, waited for the primary then went to work for the Democratic candidate. (I predicted that Obama would win out over Hillary for the simple fact that black males got the vote 50+ years before women. I did not expect any great change in the years, and I was right). Personally I thought Obama gave good speechifyin' but the proof was in his actions and that was just a test of time.
As a lesbian, I closely watched Obama's dealings with the LGBTQ community. He avoided us for months, wouldn't even be interviewed by any 'gay' publication. Pre-primary I remember very well an article printed to which Obama would not respond; as they listed columns of candidates answers the column for Obama was left blank: white space.
I had a feeling then, but no proof, so I still volunteered many many hours and gave all the money I could (no, not all gay people are rich, even well-off).
And I, as the signage said, Hoped.
I've seen little Change which has fostered a lack of Hope. In fact I've seen what could politely be called 'politics' and more correctly (but less politically correct) called Propaganda ("Fierce Advocate", "Bully Pulpit" "Public Option a must" "No lobbyists", etc.)
THAT is something not gotten over well, I'll admit. It still could be reversed, but judging by what comes out of the White House, there's still very little Hope.
--Is that our fault? Can you honestly say that??
Complain all you want, but these opinions and feelings weren't born of mere conjecture, lack of evidence or out of 'poutrage' because Kucinich or anyone else didn't win the primary;
you must understand, at least for many LGBTQ's (I dare not speak for all) these feelings weren't born in a vacuum.
And perhaps you can deal with that while disabusing yourself of the fallacy that the push-back against DLC Obama are due to sour grapes.
(And I don't say that in a confrontational way, just in a sad one.)
edit: What else? Grammar :/
on our first date my ex laughed and laughed and laughed when I told her I was a Democrat but also had Libertarian leanings!
Luckily she didn't think I was a complete idiot or we wouldn't have had so many wonderful years together!
I described myself (and really, still do) as that because I think we, the richest country in the world, should take care of our citizens who are having difficulties and I believe in what the Democrats USED to hold holy: social causes as opposed to Profit$.
I have Libertarian leanings because I think, no matter how well meaning, that our Government goes way too far in invading our privacy and living how we want to live.
--to include The War On Drugs *TM, and especially invading one's castle to tell residents how they SHOULD live, according to their standards. For instance, it drove me mad when
and this happens every year or so in any given city
--you'll see blazoned across the headlines about a 'cat lady' or 'dog lady'... a person who, with the best intentions, takes in strays and it gets out of hand. Now, I'm not saying this about the poor creatures that are starving or left to continually breed, but as someone who has been involved with rescue for years I know first-hand that in those kind of cases they are the exception not the rule. Some people just become overwhelmed, and IMO it is the duty of the gov't to put a rescue in to HELP these people cope, not to make their case a 9-day wonder splashed across the front pages and in every TV news brief. It's disgusting, those well-meaning people do NOT need to be humiliated like that!
I hope you never have to see how these people are treated. The fire department, police, Animal Control, "social workers" (who don't help, just test if the person is 'crazy') and if the person is LUCKY, some compassionate person from a no-kill rescue. Most often all these people need is a helping hand a few times a week by a volunteer. That's it.
Sorry, but shit like this just breaks my heart. These cases are invariably handled in the wrong way, and besides humiliation I've witnessed panic attacks and always shame, tears, fear and PTSDe.
These people need help COPING not county-wide shame! And invariably after such an invasion, they completely stop any rescue --even to save one or two strays-- as they are terrified it will somehow happen again -- a loss for everyone involved, not the least of which the once-saved animals.
There are other types of Big Brother activity, i.e. invasion. For those towns who don't have zoning laws, any kids toys, cars, *stuff* can (and are) left in their yard. Sure, it may be an eyesore to some but it's THEIR yard, THEIR castle, THEIR money which pays taxes. They own it, it's theirs to do with what they want. But the very next town may have highly restrictive zoning laws, and all too often instead of handling it gently but firmly, they go in much like the Pets Invasion -- figurative guns a blazing.
In terms of the 'eyesore' properties, if the people of the town want the government to take care of it via zoning, then they should enact legislation and make sure the laws are reasonable and carried out by the agents in a low key and respectful way. After all, you catch many more flies with honey than vinegar...
There must be a respectful line where every individual is treated with dignity.
& I won't even get INTO about how "free" we "Americans" supposedly are yet Big Brother tells us constantly what we can do and more importantly NOT do to our bodies or on our own property. Sodomy laws within ones own home. Arrests for being nude -- in ones own home. A minor drug like pot --which never killed a living soul, unlike alcohol-- is "a gateway drug" and can put peaceful people in prison, not just jail, for years;
not to mention if all drug sales were controlled by the gov't both for taxes (luxury taxes same as cigarettes and alcohol to help fill the empty coffers) and right of refusal to see if someone is too inebriated on their substance of choice.
Yes, I realize the government is in both sides of this equation, but I'd rather have them involved in a constructive way rather than a punitive one, informing the tabloid press when it should remain private.
Our society has to give the leeway to let people live the way they want, on their own terms, on our own property;
even if others don't happen to like or approve of it! Too bad, they can live the way they want on their own property and stop infringing upon the rights and freedom of others.
And of course I'm equal rights for everybody, of all walks of life; I feel we should all have if not Single Payer than Public Option, and that in this country nobody should be homeless and we should all battle hunger and poverty. Yes, I know that takes government -- I just want responsible, respectful, compassionate government, not blitzkrieg invasions.
edit: This is probably TL : DR --sorry!
Wow, sorry about that; but those kinds of cases irk me to no end. But DAMM, it felt GOOD to get that off my chest today!
So that's why I'm a Democrat/Libertarian :lol:
Posted by Cherchez la Femme in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Fri Sep 11th 2009, 12:14 AM
and with what specifics are you, personally "being denigrated by others"?
I'll take specifics from other pages, np.
But with links, please.
Or are you taking criticism of Obama's as personally against yourself?
Why are you accusing them of trying to make you feel bad instead of allowing them to exercise their freedom of speech and to present their true feelings of disappointment and betrayal, just as you do?
Or are you and yours more equal than others here on DU?
Some of the oldest members I've yet noted have written criticism against Obama's policies and pronouncements, and many, like I, worked countless hours volunteering to get him elected.
Your post is a fine Thank You for our time and effort on Obama's behalf.
Nor are there only "5 or 7".
Like it or not (not) there are many here, both newer along with long-standing members, who are disappointed at the apparent milquetoast administration, along with the ersatz "Hope and Change".
These, funnily enough, (LGBTQ, Progressives, women's rights supporters, et. al.) have experienced their own, actual, denigration, in the truest sense of the word, from Obama's DLC-stuffed cabinet and advisors;
by this administration who feel they can take advantage of their supposedly solid base in hopes of gaining
...wait for it...
Yep, the very same group of crazies who want nothing more than for Obama to be booted out of office and in some cases, murdered! They actuallY have the NERVE to start talking about Impeachment when Obama could
rightfully and righteously put impeachment ON the table, approving proceedings against that last, immoral, unChristian, lying-us-into-war, pResident!
These psychos will never be happy until they 'take back' the White House for personal and corporate enrichment, advocation only for the already wealthy, full support for a comparatively well-paid mercenary, uncontrolled armed cadre whose antisocial sins are never in the public eye unless utterly unavoidable.
They shall not be content until they start up again their pathetic and unconstitutional 'Free Speech Zones', 'signing statements' 'embedded reporters' & the lack of free speech information and of course more & more wars (preemptive, anyone?); replete with no-prob, Bob 'collateral damage', torture, and violating long-standing treaties which, incidentally, protect OUR troops and are, most important of all, Moral and Civilized!
What these loonys (loonies?) want above all (and as Darth Sidious would roar): Unlimited power!
After a few years they will be secure enough in the non-investigation(s) of the former pResident et. al. they will begin another witch hunt, with impeachment the goal, 'a la Bill Clinton. HOW could Pres. Obama then finally start investigating the past pRes? Investigations at that time of Dummy & Deadly (& Rummy & Gozales &, &, &...) would look so bad they'd then be impossible.
After all that time & with a suitable build-up the Repigs will freak out and propagandize enough to start investigations of the president for whatever reason. Any lie at all will do.
-- heck, for them mere accusations are enough. Ain't ratfucking grand?
And of course, beyond useless editorials (most readers will perceive bias just because they are editorials; i.e. opinions, not "news") the media would have to be 'balanced' and of course give the OTHER side
...but what the fuck is the other side of the truth?!
What a fucking country.
Mark my words ...I'd give that scenario at least a 90% probability.
After all, it certainly worked before! Boyeeee... did it!
At least they'll try, even this so-called 'librul media'-- these 'journalists' who jump like Meth-mixed-with-Cocaine (mainlined, of course) fleas all over any presidential investigation!
In any event, the absolute gall of you to claim that people who disagree with you "hijack DU" is unbelievable
...it's simply incredible. Sorry to put it that way, but it's pure gall.
If you'd rather have DU become a fansite (oft it is darn close, interestingly many fans seemed to have joined just before/during Obama's campaign) instead of comprised of people who observe, think, won't be cowed, actually remember politicians promises & their reneging on them, and above all aren't afraid to type their thoughts & feelings;
and who also happen to remember politicians deeds & their lack of.
I actually saw a post where a fan, perhaps caught up in the moment, stated that Obama would "save us"!
Although president, Obama is NOT the Messiah, AFAIK
Talk about an deceiving oneself.
Talk about an alternate reality!
I've spent way too much time on this pathetic thread already. But serially dudette, in any event you really need to thicken your skin, not take things said about other people
--even about those you support--
personally, as aimed against yourself,
and respect others rights to speak their piece,
If this is beyond you and the discourse here makes you so unhappy; start your own fansite where you can delete all
of those people posting what you obviously consider as unpatriotic thought crimes.
at least 50% (or more) of the article attempts to ameliorate or downplay Cheney's actions.
What's worse, when one clicks on 'Comments', then "Editors Selections' they pick only two, both which even further downplay the outrageousness of Cheney's deeds. Both are very lowly rated, one at 44 recs and the other at 12:
" The National Security Act of 1947, leaves some leeway for judgment, saying such briefings should be done “to the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters.”
The authority is clear. One can question the judgment, but only in uninformed hindsight. The hysteria is also uninformed and well off the mark.
Do you really want the lives of out intelligence operatives in the hands of our Congressmen rather than the professionals in the business ? Congress is a leaky, politicized and entirely unreliable place to fool with the things on which real lives hang.
Recommend Recommended by 12 Readers"
Compare this to other comments rated multiples of hundred times by other readers; the best rated at 828 recommendations:
"Why on earth are Bush and Cheney not in jail ...???
Their crimes against humanity make Madoff look like the tooth fairy ...
And Madoff got 150 years ...
WHERE IS THE JUSTICE IN THIS COUNTRY ???
Recommend Recommended by 826 Readers"
Clearly, the NYTimes is still running scared of Bush/Cheney/Republicans. What kind of paper gets such a scoop then tries to throw doubt on its own reportage?
What a magnificent paper it used to be,
long decades ago.
edit: grammar fix
Sure, personal definitions, but then what language & terminology each of us individually use isn't?
Those are Capt. Pietrangelo's truths; or perhaps you would like to dictate to him and by your posts, to all us overreaching, "histrionic" (as I've been called, although could have been from good old-fashioned sexism rather than homophobia. Or both ) homosexuals the 'right' opinions we can have and what proper language we can use?
Are you black? Non-white? Would you have dared to wander into the equivalent of a 50's-60's African-American (I'm using the terminology of the era) equal rights board and have the nerve to tell them what they could and could not say about whom, complaining all the while of the vitriol and sarcasm they dared direct towards you as you castigated away?
Do you think therefore, even if you are non-white, that said perceived vitriol and sarcasm against you would have been withheld?
I can't speak for everyone, figuratively and literally, but strictly for myself I will inform you not to presume to lecture me how I must feel and think about my own rights --rather, lack of-- especially when your contentions are fallacious and down right revisionist.
--Why, for Goddess' sake, would Dr. King "(call) the president and vice-president names" when the Kennedy's and LBJ were FOR equal civil rights; indeed pushed --truly using the bully-pulpit-- not only the legislation through but conscientiously following up and ensuring the laws were indeed enforced in every state in the union? Even, especially, in the deep south?
--Rosa Parks didn't call her detractors bigots, crackers, etc., but that doesn't mean nobody else in the movement did.
--Kindly show me where the gay community has NOT so far shown "the great patience, steadfastness and non-violence of that movement"? Our great patience and steadfastness has been second to none, and as far as I can recall there have been two instances of gay violence (the Stonewall resistance and the White Night riot) and
...how many instances of race rioting?
...How many instances of anti-gay violence?
Seriously, talk about agenda-serving strawmen!
Further, do not presume to push upon me the all too common (even here on DU of all places, notwithstanding the purpose of the title 'Democratic Underground' ***see postscript) opinion that the need to protect Obama &/or the Democratic Party trumps civil rights -- and by that I mean strictly gay civil rights-- even if it had nothing to do with race?
How can I say that? Can you imagine if the Democrats in the 60's weaseled out as our present-day Dem's are presently doing and let State's Rights decide the Civil Rights of African-Americans? Do you actually believe that all 50 states would be emancipated, especially when non-whites were not allowed to vote upon their own freedom?
Indeed, Dr. King was for non-violent resistance, which I wholly admire, but he was not the total movement. Nor did he forbid others to refrain speaking their own truth to power. Even at the height of Malcolm X's most pronouncements, the 'hate --and kill-- Whitey' comments, did Dr. King criticize him; certainly not for calling anyone him or anybody else any lesser (to whatever degree) term, deserved or not.
If you wish to invoke Dr. King, judging by the value and recognition he gave his important and completely-respected gay fellow activists and advisors along with Mrs. King's consistent advocation of gay civil rights, do you think Dr. King would give Pres. Obama a pass? Do you think that Dr. King, in any degree, for whatever reason, would mitigate or lessen up the pressure for equal rights?
If you do, I think I can say with complete certainty that you'd be dead wrong.
***Or has the Democratic Party decayed from a party of principles to a party of agenda, or worse cult of personalityof the moment?
If it is now the latter how can it hope to retain any principled person, even hope to attract any new ethical members? It then will suffer the fate the Republican Party is now experiencing, that of extreme attrition caused by disillusion. Sadly, this isn't even past history ignored; it is the deliberate blindness to concurrent, positively correlated events.
The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.
Activist writer goes undercover to learn what it's like to be homeless in Atlanta, Georgia
DU3 Epic thread. "Restaurant Pet Peeves"
Modern wage slavery
Once more we are slow walking towards war
Sean Hannity speaks lies and it's so obvious
Hello again old friend
Hello! hello? Anyone home?
All heart and no cattle...
Wash Post Media Critics accuse Al Jazeera network of supporting ousted elected leader Morsi
By Leopolds Ghost
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.