Skip to main content

... because you, who professes loyalty, with this ("Left Puritans" and Why I Continue to Defend President Obama) seem to have profoundly different meanings for loyalty than I, and further, you seem to have a profoundly different definition of Progressive Liberal ideals, then I.

  1. I am loyal to Obama's progressive liberal goal to foster an AWAKENED ELECTORATE.
  1. The Progressive Liberal Caucus (PLC) has one and only one ideal: Critical Thinking, Detailed Dialectic, and Open Discussion to support INFORMED OPINIONS.
  1. The very essence of what distinguishes the Democratic party's culture from the Republican party's culture, is our passion for TRUTH, born of rigorous brutally honest discourse.
  1. Anyone who wants to stifle (for any stated reason what-so-ever) open discussion of valid criticisms is, as far as i am concerned, an ally of the DLC CORPORATIST interests.

My rant ...

What follows below are from comments I posted over the past 2 weeks:

FIRST THINGS FIRST

This is the painful truth ...

Democrats, Obama Failed by Abandoning Core Consumers

Weak Marketing Effort Beside the Point After President Ignored Passionate, Engaged Coalition

And, that is a fact. So, either we acknowledge that fact, and respond accordingly, or we loose in 2012. Deaniac's approach is superficial DLC-esq cheer-leading rhetoric with his Corporatist attempts to discourage dissent with insulting misleading MEMEs.

As a passionate enthusiastic member of the PLC, I wholeheartedly agree with pkohan.

I advocate ...

Starting tomorrow, the message needs to be this:

These are the things we are going to work on to pass into law.  These are the nominees I will want approved so our courts do not atrophy.  Lame duck or no lame duck - this is what I feel - and what Democrats feel - is the best path forward, so we are going to get stuff done RIGHT NOW so Americans can see improvements to their lives.   People's lives did not stop on Election Day, and neither did ours.  

We push forward.  

Bush's tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires - GONE.

Step up and be part of America's recovery.

And you say that message...

EVERY.  SINGLE.  DAY.

... until Election Eve 2012

and then you say it...

EVERY.  

SINGLE.  

DAY.

IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK

Now, Deaniac, on the other hand, promotes what appears to me to be, PURE DLC Corporatist propaganda, if we want to speak in "pure" terms.

Correction, Deaniac, you are "challenging the left" (in an insulting manner) when you begin your diary issuing (unnecessary) slights of categorizing and framing (ie, "promoting the MEME") that VALID CRITICISMS for failings or lackings is "whining."

So, stop with the bullshit:

I don't "challenge the left."

You do. And you know you do.

And you do so, in a disrespectful dismissive insulting manner, and THAT's the problem with your propaganda. Or rather, that's what makes your diaries weak and cause many people to view them as superficial propaganda. And, that negative perception is only gonna grow, the more you resort to underhanded insulting slights. The sooner YOU stop with the hyperbole.

You see, if you were just "challenging the left" in a forthright respectful honest manner, then this would be a contribution to the dialectic, which fosters an awakened electorate, and this inspires enthusiasm, but superficial cheer-leading, which does less to inform, and more to white-wash with your own PRO-OBAMA "no matter what" a hyperbole, is the very thing that is SAPPING ENTHUSIASM, which is causing the divisive attacks from the progressive liberal caucus, who feel betrayed.

Let me say this to you in the strongest of terms,

DO NOT FUCKING EVER CATEGORIZE VALID CRITICISMS as "WHINING."

Amidst the plethora of right wing victory celebrations and left puritan whining ...

DO NOT EVER CATEGORIZE VALID CRITICISMS AS WHINING.

DO NOT.

I repeat: DO NOT!

You become a part of the problem when you do so.

You become THE PROBLEM when you do so.

You insult my intelligence, when you do so.

And, you become a voice whose words are empty and meaningless, when you do so.

And don't even try to suggest that you are "The People's View" when you insult THE PEOPLE in this manner, dismissing VALID CRITICISMS as "whining" ... because, you become the enemy of the Awakened Electorate PEOPLE, when you do so.

You become the enemy of independent thought and free critical thinking, when you do so.

And, you WILL NEVER NEVER NEVER foster an "Awakened Electorate" with such bullshit.

And, in case you were ignorant of this, (which it sure does seem like you are,) but the "Awakened Electorate" is the core progressive liberal base that got Obama elected.

And, the members of this community can smell bullshit a mile away.

So just stop. Do yourself a favor. Do Obama a favor. Do everyone a favor. STOP. I am totally fucking serious.

Cause, if you think you are helping Obama or our nation with these bullshit statements labeling valid criticisms as "whining" then you are fucking more wrong than you will ever know. All that you are doing, is making enemies of the very informed populace that you want to, not only vote for Obama, but you want them to be enthusiastic activists for the Democratic Party.

You are proving yourself to be a fool, with such trite flippant deriding of those who know for a fact that their criticisms, in most (not all) instances, are irrefutable.

So ... JUST. FUCKING. STOP.

As John Stewart would say:

                You. Are. Hurting. Us!

Look, I am not attempting to say that we should not give Obama the benefit of the doubt, in certain instances, but also, "being loyal" does not mean that one is not critical. And, being critical does not mean that one is cynical.

You are publishing diaries with insulting slights, condescending half-truths, wherein you do, (YES! YOU DO...) cherry-pick the statistical determinants which you use to promote the probabilistic metrics to derive the resulting projections to support your cheer-leading ...

... and you think you are fooling us, and you are not!

... and you think you are being loyal and helping Obama, and you are not!

You are misguided in the extreme.

I remember, many years ago, when I worked at McGraw-Hill/Business Week Magazine, we had an entire statistics department, whose sole purpose was to run statistic analysis after statistic analysis after statistic analysis , until they found the right "skew" that portrayed BW as better than the Economist, for a given segment.

Please. A well-trained statistician can make anything look possible, with the right skew.

Yes, you DID cherry-pick, and you know it.

And any trained professional knows it.

So, just stop with the fucking hyperbole bullshit.

Your lies are about as transparent as the fucking wind.

Yeah,, for the record, you are not speaking to a neophyte plebe here, I am a professional in the domain of which you are working, and no matter what people try to tell you, statistics is NOT a science, it is an art, and the basic flaw of such assumptions is rampant and glaring in your diary's analysis. Please do not insult me with such hyperbole again, not if you want the segment of Obama's constituency that I am representative of, to read your diaries with any degree of respect or credence, again. Much less, not if you want our support.

And, I assure you, you will need our support if you want to beat the Republicans.

So, you would do well to heed my warnings, of which I have posted several on your diary, and on other previous diaries already.

Yes, I am in full support of Obama, and I applaud what he did do, but still, I am critical of what he did not do, but I find such insulting diaries from people like you, and the other allies of the DLC CORPORATISTS, to be fucking insulting.

So. Stop.

And fucking can the fucking condescending bullshit too.

You are really beginning to piss me off.

Not Obama, not what he may or may not have done .... YOU, deaniac, are pissing me off.

And so, no, sorry, deaniac, dude, but you are NOT a member of the Progressive Liberal Caucus (PLC), not as I define us, because, my definition is the following:

  1. Anyone who supports CRITICAL THINKING (CRITICALLY CHALLENGING), is of the mindset of the Progressive Liberal Caucus (PLC).
  1. Anyone who attempts to discourage or disparage, in any manner, such CRITICAL THINKING / CRITICALLY CHALLENGING, is NOT of the mindset of the Progressive Liberal Caucus (PLC), and given the fact that your insulting dismissive remark (categorizing VALID CRITICISMS as "whining"), sets the very core TONE of your diary, this proves that you had a very clear and unmistakeable agenda to dismiss such CRITICAL THINKING / CRITICALLY CHALLENGING.

And, yeah, I know that you want to think that you are a "Progressive Liberal", and I know that you want us all to believe you are a "Progressive Liberal" but ...

NEW FLASH: YOU FUCKIN' AINT!

Not by a fucking long shot.

Not when you post diaries like this insulting piece of crap whose sole purpose is to promote a CORPORATIST LIE: How'd That Pissing on Obama Thing Work Out for You?

  1. ... whose sole purpose is to PISS ON THE PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS,
  1. ... whose sole purpose is to discourage critical thinking and informed dissent,
  1. ... whose sole purpose is to promote the MEME that critical thinking and informed dissent were the cause of the mid-term losses,
  1. ... and seeks to "frame the messaging" as if the cause of the mid-term losses was due to Progressive Liberals' mindset of CRITICAL THINKING / CRITICALLY CHALLENGING

Which I took patient time to dissect for the bullshit piece of shit propaganda CORPORATIST LIE crap that it was.

SEE MY COMMENT HERE: Interesting hypocrisy you've got there

No, Deaniac, sorry, but you are clearly NOT of the mindset of the Progressive Liberal Caucus (PLC). In fact, what you fucking reek of, dude, is the Corporatist DLC mindset, whether you are a fucking paid operative for them or not, only you can say, and it matters not, because, as the saying goes:

"If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck ...."

CORPORATIST LIES

Now, after much heated criticism, deaniac responded with the following, in his defense:

So what does "left puritans" mean?  It means people who are not simply on the left, but simply put, those who would obstruct or oppose progress - even some progress - because it did not meet a certain litmus test or it "didn't go far enough."  I have said it many times: in my view, one cannot call oneself progressive and then stand in the way of progress.  What I should not do, and what I will take care from now on not to do, is to call people left puritans or but refer to left puritan actions instead.

Yes, I will agree that some movement is usually better than no movement, but not always, but more importantly, if you are attempting to suggest that Detailed Critical Thinking that results in Valid Informed Dissent is at odds with progress, then I must challenge your premise in the strongest of terms. And, most importantly, no matter what progress has been achieved, if there is not an accurate detailed assessment of what has been accomplished, AND WHAT HAS NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED, then those alleged "accomplishments" might just be superficial stop-gap measures that might very well cause more harm than good, and there is ONLY ONE WAY to know the difference ... HONEST DETAILED CRITICAL DISCOURSE.

Therefore, deaniac, if you are, in any way what-so-ever attempting to discourage dissent, then, in reality, you are NOT contributing to the cause of progress for "THE PEOPLE'S VIEW" ... but rather, you are serving the interests of progress for the Corporatist's view.

Deaniac further writes ...

I also want to say this: there is a fundamental way the most ardent ideologues understand or view those of us who are pragmatists.  Most often, people view pragmatism to mean simply compromise.  That is not the case.  Pragmatists are not revolutionaries; that much is true.  But pragmatists do not compromise for compromise's sake, and we hold our principles as strongly as anyone.  As people who are not revolutionaries, we also understand the system within which legislative and political progress needs to be made.  In that system, in a body of legislators that represents all sorts of constituencies holding all sorts of opinions, pragmatic progressives believe that making some progress is more important than "drawing a line on the sand" and getting nothing at all.  Now, you can argue about just exactly how much give and take is required and if we "gave too much" on a certain piece of legislation, but at the end of the day, if something makes progress, our inclination is to support it.

Again, my dear deaniac, it all depends on what interests you serve. And, you cannot call yourself a "Progressive Liberal" if your PRIMARY GOAL is to serve the interests of the DLC/Corporatists, so much so, that you will attempt to stifle informed dissent and valid criticism, when such dissent and criticism is entirely warranted, from THE PEOPLE'S VIEW-POINT. And, if you are pragmatic about serving the Corporatist's interests, then, sure, you will consider those pieces of legislation that serve those masters as progress. And, let's be clear, those masters do not compromise on their interests. And, if their interests are at odds with the THE PEOPLE'S interests, then guess whose interests are served.

TO WIT:
The basic assumption is that all of the stake-holders were involved in the process of HCR, but if they were not, and if "THE PEOPLE's VIEW" was not included, then it stands to reason that maybe (or quite possibly) someone else's interests were served, as was the case with HCR, wherein the Corporatist's interests were served, far more than the people's. This is obviously not something you wish to acknowledge, which reveals your agenda. The discussion obviously has to do with the PUBLIC OPTION(PO). And, whilst it would be pointless to rehash, yet again, that debate, but the point is, due to the BLUEDOG/Corporatist Democrats' disloyalty, we were not able to get the PO, and everyone who was paying attention, knows this. By and large, although that HCR legislation does constitute "progress," in the simplest of terms, as you put it, this HCR legislation was clearly a case of the Corporatist Interests being served. How much were the People's interests served? That remains to be seen. Yes, there were obviously some beneficial measures for the people, no doubt, but please do not hand us hyperbolic propaganda, like "30 million people will now be insured" when all that really means is that 30 million more people will be forced to buy insurance from insurance companies .... CASE IN POINT: CORPORATIST INTEREST SERVED.

Okay? So stop with the fucking hyperbolic propaganda!

GOT IT!

I know it and you know it AND EVERYONE WITH HALF A FUCKING BRAIN KNOWS IT!

You fool absolutely NO-ONE!

So why the fuck do you insult my intelligence by attempting to dismiss the failings with dismissive insulting remarks, like "left puritans." Let's get this fucking straight, it is NOT about being the "most ardent ideologues" .... it is about being fucking honest, dude. Because, I assure you, the criticisms that the PLC have about the HCR are SHARED by BOTH Republicans and Democrats, alike. So save your "loyalty" speech for your choir, we ain't fuckin' buyin' the Corporatist Lies, and the undecideds in 2012 sure as fuckin' hell ain't gonna be buyin' that bullshit crap either.


CITIZENSHIP AND THE AWAKENED ELECTORATE

For the record, I am not cynical of the President, what I am, is critical, and so should you be. And there is a profound difference between the two. Being critical, (ie, being informed, being aware, applying extreme attention to detail with acute critical thinking,) THAT is what it means to be a responsible citizen.

This is called: Citizenship.

Example thinker
Irrespective of the sphere of thought, "a well cultivated critical thinker":

  1. raises important questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
  1. gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively;
  1. comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
  1. thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
  1. communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems; without being unduly influenced by others' thinking on the topic.

Note that last one, worth repeating:

*** without being unduly influenced by others' thinking on the topic ***

Obama's Campaign was run and won based upon one single theme, and that theme was NOT "HOPE" as many people mistakenly believe, the real theme (the real metal, the real substance) of his campaign, was the Awakened Electorate. Any attempt to discourage detailed critical questions and accurate honest assessments (is considered by me to be an ally of the CORPORATIST DLC) and such practices will not be tolerated by those of us who wish to further the founding core ideals of the Progressive Liberal Caucus (PLC) of fostering an Awakened Electorate through open-minded free-thinking discourse.

Remember when Obama spoke of the AWAKENED ELECTORATE!

Remember?

You should watch this video and heed my words well, and ponder long and hard what it was that actually inspired our nation, and as such, what it will actually REALLY take to repeat this in 2012, before you and your friends next attempt to discourage critical thinking that bears informed dissent:

Citizenship and the Awakened Electorate ...

Someone responded to my comments yesterday, with the following challenge:

In the first two sentences in your reply you (1+ / 0-)
would seem to indicate that you see this site as one working to promote progressivism. But then the rationale seems to fall apart. Who decides what is "critical thinking and informed dissent" and what is "superficial corporatist propaganda"? Even worse, who decides what will "be tolerated here"?

Who decides? No one! (1+ / 0-)

Please. No offense, but your question is childish in the extreme and represents a complete ignorance of the basic elemental principles of higher learning in our modern educated world. And, as such, your conclusions are nonsensical. Do you have a college degree? Have you never written/read an essay? Have you never read/written a legal argument? Have you never read/written a literary criticism?

Your points are absurdly childish:

  1. "Who decides what is 'critical thinking and informed dissent'?"

ANSWER: No one.

FURTHER: Everyone's perspective is of merit, to the extent that they adhere to the standards of a precise Thesis Statement and substantive Verifiable Proofs.

Must I state the painfully obvious ...

The Thesis Statement states the thesis or argument of the author in an essay or similar document. Usually no more than a sentence or two long, it is a focused section of text that clearly delineates the argument that is presented in the work and is usually found at the end of the first paragraph of a paper. The thesis statement says what the author or authors are trying to prove in the document. The subject of the thheesis statement reflects the topic of the paper and the predicate is usually what the author of the paper is trying to prove. The thesis statement is invaluable when constructing an outline, as it shows what points need to be proven.

A what is a proof?

Well ...

A proof is sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition.

The concept arises in a variety of areas, with both the nature of the evidence or justification and the criteria for sufficiency being area-dependent. In the area of oral and written communication such as conversation, dialog, rhetoric, etc., a proof is a persuasive perlocutionary speech act, which demonstrates the truth of a proposition.

  1. "What is 'superficial corporatist propaganda'?"

ANSWER: MEME's that discourage critical thinking.

FURTHER: Any "Thesis Statement" that is not substantiated with a substantive "verifiable proof", (ie, a logical argument that can withstand the rigor of contrasting challenging debate.)

duhh ...

CRITICAL THINKING: MEANING

Critical thinking clarifies goals, examines assumptions, discerns hidden values, evaluates evidence, accomplishes actions, and assesses conclusions.

"Critical" as used in the expression "critical thinking" connotes the importance or centrality of the thinking to an issue, question or problem of concern. "Critical" in this context does not mean "disapproval" or "negative." There are many positive and useful uses of critical thinking, for example formulating a workable solution to a complex personal problem, deliberating as a group about what course of action to take, or analyzing the assumptions and the quality of the methods used in scientifically arriving at a reasonable level of confidence about a given hypothesis. Using strong critical thinking we might evaluate an argument, for example, as worthy of acceptance because it is valid and based on true premises.

  1. "Even worse, who decides what will 'be tolerated here'?"

ANSWER: We all do.

FURTHER: We all, each and every day, challenge each other in respectful debate, to further the critical thinking.

Must I educate you on the basic principles of learning?

Just please ...

CRITICAL THINKING: PROCEDURE:

  1. Recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems
  1. Understand the importance of prioritization and order of precedence in problem solving
  1. Gather and marshal pertinent (relevant) information
  1. Recognize unstated assumptions and values
  1. Comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination
  1. Interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments
  1. Recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions
  1. Draw warranted conclusions and generalizations
  1. Put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives
  1. Reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience
  1. Render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life

So, either the commenter is completely ignorant and uneducated, or he has a DLC CORPORATIST agenda.

And, what was his response:

Yes I read essays, have written more than my share. No, I did not mention my Masters in Liberal Arts from St. John's College in Annapolis (a Bachelors in History by the way from Lincoln University ...

A "Masters in Liberal Arts" ... Really? You don't say?

Look, folks, this is not a vendetta, nor is it a pissing match. More than anything, I am disgusted and insulted, and with good reason, and so should you be. So, do not take my use of harsh impassioned curse words to imply that I am not level-headed. I am calm. Passionate. But calm. Just as the Samurai who wields the sword beheading his opponent is calm. I am attacking no one, personally, rather, I wield a sword of truth, the purpose of which, is to cleanse and hone the spirit ... to cleanse and hone the spirit of the Democratic Party. I am, yes, passionately eviscerating arguments that I deem to be: insulting, empty and bullshit. This diarist, deaniac, is publishing insulting empty bullshit, all the while, attempting to discourage valid criticism, labeling such as "whining."

I do not know who he speaks for, or who he thinks he speaks for, but:

  1. He does not speak for the Democratic Party.
  1. He most certainly does not speak for the Progressive Liberal Caucus(PLC): maybe for the DLC, but NOT for the PLC.
  1. He definitely does not speak for President Obama.
  1. He ASSUREDLY does not speak for me.

And I am a fan of Obama. Yes, I am critical, but I am, still, a fan, and I will still endeavor to get him re-elected, but NOT by insulting tactics that seek to discourage valid criticisms.

This diarist is hurting our party and our nation with his bullshit. He does not represent nor foster the Progressive Liberal ideals of an Awakened Electorate, the core ideal that got Obama elected. Yet, this diarist seems to believe that superficial CHEERLEADING will help Obama. He is naive in the extreme. He is childish beyond compare. He is foolishly full of himself, thinking that he is helping. HE IS NOT. HE IS HURTING. And, the sooner he stops with this empty bullshit, the better Obama and the Democratic Party will be. And, if the Democratic Party uses this sort of empty Corporatist Bullshit, they will be destroyed in 2012.

JUST STOP.

  1. Anyone who encourages ANY FORM OF CRITICAL DETAIL ORIENTED ATTENTION TO THE FACTS (whether they be for or against a given legislation) is a progressive liberal.
  1. Anyone who discourages, in ANY WAY, the process of DETAIL ORIENTED CRITICAL QUESTIONING/ CHALLENGING/ THINKING, is not a progressive liberal.

Everything else, is bullshit rhetoric.

In response to my comments yesterday, I received this, from the man with the "Masters in Liberal Arts" ...

And as someone much more liberal than he, the (1+ / 0-)
diarist, I celebrate his position. The people we have to worry about, to convert, to woo come to this site to see who and what progressives are. Many do not think, they simply react. These are the people on the brink, those who, even with all that is so damned obvious, are unsure. These are always the targets. What they want to see, form my experience on the line and in that world, is similar to being in a union. At the union hall everyone screams, argues, even calls names. At the end of the day a united front is presented.
   OK, I am questioning the whole concept of open discussion, ONLY as long as that discussion is "open" to the enemy and those you wish to woo. Questioning, get that?

The people we have to worry about?

Well, As far as I am concerned, the ONLY people we have to worry about, are people like YOU, and deaniac, namely, the people who are attempting to discourage dissent.

And, getting those people who "do not think" TO THINK was exactly precisely how Obama swayed a nation, inspired a people, and won the seminal election of our age. Go back to Obama's 2008 election, and listen to his theme, which was a dialectic that rose above the din.

THAT DIALECTIC is what fostered an Awakened Electorate.

It was substantive discourse, not empty fucking bullshit DLC Corporatist rhetoric.

  1. THAT, detailed dialectic, is what won the election, not the 15 second empty rhetoric sound bytes.
  1. THAT, critical discourse, is what inspired a nation, not superficial cheerleading flag waving bullshit.
  1. THAT, substantive debate, is what fostered the awakened electorate, not the dismissive insulting deriding of valid criticisms.

Were you here on dailykos during the primary wars, especially, those between the Clinton and Obama supporters?

Were you?

Do you have any clue why the Obama supporters won?

DO YOU?

Answer: SUBSTANTIVE FUCKING CRITICAL DEBATE.

... not the superficial empty cheerleading bullshit that deaniac keeps spewing that any 2nd year statistics college student can pick apart in 20 fucking minutes. He insults our intelligence with this crap, and there just aint no fucking way in hell that he will win over the Fiscal Republicans with that shit ... so don't even bother talking to me about wooing undecided voters with it. I know, because I WAS A FISCAL REPUBLICAN, well, not really, cause I never voted, but yeah, I was registered as a Republican, for 25 years.

And, the ONLY way we will forge a united front is with substantive detailed honest candid truth, not with CORPORATIST BULLSHIT LIES, which deaniac is spewing.

So, if you are seriously questioning the validity of "open discussion" ... then I have to question what planet you are living on? What country you are living in? ... seriously, I mean, THE FIRST AMENDMENT was the FIRST AMENDMENT because the bastion of free speech is our most sacred ideal, and you would dare suggest that we stifle it, and that such a practice of stifling valid criticisms would EVER be something that we, as a people, would embrace?

Are you seriously trying to get me to believe that stifling valid criticism will get people enthusiastic?

Are you for real?

No offense, but you really need to hear this:

Let me repeat this in the strongest most ardent words ... in no uncertain terms:

ANYONE WHO WANTS TO STIFLE (FOR ANY STATED REASON WHAT-SO-EVER) OPEN DISCUSSION OF VALID CRITICISMS IS, AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, AN ALLY OF THE DLC CORPORATE INTERESTS.

Now, do you want to ask me that question again. Oh wait, here is what you wrote:

OK, I am questioning the whole concept of open discussion, .... blah blah blah blah

Like I said: AN ALLY OF THE DLC/CORPORATE INTERESTS.

The very essence of what distinguishes the Democratic party's culture from the Republican party's culture, is our passion for TRUTH, born of rigorous brutally honest discourse.

And you are ..."questioning the whole concept of open discussion" ...

Right!

And I am questioning your and deaniac's agenda!

Like I said, worth repeating:

ANYONE WHO WANTS TO STIFLE (FOR ANY STATED REASON WHAT-SO-EVER) OPEN DISCUSSION OF VALID CRITICISMS IS, AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, AN ALLY OF THE DLC CORPORATE INTERESTS.

PS ...
To any who choose to dismiss my rant, let me caution you, again, in the strongest of words.

      Know this:

  1. You will NEVER win the 2012 election for Obama without me and people like me.
  1. We, who are challenging Obama, also happen to represent Obama's strongest most passionate base.
  1. Our enthusiasm is AUTHENTIC and cannot be duplicated or contrived by DLC CORPORATIST PROPAGANDA.
  1. The Progressive Liberal Caucus (PLC) represents the youthful questioning spirit (the young generation), and as such, WE are the future of the Democratic Party, and WE are the future of this nation and planet.

So, don't even try, cause you're just spittin' in the wind.

And yeah, I curse, I'm from NYC, got a problem with that?

"I am neither bitter nor cynical but I do wish there was less immaturity in political thinking."

~ Franklin D. Roosevelt ~

Originally posted to ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:13 AM PST.

Poll

Do you encourage open discussion of brutally honest "Critical Thinking" on dailykos?

75%12 votes
25%4 votes

| 16 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (13+ / 1-)

    ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

    by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:13:52 AM PST

    •  Sweet jesus (2+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      trashablanca, mallyroyal
      Hidden by:
      Earth Ling

      "You're with me or you're a DLC corporatist tool" gets five uprates? Pathetic.

      Allow me to bestow a more fitting rating.

      We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

      by raptavio on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:46:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The question is very simple ... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, Uberbah, priceman, Earth Ling

        Do you support the Open Honest Critical Challenging of Legislation and Politicians?

        Which, in reality, is nothing more than:

        Do you support Freedom of Speech?

        Do you support the FIRST AMENDMENT?

        And you give me a HR for that?

        Interesting.

        ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

        by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:57:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fcvaguy, trashablanca, mallyroyal

          And judging by your incoherent rant and comments, I doubt you'll ever understand why you actually got HRed, because you seem to labor under the illusion that having the right position to defend means whatever means you are entitled to use whatever means you feel like using in the defense of that position.

          We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

          by raptavio on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:02:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I take you at your word. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis, Uberbah, Earth Ling

            Here is what you wrote to justify your HR:

            "You're with me or you're a DLC corporatist tool" gets five uprates? Pathetic.

            Allow me to bestow a more fitting rating.

            As I said, interesting.

            Very interesting indeed.

            ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

            by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:19:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  One can support (0+ / 0-)

          all those things and at the same time, strongly disagree with you that your diary has anythng to do with any of those things. And, one can certainly HR your tip jar for the callouts alone and the excessive verbal abuse and vile language.

      •  Just look at who recced it and you'll know why. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        trashablanca, raptavio, mallyroyal

        The usual suspects reccing another total waste of words.

        Holy incoherence!

        The liberals always get discouraged when they do not see the measures they are interested in go through immediately. - Eleanor Roosevelt

        by OIL GUY on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:57:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, except fakedeanaic cites the DLC hub (7+ / 0-)

        the Progressive Policy Institute. Hint: it's not a progressive institute just because it's in the title.

        So you HR facts, like all of you do when they don't fit the 11th dimensional chess narrative.

        Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

        by priceman on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:01:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          trashablanca, OIL GUY, mallyroyal

          I HR irrespective of the position one holds on the "Obamabot" - "Purist" (or whatever derogatory terms one chooses to use to describe one side or the other) when one acts like a douche about it. But you know, if delusions of persecution make you feel more righteous, go for it, chum.

          We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

          by raptavio on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:05:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't use that term. You know why? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Uberbah, ArthurPoet, Earth Ling

            I can literally describe in detail everything that's wrong with you, fakedeaniac(because he supported the WH's attack on Dean) and your POV.

            Also I rarely HR because of that as well. Really it's an adverse emotional reaction. You can deny it if you want, but it's already there for others to see, chum.

            Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

            by priceman on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:15:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  My POV? (0+ / 0-)

              Chum, do you even know what my POV is?

              The fact that you have assumed one based on my opinion of this diary demonstrates my point.

              Hint: My opinion of this diary has nothing to do with where the diarist falls on the spectum of opinions about the direction of the Democratic Party.

              We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

              by raptavio on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:19:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your HR is louder than words (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Uberbah, ArthurPoet, Earth Ling

                Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

                by priceman on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:23:51 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  There is no gray, raptavio, on the (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                priceman, Earth Ling

                issue of Freedom of Speech and the right of informed dissent, born of critical thinking, open discussion, and acute detailed disputation.

                You have already caste the die.

                Rather fitting ...

                You have just enough religion to make you hate, but not enough to make you love ...

                ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

                by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:28:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Freedom of Speech (0+ / 0-)
                  is not the freedom to for Priceman to call Deaniac83, fakedeaniac or you rec'cing such juvenile namecalling.
                  •  It is our opinion, (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    priceman

                    substantiated through verifiable example, after example, after example, that deaniac does not represent the ideals for which Howard Dean stood for, and as such, it is within our Freedom of Speech right, to call a lie or false representation, for what it is.

                    The dailykos member, who calls himself "deaniac83" is not HOWARD DEAN. He is, quite accurately, literally, a fake dean.

                    HOWARD DEAN is a kossack, and he posts under his own name.

                    ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

                    by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 02:01:11 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  thank you for the "fake" prefix (5+ / 0-)

              because I saw Deanaic's user name and thought? WTF? This assclown would string up Howard Dean as fast as a right wing christian would crucify Jesus.

              FakeDeniac indeed!

              Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. - Kenneth E. Boulding

              by Earth Ling on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:38:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  You already revealed your agenda (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            priceman, Situational Lefty

            in your justification for your HR.

            Now, all the world, knows where you stand, which was the point of the diary.

            To draw a line in the sand.

            Let us put all of the rhetoric and obfuscation aside, because it really is quite simple:

            1. Do you support Freedom of Speech?
            1. Do you support Open Brutally Honest Discussion?

            Obviously, you don't.

            Which speaks volumes.

            Now we know.

            Thank you.

            ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

            by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:24:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Freedom of Speech (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mallyroyal

              is a legal right.

              This is a private site, and it operates under a set of rules.

              Among those rules are standards of conduct, including treating others with at least the barest modicum of respect.

              Being a jackass in the name of free speech is legally protected in public or on a forum you control. It is not here.

              "Brutally honest" is fine when honesty needs be brutal. "Brutally honest", at least here, is not when it's just a phrase used by someone who wants to act like a jerk to justify acting like a jerk.

              Done with you, because you clearly are one of those people who think that, and are more interested in talking than listening. That's your right, of course; but it's also my right to not engage with someone emulating a brick wall.

              We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

              by raptavio on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:38:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The goal of this site is to get (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                priceman

                Progressive Liberal Democrats elected, and to get Progressive Liberal Legislation passed, and that goal is served by the cornerstone ideals upon which this nation was founded, namely, freedom of speech. And, the blogging world is forged in that self same ethic. And, you may wish to discourage brutal honesty, labeling it "whining" or to suggest that being brutally honest is "acting like a jerk," but unfortunately for you, the benchmarks for proof and truth, are not yours, but rather, are those well-steeped in our modern education, over hundreds, or thousands of years. I read deaniac's work, and in response, I called: BULLSHIT.

                Being a jackass in the name of free speech is legally protected in public or on a forum you control. It is not here.

                No. I do not control this forum, and neither do you. If you did, or people like you did, I wouldn't be here, nor would the majority of the readership, because your goal of censorship does not serve the public demand for truth. Not your, PRO-OBAMA, version of truth. But real truth. And, it would appear, unfortunately for you, from what I can tell, the people who do control this forum, support brutal honesty. Fuck, they even welcome my use of the word "fuck!" Can't say I would feel more at home in any place that doesn't. Now, I realize that this just pisses you off to high hell, cause you folks are just dyin' to control the media, like you have
                been, for, generations, but haven't you figured it out yet? Here, let me explain it to you in painful detail.

                1. The blogging world is a bi-directional medium, where all participants, get to wield the podium, at any given moment in time.
                1. It is NOT unidirectional.
                1. It is NOT a pyramid hierarchy.
                1. It is an omni-directional network of disparate individuals, all of whom, have a valid insight and contribution to make.

                Now, given this open nature of this blogging world, do you seriously believe that you will ever win this war of attempting to discourage uncensored brutal honesty?

                About 11 years ago, a book was published called: The Lexus and the Olive Tree, and I listened to the author speak on BOOK TV, and in that speech, he told this rather prophetic story of a question Bill Gates was asked during a symposium in East Asia, with a group of Heads of State, on the "Internet and The Global Economy." And the East Asian Heads of State said to Bill Gates: "You know, we are all in support of the Internet, but could you just slow it down for us a little?" And Bill Gates reacted, with a chuckle, saying, "I wish I could. You assume that I am in control, I am not. NO ONE IS! I am just doing my best to keep up!"

                Heed these words well, my friend, you will never win this battle to discourage open brutally honest discussion, no matter how many times you call me a "jerk" ... no matter how many times fake-deaniac calls criticism "whining."

                Never.

                So don't even try. And the more that you do try, the worse it will be for you, because you will only make yourself appear worse and worse. You will only be fighting the rising tide. You will be spitting in the wind. You will be fighting progress. Because, progress and truth, go hand in hand. And, truth is only served when all voices are heard, including and MOST especially, dissenting voices. And, whenever a single voice is stifled, one hundred will rise to take his place. And if you stifle those hundred, a thousand will rise to take their place. And if you stifle a thousand voices, one hundred thousand will rise to take their place. And so on ...

                A basic rule of nature: The more you resist, the more it will persist.

                Nature is like that.

                And it is our nature to hunger for truth.

                I am not your enemy.

                I am not the enemy.

                I am merely informing you of what you are up against.

                I am merely here to deliver a warning. Heed my warning, or not, at your own peril.

                The more you resist open discourse, the stronger your opposition will become infused and crystallize against you. You can never win this battle, never. Because, at the heart of it, the force that you will be fighting, is nothing short of, the most profound force in humanity, the force of humanity's hunger for truth, knowledge, wisdom. Mark my words, friend, no matter what you do, that quest for knowledge and truth, will rise above ANY effort you can muster, to overcome your effort to censor. And with each wave, the opposition against will grow exponentially.

                You can never the battle against truth.

                Never.

                This is not "my" truth you are battling, it is universal truth you are battling. And that universal truth, is not yours, or mine, or any one groups to dictate, rather, it is only reached through the shared dialectic, wherein all perspectives contribute to forge a mutual understanding. Trust me, friend, the sooner you learn to embrace and welcome open discourse, the better we will all be.

                Now, if you want to waste our time and cost Obama the election in 2012, just like you and your DLC Corporatist friends cost the Democratic Party the mid-term election in 2010, then, by all means, continue playing your foolish games.

                ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

                by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 01:52:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  You're beating that drum way too hard (0+ / 0-)

              Freedom of Speech - everyone supports it. It doesn't exist at DailyKOS. There are rules which curtail your freedom of speech when you choose to participate here.

              Open Brutally Honest Discussion - Most people are for Open and Honest Discussion. It does not have to be brutal, vile, insulting, attacking or hateful.

  •  and you, in turn, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raptavio, blindyone, Deoliver47

    will get exactly nowhere in furtherance of your stated goals without folks like dean (and me)

    and it seems to me you're ignoring one facet of substantive critical debate... THAT IT'S A DEBATE.  that means two sides, at least.  I've seen dean respond to you and others with reason and facts, the same way I've seen some respond to him with reason and facts.

    so there we have it.  what now?

    "President Obama has the right solution [on Social Security.]" ~Senator Bernie Sanders, 11/10/10

    by mallyroyal on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:20:08 AM PST

    •  Deaniac referring to people (12+ / 0-)

      he disagrees with as "left puritans" is neither reasonable nor factual.  The fact that he occasionally employs reason and facts in between his ad hominem attacks doesn't mean he's interested in a reasonable, factual debate.

      Proud member of the unpaid "professional left" since 8/10/2010 / Viva Canadian healthcare! Death to the Pentagon! Free Mumia!

      by Big Tex on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:25:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  lmao what? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        trashablanca, OIL GUY, blindyone

        first of all damn near everyone on site has namecalled, if that should affect how seriously folks are taken on dkos then damn near nobody should be.

        second:

        employs reason and facts in between his ad hominem attacks doesn't mean he's interested in a reasonable, factual debate.

        what does this mean?  seems to me you're focusing on what you want, if you allow he does both.

        "President Obama has the right solution [on Social Security.]" ~Senator Bernie Sanders, 11/10/10

        by mallyroyal on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:28:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The namecalling and ad homs (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          trashablanca, OIL GUY
          are certainly over the top and seem to get a pass more and more every day.
        •  Please. You know exactly (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis, Uberbah, priceman

          what this means ...

          employs reason and facts in between his ad hominem attacks doesn't mean he's interested in a reasonable, factual debate.

          ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

          by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:40:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  what it means is (0+ / 0-)

            he's interested in both ad hominem attacks and reasonable debate.  how does it mean something else?  explain.

            "President Obama has the right solution [on Social Security.]" ~Senator Bernie Sanders, 11/10/10

            by mallyroyal on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:41:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your deductive reasoning is flawed. (0+ / 0-)

              First of all, fake-deaniac's chioce to resort to Ad hominem attacks, reveals the weakness of his character and stance. He cannot withstand the scrutiny, so he resorts this underhanded tactics. That is an insult to our intelligence. The merits of fake-deaniac's assertions, all too often, upon close inspection, have been proven flawed, as I have illustrated above in my diary, and as can be seen time and time again, in the comments on his diaries.

              And in response to those flaws, we see what?

              Childish ad hominems?

              Please.

              This speaks volumes:

              Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

              Please, sir. You are defending the indefensible, and you know it. Lies and falsehood serves no one.

              ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

              by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 02:21:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Given the fact that Deaniac's diaries (5+ / 0-)

          turn into piefights so often, I'd say that this is about more than me focusing on what I want to in his writing.  I'd say it has at least something to do with his persistent efforts to demonize progressives and critics of Obama in general.

          Proud member of the unpaid "professional left" since 8/10/2010 / Viva Canadian healthcare! Death to the Pentagon! Free Mumia!

          by Big Tex on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:45:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  there are plenty of us who don't see his (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            trashablanca, OIL GUY

            diaries as anything of the sort.

            what do you make of us?

            "President Obama has the right solution [on Social Security.]" ~Senator Bernie Sanders, 11/10/10

            by mallyroyal on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:51:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are ignoring the facts, (0+ / 0-)

              and you know it.

              ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

              by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 02:22:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I'd say (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ArthurPoet

              that you were inclined to view his diaries more favorably based on the fact that you agree with him.  And I'd say that some of you do the same thing yourselves.

              Proud member of the unpaid "professional left" since 8/10/2010 / Viva Canadian healthcare! Death to the Pentagon! Free Mumia!

              by Big Tex on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 07:03:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Last time I checked, at least a third of (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            trashablanca, mallyroyal

            the diaries on the rec list, in the comment thread or the diary itself, seem to involve ridiculing one side or the other.

            -so make sure when you say you're in it but not of it you're not helping to make this earth a place sometimes called Hell- Stevie Wonder

            by blindyone on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:58:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly, and THAT must stop, (0+ / 0-)

              but it will not stop, until the bullshit lies cease.

              And, that is why I posted this diary.

              The sooner we dispense with the falsity and obfuscation of the real cause of the mid-term 2010 loss, the sooner we will consolidate to a shared message.

              ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

              by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 02:25:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Deaniac (4+ / 0-)
        was wrong to use that term. Its not all helpful or constructive and certainly didn't help deliver the larger message of his diary.

        This diary trumps that one on failed messaging for all the same reasons and then some.

        •  fine that makes sense. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fcvaguy, trashablanca, OIL GUY, blindyone

          what doesn't is most of the people offended by the term call others on the site whatever they feel like with no sense of hypocricy.

          and for this diarist to pretend that the issue deaniac and others like myself have with what's said by some on here is the fact that it's "DETAILED CRITICAL THINKING" is some seriously dishonest shit.

          I'm totally unsuprised by the reccers.

          "President Obama has the right solution [on Social Security.]" ~Senator Bernie Sanders, 11/10/10

          by mallyroyal on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:34:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  THAT term "whining" was THE message of (0+ / 0-)

          the diary. The rest of the diary was a skewed statistical analysis to support his intended MEME.

          ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

          by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:42:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It could be taken as a "new improved" dogwhistle (0+ / 0-)

          … version of "purity troll."

          The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

          by lotlizard on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:53:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The only purity test is truth. (0+ / 0-)

            If someone is attempting to discourage the open discussion to discern truth, well then, the cost of that, will speak for itself.

            This is an eternal war.

            ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

            by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 02:29:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  One of the annoying coinages of our time is (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ArthurPoet

              … the pejorative "truther."

              Who could possibly have an interest in poisoning the concept, as old as Socrates, of knowing that one doesn't know and seeking the truth?

              As happened to the word "liberal" (and now "progressive"), poisoning concepts and language is a favored technique—of the proto-fascist Right.

              The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

              by lotlizard on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 06:57:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agreed. Rather ironic, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lotlizard

                wouldn't you say? And for people, in our day and age, to actually deride me for advocating for "critical thinking", the very thing one is taught n college, is beyond imagining.

                ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

                by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 08:11:00 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  When deaniac dismisses VALID CRITICISM (7+ / 0-)

      as "whining"  ... that is not a "debate" ... that insulting propaganda.

      ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

      by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:37:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the word "valid" is up for grabs. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        trashablanca, OIL GUY

        "President Obama has the right solution [on Social Security.]" ~Senator Bernie Sanders, 11/10/10

        by mallyroyal on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:42:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, it is not. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slinkerwink, blueoasis, Uberbah

          All substantive criticisms, with detailed proofs, are valid.

          Any categoric dismissing of detailed criticisms is contrary to the cause of progress.

          ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

          by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:45:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  well the criticisms in question (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            trashablanca, OIL GUY

            are certainly not all "substantive with detailed proofs".  thats the WHOLE POINT, and you're moving the goalposts.

            "President Obama has the right solution [on Social Security.]" ~Senator Bernie Sanders, 11/10/10

            by mallyroyal on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:48:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hardly, and you are attempting to (0+ / 0-)

              confuse the discussion:

              1. Do you support Brutally Honest Open Discussion?

              And, that which is "valid" or "accurate" will be determined in the discussion, itself. That has never been in question, what HAS been in question, what IS in question, is whether or not you support the very open and honest discourse that is necessary to determine that which is valid or not?

              Or, do you dismiss and discourage such critical questions, as "whining" ... as FakeDeaniac has?

              And, for the record, no goal-posts have been changed, so please save your framing MEME's for the kids, we all know what a "proof" is:

              A proof is sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition.

              The concept arises in a variety of areas, with both the nature of the evidence or justification and the criteria for sufficiency being area-dependent. In the area of oral and written communication such as conversation, dialog, rhetoric, etc., a proof is a persuasive perlocutionary speech act, which demonstrates the truth of a proposition.

              ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

              by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:54:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  you are something else. (0+ / 0-)

                And, that which is "valid" or "accurate" will be determined in the discussion, itself. That has never been in question, what HAS been in question, what IS in question, is whether or not you support the very open and honest discourse that is necessary to determine that which is valid or not?

                I support "open and honest" discourse.  I think you're mistakenly under the impression that means I have to agree with YOUR interpretation of the definition of that concept.

                for instance, despite what you think you've done with this diary... you haven't performed a persuasive perlocutionary act here.  

                this is a rant, not an argument.

                "President Obama has the right solution [on Social Security.]" ~Senator Bernie Sanders, 11/10/10

                by mallyroyal on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 01:29:51 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I have cited three diaries, (0+ / 0-)

                  and for each these, I cited substantive flaws.

                  I could produce more, but I hardly think that if I produced 5 or 10 diaries of his that were flawed and represented proof of the validity of my argument, that would even suffice ... TO YOU.

                  ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

                  by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 02:34:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Let me repeat ... (0+ / 0-)

      You can argue with me until you are all blue in the face, but I assure you:

      1. You cost us the 2010 mid-terms.
      1. You will cost us the 2012 election.

      So just stop with the bullshit rhetoric.

      Stop trying to suppress criticism.

      Just. Fucking. Stop.

      You. Are. Hurting. Us!

      ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

      by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:54:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll do exactly what I wish, thanks. (5+ / 0-)

        and I completely disagree with your entire take, it suffices to say.

        and I cost you nothing.  I voted Dem.  and my congressman is plenty progressive.  I'd retort in kind but that would be as plainly ridiculous as your assertion.

        it must take quite an ego to be so assured of your correctness.  I marvel at you.

        "President Obama has the right solution [on Social Security.]" ~Senator Bernie Sanders, 11/10/10

        by mallyroyal on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:57:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Those who attempt to suppress (0+ / 0-)

          each person's own valid criticism, cost us the enthusiasm of each of those persons, and THAT LOSS OF ENTHUSIASM, cost us the election.

          Now, if you do not see that, then I suggest that you are blind.

          ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

          by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 02:05:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  So screaming and yelling at folks (4+ / 0-)

    is a way to get them to agree with you. Calling out another diarist is a way to influence people?  I don't think so.

    In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

    by jsfox on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:24:18 AM PST

    •  Sometimes .. (4+ / 0-)

      when the din of confusion is overwhelming.

      One must stand up and yell.

      Cause you folks are not listening.

      You respond with intentionally myopic retorts, childishly obtuse rationale, superficial flawed logic ... and what makes matters worse, I am sure you even know it.

      And, what makes this even the worst, is that such tactics, if employed against the "undecideds" will NEVER fly.

      You can argue with me until you are all blue in the face, but I assure you:

      1. You cost us the 2010 mid-terms.
      1. You will cost us the 2012 election.

      ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

      by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:51:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not listening to you (0+ / 0-)

        well you have now made sure of that as far as I am concerned.

        In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

        by jsfox on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:00:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I see. (0+ / 0-)

          So you have no interest in listening to people who challenge you?

          Interesting.

          ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

          by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:15:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  This helps. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raptavio, OIL GUY, blindyone, jsfox, nickrud

    Even my bot is tired of this shit.

    by Bob Johnson on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:27:16 AM PST

    •  All open brutally honest discourse helps. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, Uberbah

      Unless you believe that whitewashed empty cheer-leading is what will win the election in 2012?

      That ain't what enabled Obama to beat Clinton in the Primaries. Or, were you not paying attention?

      And, that didn't work in 2010 mid-terms.

      Good luck with that "discouraging criticism" thing!

      Yeah, lol, that'll work ... NOT!

      The definition of insanity:
      Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
      ~ Albert Einstein ~

      ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

      by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:04:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Knock yourself out. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        keirdubois, mallyroyal

        Puddles of their own bodily fluids will lie beneath their desk chairs.

        by Bob Johnson on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:05:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I see, Bob Johnson, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slinkerwink

          so you do not believe in the sacred ideals of:

          1. Freedom of Speech
          1. Open Brutally Honest Discussion

          Let us put all of the rhetoric and obfuscation aside, because it really is that simple.

          And, now we know where you stand.

          Thank you.

          ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

          by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:30:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Go for it. (0+ / 0-)

            My comment in deaniac's diary yesterday:

            This helps.

            by Bob Johnson on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 07:40:51 PM CST

            Puddles of their own bodily fluids will lie beneath their desk chairs.

            by Bob Johnson on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:33:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  There's nothing "to go for" Bob, (0+ / 0-)

              it is all a matter of where you stand.

              Now we know where you stand.

              Thanks.

              ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

              by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:43:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Terrific. (0+ / 0-)

                Puddles of their own bodily fluids will lie beneath their desk chairs.

                by Bob Johnson on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:43:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Bob's standing right next to me. (0+ / 0-)

                Or I'm next to him. Or something.

                But that smell you smell?

                Wasn't me.

                •  Thanks ... (0+ / 0-)

                  so you, keirdubois, also do not believe in supporting the sacred ideals of:

                  1. Freedom of Speech
                  1. Open Brutally Honest Discussion

                  So you agree with fake-deaniac's choice to refer to people's valid criticisms as "whining" thus attempting to discourage informed dissent?

                  Interesting.

                  Very interesting.

                  ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

                  by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 02:37:57 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Here (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ArthurPoet

                    I'll hand you the guitar, and you can show me how you want me to play it.

                    You can't take me seriously Arthur. I'm not a Serious Person. I thought you knew that.

                  •  Further (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ArthurPoet

                    I think the deaniac is a pompous ass with little social skills and zero empathy. And I think you need a Valium, dude. Nothing personal.

                    So, did you like my Jon Stewart impression?

                    •  I was not intending to issue (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      keirdubois

                      slurs against deaniac, simply because he is insulting and abusive. My reason for calling him a "fake" deaniac, is because that is what he is.

                      My reason for saying "Stop the condescending BS" towards him is because it is offensive.

                      My reason for attributing his agenda to corporatist interests, is because his rhetoric is indicative of that.

                      And, whilst he may be pompous, and I will agree with you on that note, but what I do not do, and what I do not condone, is calling him an "ass" ... not on my diary, even though John Stewart might.

                      and, btw, I prefer Single Malt Scotch.

                      ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

                      by ArthurPoet on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 10:22:15 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

  •  If there's a message in here (5+ / 0-)
    Its lost on me - amongst the massive cutting and pasting of disjointed ranting comments and the unseemly callouts and repetitive vile language.
  •  FINALLY! (7+ / 0-)

    It's settled!

    Champagne all around!

    Even my bot is tired of this shit.

    by Bob Johnson on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:34:35 AM PST

    •  Nooooooo! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob Johnson, raptavio, blindyone

      That would help!

      •  I predict well over a thousand comments. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raptavio, OIL GUY

        Mostly by the same cast of characters.

        These diaries have become the giant version of Israeli-Palestinian diaries -- the same crowd arguing back-and-forth in an endless circle jerk.

        Like they're going to finally WIN and prove that the other side (pick a side) is dead wrong.

        Puddles of their own bodily fluids will lie beneath their desk chairs.

        Even my bot is tired of this shit.

        by Bob Johnson on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:48:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And what about you, nickrud, (0+ / 0-)

        Where do you stand?

        Save the trite retorts.

        Do you support the sacred ideals of:

        1. Freedom of Speech
        1. Open Brutally Honest Discussion

        Put all of the rhetoric and obfuscation aside, because it really is that simple.

        Where do you stand?

        Or should I just look at which comments you have TIP'd to deduce the answer?

        hmmm ....

        ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

        by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:47:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It appears that your "sacred ideals" of (0+ / 0-)
          1. Freedom of Speech
          1. Open Brutally Honest Discussion

          means that people should be Free to have an Open Brutally Honest Discussion in which everyone agrees with whatever you say.

          Oops, I just disagreed with you.  I'll bet that makes me a corporatist tool.

          •  No. I welcome disagreement, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slinkerwink

            what I do not respect, is:

            1. when people like fake-deaniac dismiss valid criticisms are "whining" ... or
            1. his attempt to blame the mid-term 2010 loss on those valid criticisms ... or
            1. his effort to cover up his posting of skewed half-truths, all the while, pissing on those with substantive critique.

            There's a difference, and I think you already know that. So, please do not insult me with mis-representation of my position. My diary explains well enough where I stand, and I said nothing of the kind to what you have suggested.

            ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

            by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 02:44:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  So let see (6+ / 0-)

    Hyperbolic - check
    Almost impossible to read - check
    Over use of BOLD -check

    The WDC judges thank you for your entry.

    In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

    by jsfox on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:38:46 AM PST

    •  What's WDC? n/t (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OIL GUY, jsfox, mallyroyal

      -so make sure when you say you're in it but not of it you're not helping to make this earth a place sometimes called Hell- Stevie Wonder

      by blindyone on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:01:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Worst Diary Contest n/t (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        trashablanca, blindyone, mallyroyal

        Which happens every Thursday. As far as the rules go we made 'em up so we get to bend them at will.

        In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

        by jsfox on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:04:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Can I bet $200 on this diary to win WDC? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blindyone

          He even posted it on the right day!

          The liberals always get discouraged when they do not see the measures they are interested in go through immediately. - Eleanor Roosevelt

          by OIL GUY on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:11:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Careful it's still early n/t (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            OIL GUY, blindyone

            In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

            by jsfox on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:15:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I see, OIL GUY, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slinkerwink, Situational Lefty

            so you believe that a diary that criticizes those discourage:

            1. Freedom of Speech
            1. Open Brutally Honest Discussion

            Is is the Worst diary?

            I see. Interesting. So that is what you think of the sacred ideals upon which our country was founded.

            Very interesting.

            ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

            by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:34:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm glad to see you still have slink on your side (0+ / 0-)

              It can only help us in the WDC voting.

              The liberals always get discouraged when they do not see the measures they are interested in go through immediately. - Eleanor Roosevelt

              by OIL GUY on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 03:28:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And I am glad to see that you still have (0+ / 0-)

                a lack of care for supporting open discourse, on yours.

                ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

                by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 04:21:00 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  And where do you stand, blindyone? (0+ / 0-)

        Do you believe that a diary that criticizes those discourage:

        1. Freedom of Speech
        1. Open Brutally Honest Discussion

        Is is the Worst diary?

        Or should I judge you by the TIPs you have given?

        Let me see ...

        Interesting.

        So that is what you think of the sacred ideals upon which our country was founded.

        Yes. Very interesting indeed.

        Yes, methinks your name is most fitting ...

        "blind" - y - one ...

        Thanks for playing!

        ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

        by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:40:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ha, Ha. You made a funny about my name. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lost and Found

          I think that the tone of your writing and the graphics make it eligible for the WDC today.

          I really think that you want attention and you were getting lost in the 1800 comments in that other thread.

          -so make sure when you say you're in it but not of it you're not helping to make this earth a place sometimes called Hell- Stevie Wonder

          by blindyone on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 01:17:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  You left out the frequent resort to CAPS LOCK! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jsfox, mallyroyal

      Other wise, I agree completely.

      The liberals always get discouraged when they do not see the measures they are interested in go through immediately. - Eleanor Roosevelt

      by OIL GUY on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:06:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And you, as well, (0+ / 0-)

      ... believe that a diary that criticizes those who discourage:

      1. Freedom of Speech
      1. Open Brutally Honest Discussion

      Is the Worst diary?

      I see. Interesting. So that is what you think of the sacred ideals upon which our country was founded?

      Very interesting.

      Thank you.

      ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

      by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:36:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  thats only what this diary claims to do (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lost and Found

        it's a front for you to yell at deaniac and those who agree with him.

        (see how it works when someone tries to tell you what you think?)

        "President Obama has the right solution [on Social Security.]" ~Senator Bernie Sanders, 11/10/10

        by mallyroyal on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:49:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, on that note, you are correct, (0+ / 0-)

          It IS a forum for me to "yell at deaniac and those who agree with him" ... You are absolutely correct.

          Because, apparently, you need to be yelled at, TO WAKE THE FUCK UP!

          To yell at you all, because you are hurting the Democratic Party.

          I know you all thinking you are helping.

          But, I assure you, you are not.

          Now, obviously, you can disagree with me. But, as time goes on, you will mark my words here today, and the truth will prove itself.

          ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

          by ArthurPoet on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 02:49:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site