Sliding into the prototypical "Ugly American" mindset

[cali]

Mocking President Morales, making fun of him and other South American leaders, is classic ugly American shit.

It's possible to criticize him without falling into that ugly bog.

It's possible to criticize South America without saying that

"Latin America is a cyst on the anus of the world".

It's possible to criticize without falling into xenophobic bullshit.

[MADem]

1. Would that so-called Democrats would be a bit less nasty to their own President.... nt

[cali]

3. Not something I'm engaging in. I criticize policies and focus on them

rather than on people, but in any case, your post is hardly responsive.

There are a lot of 'ugly American' comments being posted on DU at the moment.

[MADem]

16. It's responsive--it's the other side of that coin.

Many of the same people holding up the Maduros and Correas in high esteem are the same folks denigrating the 44th President of the US. Ugly Americans can be, and many are, ugly to the first black POTUS, and they demand he deliver twice as much to get half the credit.

[cali]

23. fine. I have no problem condemning comments that degrade the President.

but you seem to be just fine with the ugly american shit being posted. you sure as hell haven't said a peep about it.

I'm done with you. It's pointless. You play silly tit for tat games.

[MADem]

29. I don't play silly tit for tat games, I simply point out hypocrisies.

Don't blame me if the cognitive dissonance gets to you.

It shouldn't be "all right" for wholesale denigration of our first black POTUS to occur on this board daily (and I don't see you "peeping" about that) but you have a cow over one person making a smart remark about Morales' hair.


Ironically, Morales has had plenty to say about his own hair--and the effects of poultry on it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/21/evo-morales-warns-chicken_n_545184.html

[zeemike]

38. Bullshit.

I have not seen anyone here call Obama a "tin pot dictator" like they did Morales...and you know full well if they did their post would be hidden.

You want to pretend that criticizing Obama's policies is denigrating Obama...it is not....not even close to what has been said here about many South American countries and leaders....which are never hidden.

[cali]

45. +1 and

even the comment about South American being the cyst on the anus of the world was allowed to stay up.

[MuseRider]

82. Someone actually said that and

it was allowed to stay?

Sadly I have begun to think that I need to leave this site. That is disgusting.

Ugly Americans have always been around however I have never been in a situation when I was around as many as I am on this site and I live in fricking Kansas.

Gotta do some thinking about this. What a sad thing this is.

[cali]

86. Please Don't!

leave DU that is. It would be a real loss.

and yes, I alerted on it and the jury voted 3-3 to let it stay.

It really is sad.

[MuseRider]

95. I say this a lot anymore

and keep coming back but damn, I hate to be associated with this kind of elitism and nationalism. I really hate it.

We used to go scuba diving with a guy that was like that. We finally left the group because he and his wife were so ugly to the people in whatever country we were in, ugly from the get go so that "Those people would know what we expect".

I thought that was rare, looks like it is making a comeback and that is just sad.

[MADem]

115. The only thing that has changed is that the "mods" aren't cleaning up the mess and making

it a pretty Potemkin Village so that people have a false idea of how people really are. The people who are saying mean stuff have -- many of them -- always been here. There are always a few trolls who will take advantage, and sock puppets, but not all of the invective is coming from them.

[MADem]

72. Well, let's see....

Obama's been called

... "the reverse" of an heroic FDR:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023058759#post17

A "third way leaning Republican:"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023058759#post17

Owned by the "PTB:"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023161851#post24

Bush:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022971017#post3

A puppet controlled by the "real power in the shadows"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023023781#post5

Is any of that "worse" than being called a "tin pot dictator?"

And, this isn't "South American Countries and Leaders" Underground...it's Democratic Underground. We have no obligation to give "equal time" or "equal consideration" to people of other political persuasions -- and that includes Republicans or foreign governments.

[cali]

89. right. hip hip hooray for ugly comments. fuck south america. this is

democratic underground and we can be as damn xenophobic as we please.



"South America is a cyst on the anus of the world"

alerted and left to pollute du.

[MADem]

121. Way to completely miss the point I was advancing.

Which wasn't an endorsement of the practice, just that there's plenty of that nasty shit on both sides of this or any issue, and it often gets "alerted and left to pollute."

Nothing's "new"--we're just SEEING it now.

[AmBlue]

137. it is YOU who misses CALI's point.

Over and over again! She acknowledged yours but you have YET to disavow the nasty, xenophobic comments about Latin America, whom the U.S. just offended by forcing down the plane of Bolivia's president. What gives?!?!?!

[MADem]

141. Oh please. Dial it down five notches. No plane was forced down.

More likely--as it's played out--that was a ruse to rile the masses.

Putin is rubbing his hands together with great glee. It won't make him less of a tyrant, or his country less of a crime-laden hellhole...but hey, he thinks he's hot stuff this week.

[AmBlue]

144. Okay... you go on gushing about our emperor's fine suit of silk.

Unfortunately, there are too many that know--all over the world, mind you-- he's wearing nothing but his birthday suit.

[MADem]

147. Listen to you, talking about "our emperor" on a Democratic message board!

Could your contempt be any more obvious, I wonder?

Have you read the TOS here lately?

[AmBlue]

152. Ever heard of an analogy?

The point is there are no acceptable excuses for imperialistic behavior. We have a duty as citizens to hold our government accountable, not defend its bad behavior. We also should call out bad behavior here on DU, such as the rude comments about Latin America that Cali mentioned. It's the right thing to do.

P.S. You need not bother replying-- I have no more time for your nonsense. You just graduated to my blocked list.

[MADem]

153. Yes, good idea--no need to let anything that doesn't match your world view disturb your

thought process. Might make you....think!

[zeemike]

90. Well to paraphrase a quote of a famous person

"What you do to the least of us you do to me"
If it is OK to call someone in South America a "tin pot dictator", which is demeaning and insulting then it should be OK with you to say it about our own.
And all of those you mentioned are about and because of his policies...which are NOT democratic...and never have been.

This site went underground because we departed from democratic policies in 2000...and we have no reason to ignore those policies just because we have a president with a D behind his name.

[MADem]

93. Look, I'm not the one calling anyone a tin pot dictator, even though there

are a few authoritarian types down that way that are adored around these parts. This isn't Tin Pot Dictator Underground, it's Democratic Underground, where the goal is to elect more Dems and fewer Republicans. So no, it's NOT OK to say it about one of our own.

I guess your excuse is that if you don't like someone's policies, you can call them anything from the F word to ... a tin pot dictator--so long as it's not someone YOU like...?

This site went LIVE after the theft of the election by Five Assholes on the Supremes--I don't know where you got the idea that "departing from democratic policies" was the reason--we were pissed that Al Gore got fucked. I remember. I was here from the git-go; though I rarely posted because it wasn't prudent. Then I lost my email address and had to start all over, but I remember DU1, clearly.

I think you might be thinking of some other Green or other website; DU's goal has always been to ELECT DEMOCRATS to office. Check the TOS if you don't believe me...

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

I don't think I am the only one who finds an unreasonable amount of America - hating, to say nothing of Obama-hating, going on here lately. It's gratuitous, and many of the people shopping the "Obama sucks" themes seem to be angry that he's not more of a king, issuing decrees to do the things they'd like.

[zeemike]

96. Well you do realize that Morales and Chavez were both elected in a democratic election don;t you?

So you ether support democracy or you don't
And I notice that these same people who are so against Morales and Chavez say nothing about Honduras who deposed the democratically elected president and installed one that they liked and one that was good for US businesses interests.

But I have been here at DU from day one....and I have always been Zeemike.
But this is more than just about electing a democrat...it is about democratic principles...if we have a democratic politician who does not stand for democratic principles it makes no sense to blindly support him, unless this site is a fan site and has no principles... And that is not the case and never has been.

And that "American hating" meme comes from the right wingers who also gave us "love it or leave it" to create the idea that anyone who criticizes our policies domestic or forging hates America...
No sir I don't buy that one for a minute...if you love America you love the constitution not it's leaders. and will not let the latter destroy the former.

[MADem]

99. I realize that Chavez changed the rules to retain power, and Morales did as well.

Wouldn't it be swell for some of these "Obama lovers" if Obama could just wipe his ass on the nation's constitution and set himself up as "President for Life?"

It's not terribly "democratic" to game the very constitution upon which a nation is founded, now, is it? If "democratic principles" include changing the rules so that one could have a third term, or even more, then getting your cronies that you put in power in the judicial branch to rubber-stamp your decision...well, you can't really say that either democratic principles or processes are being upheld. All that is, is a power grab-- bought and paid for with things like cheap concrete housing and tracfones and food subsidies--it's a genteel form of indentured servitude, certainly much better for those in deepest poverty, but it's not really a leg up. It's a short term band-aid, and a trade of votes from uneducated and unsophisticated people with few choices for "stuff."

It's not the "right wingers" or even the conservatives I'm hearing that "America hating" from. We don''t have those here. I'm hearing it from Paulbots and "Fight the Power" types who are long on drama and short on facts. If it's American, it's WRONG. That gets old after awhile.

You haven't been here since Day One, unless you had a different name--DU wasn't started in 2002...you're off by a year.

[zeemike]

104. You mean like the GOP changed the rules

After FDR won a 4th term to limit it to two?...that kind of change is OK but not the other way around?...why do you think you should be able to tell them the right way to do things?
And the complaints sound like right wingers complain about all the "free stuff" given to our poor ...to get their votes.

But I was here from day one...I saw Skinner on C-Span at the protest "free speech zone" with his sign and went to the site.
I had a computer crash and had to re register but I was here from the start.

[MADem]

107. Oh, the "they did it too" excuse? Really? And you go back over

half a century to try and make that work? And, you try to conflate limiting Presidential power with gaming the document so that a single person can accrue MORE power?

That dog is just not hunting. Even Democrats thought FDR had stayed too long at the fair. A lot of them took it out on Truman.


And you've moved that goalpost just a tad, I notice.

But I have been here at DU from day one....and I have always been Zeemike.

You didn't re-register under the same name here, that wasn't possible. If it were possible, I wouldn't be MADem.

[zeemike]

119. That was not my point at all.

My point is that there is nothing wrong with changing the constitution or the rules in a democracy...it is done all the time and is no more of a power grab than what we do with ours...but the bottom line is that he was democratically elected and was not the dictator you seem to want to make him out to be.

And honestly I don't remember the details of my registration history...all I know is that I was here from day one and I have never posted as anything but Zeemike...and in fact it goes back even further than that...back into the 90s when I was at a place called The Globe....I have always posted as
zeemike..I have never had an other name.
Now if it helps you to dismiss what I say because you think I am some kind of bad guy or something like that then go right ahead...I am telling you the truth whether you want to believe it or not...no sweat off of my balls ether way.

[MADem]

123. Whenever it's changed to give the SAME GUY continued power, I look askance.

And the Bolivian constitution didn't change any term limits; it was still a two-term construct. Morales, though, demanded a re-set and wanted to start the clock ticking again just because they did a re-write. That is "gaming" for personal aggrandizement. Two terms in the old one, two terms in the new one? That doesn't mean you get three or more terms.

It's impossible for you to have been here at the start with the same name; there was no capability to register twice with the same handle. Perhaps you came along later than you realized.

I don't think you are a "bad guy." I do think facts matter, though, even if I think the details of your perspiration habits are a bit TMI.

[zeemike]

129. I don't know what TMI is

Nor does it matter much to me.
I don't know why it is 02 I only know that I was here on day one and if you don't want to believe that it is fine with me...and the only thing I can think of as to why that would matter to you is that you want to construct in your mind some reason to dismiss what I say...which I know you can do without any help from me.
And it is only your facts that matter...the rest you dismiss...and you can construct just about any scenario if you can dismiss the facts that don't fit it.

[MADem]

142. Too much information. It's a rather standard phrase.

You were here in the early days, just not at the start. I don't think there's anything wrong with the software that would only mess with you and not anyone else.

[zeemike]

145. The phrase I know

Not the acronym.
I told you my story, you can believe it or not...I suspect not, because you are looking for something to discredit me with...and anything will do,
Perhaps I lurked until 02, I don't remember...but I remember clearly coming here on day one.

[MADem]

146. No one is trying to discredit you.

Don't take it so personally. Like I said, 'facts matter' is all.

[zeemike]

149. Well I have never been given the third degree about it before

So what am I to think?
No some facts don't matter...

[MADem]

150. It's not the third degree--it's simply a logical question which arose from your own assertions. nt

[zeemike]

151. Which you found suspicious

I never questioned your story of when you came her because it don't matter to me....one of those facts that don't matter.

[MADem]

154. No--I simply noted that your assertion(s) didn't match your join date.

And like I said, facts matter. All facts matter--it's not a pick-n-choose thing, IMO.

[zeemike]

155. All facts that you care about.

Does the fact the Obama did not keep his promises matter?...not to you of course...they can be overlooked....but when I was first here at DU does?..presumably because you think I am lying about it?...As if that would make any difference at all to this discussion.
So obviously it is a pick and choose.

[MADem]

157. Does the fact that he doesn't have a Congress that will pass the laws he'd like to implement matter

to you at all?

Or is it easier to blame "the emperor" because he has that kind of power....(not)...to promise and deliver to you everything you want with a wave of his magic baton?

Facts DO matter--and the fact is this: Obama never had the critical mass in Congress to complete his agenda. And when he needed help putting Democratic asses in congressional seats, Democrats STAYED HOME. That's a fact. They had to be greeted with the leering visage of Mitt "Fuck You, All of You Poor Unwashed Assholes" RMoney to get them off their asses to vote for him again.

We have one more shot to do this right. Will Democrats show up, or will they stay home AGAIN and continue to cast blame for a situation they brought on themselves?

How's that for a fact?

[zeemike]

158. Yes those facts matter to me

And I gave him the benefit of the doubt for 4 years and voted for him again.
But the fact that as soon as he no longer needed our votes he put chained CPI on the table was the last straw...now I know the fact is that it was all bullshit...And the fact is I fell for it
But he had the congress for the first 2 years and still could get nothing done...except take single payer off the table and give the insurance industry a big boost by requiring us all to buy their product.
And now we have the surveillance state which he claims is good for us and that the forth amendment is not worth the paper it is written on.
And Gitmo is still operating and torturing people who have been cleared for release because he as Commander in Chief is unwilling to give the military the order to close it....and he could do that if he had the guts to do so....there is no constitutional requirement that he can't do it without the congress approval because he is CIC.

All of those facts matter to me but probably not to you.

[AmBlue]

138. +1

[dgibby]

118. It would be helpful in furthering the discussion on this site

if certain people here would learn to refrain from conflating honest disagreement and criticism of policy with America and Obama hating.

It would also be helpful if those same people would refrain from dictating to other posters what is/is not ok to post.

The efforts of some to stifle dissent is, to say the least, offensive, and could lead to the mistaken belief that this site may, indeed, be "Tin Pot Dictator Underground".

YMMV.

[MADem]

124. Yes, and it would also be nice if people could disagree "honestly" without using personal

invective and ascribing motives to POTUS.

There are indeed efforts to "stifle dissent," and one of those methods is to paint the POTUS as some sort of evil corporate enabler, while completely ignoring the mendacious GOP majority in the House.

[Number23]

134. Why do you even bother?? THESE PEOPLE SEE WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE

Braying into their cereal bowls about someone calling Morales a "tin pot dictator" when this president has been called much, MUCH worse and much, MUCH more often.

This hypocritical shit-stirring is just UNREAL. And boring as all hell.

Edit: The past few weeks have truly helped me to understand something about these people. I have never been able to understand what the hell is the issue here. Why the same names are constantly screaming about any and everything. Why they claim to be liberals but say some of the nastiest most absurd, idiotic things about a president that enjoys 90% approval among liberals.

These people hate the government period. The Snowden thing is like catnip. They absolutely HATE the US government and if the person leading that government just happens to be the first black president and a Democrat then who FUCKING cares?

[MADem]

156. Yes indeed.

It's a layer cake, though. There's government hate, and then there's a 'cultural' overtone that is like a hippo in the kitchen--you're just not able to ignore it.

I opined elsewhere that if Snowden wasn't a white guy, he might not have gotten the adulation he's receiving. The subthread starts here http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023185448#post103 and I cut to the chase in post 126...

I have a feeling that Hillary Clinton would have gotten a similar level of shit--she's in the "OTHER" club too. You'd think we could move past some of this foolishness.

[magellan]

106. "our first black POTUS"

You keep writing that as if we're supposed to make exceptions for him because of it. I can't imagine that's your intent, but that's how it sounds.

[MADem]

108. Not make exceptions--just give him the same damn consideration.

But that's not what happens. He's held to a higher standard and he's scrutinized more.

Equality--it's a good thing for everyone.

[magellan]

110. I hold him to the same standards I hold any president.

But I guess deciding all criticism is rooted in racism is easier to handle.

[MADem]

111. If the shoe does not fit you, don't cram it on your foot and then pout at me about it.

Did I say "you" and "your criticism" were "rooted in racism?"

Come down off the cross. The only one accusing you is you.

If you are going to insist that there's no double standard happening with Obama, though, I can't convince you that there is. But I know it when I see it, and I see it, even here, at times, and it is disheartening.

[magellan]

112. Just reading through this thread, as I do before deciding to comment

...and thought I'd point out how you sound. If you don't like it, too bad. I'm not on a cross, but it sure sounds like some here have put the President on one and are parading it around in hopes people will shut up and take pity.

[dgibby]

113. That struck me too. Stands out like a sore thumb. n/t

[MADem]

127. Just as it stands out like a sore thumb when he's treated differently by posters here. nt

[Mojorabbit]

133. I see distress over Pres. Obama's POLICIES, not the person

or the office which is a whole different thing. The attacks on Morales were personal and racist at times.

[Cleita]

47. Really, I haven't seen anyone trying to bring some facts to this conversation denigrating the

President other than to criticize him for an error in judgement that he needs to correct. The fact that he is black has nothing to do with the fact that he is President and responsible for what goes on in his administration.

[MADem]

101. Give us this day our daily bread--when does a week go by that someone isn't

railing, in typical sixties-speak, about how Obama is an evil imperialist-capitalist pig-corporate shill in bed with the "banksters?" The fact that he is black does raise the bar for him with some people, I believe--he has to work twice as hard to get half the credit. Women have the very same problem around here in some quarters.

I'd as soon hear Kenyan birth certificate dreck; I come here to converse with Democrats, not people who hate Democrats--and unfortunately, the place is overrun with the latter.

And he may be "responsible for what goes on in his administration" but YOU--yes YOU--and me, and everyone else, here on this board and across this land--is responsible for the laws that are enacted in the country. He's the chief EXECUTIVE, not the chief LEGISLATOR....and way too many people don't quite make the connection that the laws we get are a function of who WE--that's right, you, me, and the milkman and the teacher and that unemployed kid in mom's basement--send to Congress.

Obama is not the King, he does not rule by decree. You want better laws? Spend less time carping at the Chief Executive--that works well for the right wing. Instead, work harder at getting a better Congress. Try getting at least half the Dems to the polls on the occasion of Congressional races--thats the only way we're going to see progress, not by yelling at the POTUS.

[Cleita]

128. If that's what is happening to you maybe you need to update your ignore list.

There are many disruptors on this board who don't want a honest conversation, but just want to get your goat.

[MADem]

148. I don't do ignore. I just don't see the point of it.

I'm certainly not fearful of opinions, or even trolls....

I just wonder why people who hate the Democratic Party find such joy in coming here to shit on Democrats.

It makes no sense to me.

[sabrina 1]

163. It's good to see you are condemning that kind of ugliness, which I'm sure you are

extending to Morales and the rest of Latin America, although you haven't been clear on whether you are condemning all of it, or just the one side of the coin.

[MADem]

166. Morales is loving the publicity--can't you tell? This is the best thing that ever could have

happened to him. It couldn't have been better for him ... if he planned it.

[sabrina 1]

168. You didn't answer the question, but so be it, I will draw my own conclusions.

[sabrina 1]

163. It's good to see you are condemning that kind of ugliness, which I'm sure you are

extending to Morales and the rest of Latin America, although you haven't been clear on whether you are condemning all of it, or just the one side of the coin.

[Pholus]

5. When criticism of the issue is interpreted as criticism of the person

the only way to avoid conflict ends up being lockstep agreement.

[MADem]

14. When criticism of the person gets denigrating and insulting, issues get pushed to the background.

And the discussions devolve into shitflinging. It's a pity.

[sibelian]

24. Get thee hence to the rest of DU

link to said shitflinging at Obama

make a big thread out of such links

then we'll talk young padawan

then we'll talk

not before.

[Pholus]

28. I cannot improve on this.

[cali]

31. +1

the poster should start her own thread rather than attempting to derail this one.

[MADem]

32. Young padawan...?

I am closer to the grave than the cradle, and I'm certainly much too old for references to the fantasy/sci-fi films of children and adolescents. What's next? Harry Potter schtick?

You have the ability to do your own searches if you're really interested in the topic.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

135. Psssst....some kids just walked on your lawn while you were busy hating on Harry Potter.

[MADem]

140. I don't "hate" Harry Potter one bit.

I think it's wonderful that those books encourage children to read.

Of course, most folk, when they are grown, they put away childish things.

I don't worry about lawns, but your ageist stereotyping is noted.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

143. I'm 44 and looking in both directions

I suspect I'm not the only 44-year-old to have done that. I also like books that go a little deeper than Harry Potter (although I enjoyed reading them along with my kids). But I encourage reading in the strongest terms, and if it takes HP to make a person read, I'm four square behind it.

[MADem]

180. Well, I'm considerably older than you. You could be my kid.

I'll buy the Harry Potter for any kid who wants to read it, but my time on this marble is limited--I'm not going to waste my days reading children's books, unless I'm reading them TO a child who can't yet read.

There's a point in time where you gotta put that stuff down. I don't think children's book/film references do much for a discussion about politics, economics, or major issues of the day...but that's my POV.

When I'm dead, I won't be here to complain about that or yell about my lawn, either. Tick, tock...we're all on the clock. Some of us will finish up first, is all...

[LWolf]

37. +1

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Well said and exactly

nt

[truebluegreen]

41. +1

[kurtzapril4]

43. But it was okay to insult and denigrate Bush, right?

There was plenty of that here, as I recall. But that was okay because he was a Republican, I guess. Being critical of the president's policies is not the same as being critical of the person who is president.

[L0oniX]

56. Well that's where American Exceptualizm steps in ...but we're not going to start denigrating Satan!

[MADem]

91. Are you unclear as to the TOS of this website?

This isn't "Say, Kids, Let's Discuss Politics in a Nonpartisan Fashion" Underground--it's DEMOCRATIC Underground, where we are partisan, the goal is to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans, and the GOP ARE indeed the frigging enemy that want to trash choice, equality, and the social safety net--or haven't you been paying attention to their efforts on that score?

There's a link to the TOS at the bottom of the page.

[Pholus]

102. Not. At. All.

And I am warning you here and now that mass surveillance will be an electoral third rail when we start finding out more about the "secret body of legal interpretations" that justify it. It won't matter one bit that Bush did it. It continued. It continued after high sounding talk about it.

So go run and find a TOS violation in that.

[MADem]

109. You're trying to create a false construct, that suggests that anyone who

doesn't support Snowden's antics--and that is what they are--is somehow on the "anti-privacy" bandwagon.

That construct doesn't fly, and that's what is so insulting about much of the conversation here on the topic.

The other thing that many here are doing is trying to paint people who have concerns over Snowden's craziness as "trolls" or "others."

In actual fact, those who are privacy advocates would find much to adore in James Comey. They'd also want to kiss John Ashcroft full on the lips, and do a happy dance with him. When it comes to the Department of Justice, and legal interpretations about issues of privacy, those two (say what you will about Ashcroft's neanderthal views on other issues--I am talking just about PRIVACY, now) were heroes of the 21st Century on that subject.

You want better "secret interpretations?" You'd better get yourself a better Congress. I do my part faithfully every election cycle. I get bodies to the polls. You should do the same instead of blaming the President for not being the Legislative King of America.

[Pholus]

114. No different than the "Snowden, Snowden, Snowden" construct.

And, to repeat yet again Snowden, other than putting documents out, there is irrelevant.

Who gives a crap about Snowden's girlfriend, I want to discuss what is being done in our names.

Furthermore, I hardly want better "secret interpretations" as I was under the impression that I lived in an open society.

Finally, don't presume.

[MADem]

126. Snowden's girlfriend is a key to the man.

She's not some recent fling; they were together for half a decade.

You don't think it's significant if someone ups and leaves their partner...without telling them anything? Without a goodbye?

It goes to character, state of mind, things of that nature.

If you actually believe you live in an "open society" where there are no secrets, you are terribly naive and you will never, ever get your wish. That's not a presumption, either--that's just plain, hard fact.

[Pholus]

132. Repeat: the man is not relevant.

What he said, highly relevant.

Regardless of what secrets you think can be held, laws cannot be secrets in an open society. Nor a free society, nor a just society.

How can justice depend on following rules you cannot be allowed to understand?

Dude, you are literally cheering for Kafka's version of government from "The Trial."

That's a plain, hard fact too. I guess that should be taken as an indication of your "character, state of mind, things of that nature?"

[MADem]

139. He's entirely relevant. You are ready and willing to believe everything he says, without evidence.

He hasn't proven any point he has made; he's shown us a POWERPOINT slide that reads like a Welcome Aboard brief, and a FISA warrant, and neither says what he says they say.

And I'm not "cheering for" anything--I simply know how the world works. ALL nations have secrets, and if you think otherwise, you are horribly naive.

[Pholus]

159. And you are conflating

"All nations have secrets" with a particularly nasty one with the potential for massive abuse. See the North Carolina "metadata" flap from Friday. The moment you can start shaming people by name and history because they do something you don't like Democracy is over.

Call me naive all you like. I see it as an admission that I am more imaginative about the capabilities and nefarious uses of dragnet data than you are.

[MADem]

160. No, I'm not.

Actions have consequences. When people do shitty things, like transfer intelligence that they have stolen to foreign powers, it's not out of line to mention it.

[Pholus]

161. yes you are

When some of those secrets come through dragnet surveillance. Trust me I was real broken up to see the AP interview with Freeh where he was crying about not having enough computer power to process it all. Okay not. Waste of money and an antithesis of a free society.

Not to mention a lasting shame for our President.

[MADem]

162. Well, we can play that game all day, but I'll just refer you back to my last post. nt

[Pholus]

169. cool we are done. post 159 has the main point.

Secrets....ESPECIALLY unamerican ones do not deserve protection.

[MADem]

172. "Unamerican" secrets-BAD. "Unrussian" secrets, or "Unchinese" secrets--good?

Lol...

[Pholus]

174. Hey the only reason national dragnets are secrets

Are to protect the pervs and corporate moochers doing it.

It certainly isn't a legitimate use of a secret.

"LOL"

[MADem]

181. Whatever that word salad means..."LOL" ... nt

[Pholus]

191. Huh. Seemed simple enough. But reading standards ARE in decline.

You apparently defend "secrets" even when they are merely covering incompetence, illegality and waste.

[MADem]

192. Well, that's not true at all.

I don't defend shopping secrets to the Chinese and the Russians in a fit of pique because one believes that the secrets are "illegal" -- that's the problem I've got.

If one has a problem with the methodology that produces the secrets--the sources and methods--there are ways to express that. Going to China and Russia, hopping up on a Where's Waldo soapbox and playing the drip-drip-drip game, that is NOT impressing me. In fact, I am wondering if the guy is unwell or paid, at this point.

[dgibby]

120. You may find this difficult to believe,

but there are many of us here who are quite capable of/adept at multi-tasking, that is, we can disagree with the President's actions/policies while at the same time working to elect progressives and liberals to Congress.

To hear you tell it, you're the only person posting on DU who's ever voted to send a Democrat to Congress.

[MADem]

122. How nice for you and those like you. Perhaps you can exhort the Hate Obama First Club to

spend less time trashing the executive and more time working to elect the legislative.


Because, you see, "you" may get it, but by the comments of way too many here, "they" do not.

If that's what you're hearing from me, you aren't reading what I am saying.

[sabrina 1]

170. Are you unclear about the Democratic Party's promises to those who voted for them?

Yes, this IS a Democratic site, and I'd like to see some support for Democratic values such as No SUPPORT or excuses for CUTS TO SS. No support for Bush policies which Democrats ran AGAINST.

Sometimes it IS hard to recognize this site as a Democratic site anymore, with all the high fiving of Bush policies.

[MADem]

171. You can't do shit without Congress. I guess that's a concept that is tough for you to grasp?

Congress--not that Obama you love to hate--makes law.

Go do the count and tell me how easy it will be to pass any laws with the current makeup of Congress.

(Hint--we don't have the numbers).

[sabrina 1]

175. Why are you always so angry? And so very wrong? Anger blinds people. It makes them

say things like this:

You can't do shit without Congress. I guess that's a concept that is tough for you to grasp?

... without having any clue at all about the person at whom you are leveling that false statement.

Since most people here know me and my views, such a statement only makes you look angry and silly. Fyi, I have advocated for years, putting far less effort into the WH races and FAR MORE INTO CONGRESS. Next time ask before making such ridiculous statements.

And anger also makes people flail and strike out, really strike out, with statements like this:

not that Obama you love to hate--makes law.

On what do you base this statement? Your credibility is on the line so I'm going to give you an opportunity to provide one comment, and I've made over 35,000 of them, which would justify that nonsensical comment.

I'll check back to see if take the challenge or, as an alternative, because I know it is not possible, to be big enough, and I know it takes a lot of ethical courage to do this, to apologize for making such a nasty and WRONG allegation. I am not damaged at all by your anger, your credibility is what suffers when you act this way.

[MADem]

178. Check your mirror. I am not angry. I'm very mellow, in fact. Quite content, today, especially.

Nothing I said is false. You can't do shit without Congress, yet you're the one "getting angry" because things aren't to YOUR liking. You constantly criticize the guy about things that are TOTALLY outside his purview, like closing Gitmo, or getting pissed that he has the nerve to nominate candidates for posts that will PASS MUSTER so he can some shit done, instead of engaging in pointless drama that will end in a rejection of his choice and weaken his power.

I've never seen you say a kind word about POTUS...you'd rather cheerlead dictators like Hugo 'anti-gay/anti-choice' Chavez and his minion Maduro than BHO.

It''s noticed. So don't get "angry" at me for having essential powers of observation. And--to make it entirely clear, names have never hurt me, not even false characterizations WRT "anger."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022467100#post33
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110810666#post6
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110811336#post2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1108&pid=7624


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023073805#post18
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023073805#post54
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023060591#post8

[sabrina 1]

185. Ooooh, 'it's noticed'. Really, by whom? The NSA? Shouldn't they be looking for

terrorists or something?

And THANK YOU for taking all that time and trouble to post my comments about Chavez. I''m impressed with myself, every word is true and without your 'noticing' I would probably not have had the pleasure of reading my own words again.

This one eg, I will post it again as I don't think I got an answer to a question so many Democrats are asking:

No, that has not been the narrative at all. He is the POTUS and does get criticism for

some of his policies, for me the most disturbing thing about this administration is the number of Republicans he has appointed to powerful positions. I don't get that at all. And that there are few to no actual Progressive Dems in his cabinet. He has favored Corporate CEOs, Bush holdovers for economic positions, and people such as Gates et al when surely we have some Democrats who are qualified to be in a Democratic Cabinety.

It's odd because if any DUer says one positive thing about Ron Paul the same people who have zero to say about the President going much further than that and returning Republicans to power after we threw them out, slam them with epithets and charges of being 'Paulites'. By that logic, the President is more than just a Comey/Ashcroftite' since he has the power to give them power and has done so.

What do you think of all these Corporate Ceos, Monsanto, Booz Allen (Clapper, Republican, CEO of Booz Allen, Director of Intel) and Republicans being in a Democratic Administration? We didn't vote for Republicans, but that is what the President is doing each time he appoints another Republican to such powerful positions.

Every word a FACT. Do you have problems with facts? Can YOU answer my questions about all the REPUBLICANS in this administration?

I've read them all again, and I am very impressed with my adherence to issues rather than people, it's nice to see that despite all the personal attacks, such as YOURS to which I am responding, I manage to stay on the topic. But then I'm a Democrat, not a Freeper whose only fall back is usually to attack their opponents lacking the ability to defend their indefensible positions.

However, you failed to show anything post of mine that insulted the PRESIDENT personally, as I knew you could not. That WAS the accusation, was it not?

And I stand by and am proud of every post I made about Chavez who was a historical leader to his own people and will be remembered for what he contributed to the formation of the Latin American Alliance of Nations to ward off any more interference from the Western Imperial Powers.

Look, I'm sorry you don't like people pointing out the truth, or that people are way, way more informed than they used to be. Young people especially, free of all those ancient Cold War prejudices can see things far more clearly than the old Cold War Warriors who are still living in the past.

Btw, did you realize how often you used the pronoun 'YOU' again?

Nothing I said is false. You can't do shit without Congress, yet you're the one "getting angry" because things aren't to YOUR liking. You constantly criticize the guy about things that are TOTALLY outside his purview, like closing Gitmo,

You sound very angry to me. At me. I'm angry but not at anyone here, I am angry at what is happening in this country.

Since you failed to prove your claims, and yes, I most certainly WILL criticize policies I don't agree with, and no, he DOESN'T need to appoint Republicans to positions of power to get 'things done', gee, so what's the point of us voting for Democrats if it doesn't matter and we have to return Republicans to power to 'get things done'? What you're saying is we might as well vote for Republicans so we can get things done.

Stop with the excuses, they aren't working. I said plenty of nice things about Obama going back to 2004. I will say more nice things about him on a personal level, but I'm here to talk about POLITICS, not personalities. Just to please you though, he's a great father and husband and I think he probably really does believe that Reagan Policies are good for the country. But I disagree with him. I disagree with my brother, who I love and is also a wonderful father and husband about some things.

This is a political forum. Start a forum about personalities and I will be happy to say nice things about the President, but that has zero to do with politics and with policies.

And calm down, we've got this! Finally!

[MADem]

186. By whom? By ME.

I didn't 'fail to prove my claims," you are simply unwilling to acknowledge your blatant bias. That's your issue, not mine. The one who really needs to "calm down" is you.

And "You sound very angry to me" is not a substitute for a substantive rejoinder. You'll have to stop dragging that one out--it's not working. Again, check your mirror, stop putting your "angry" emotions on me.

You want Obama to give you a left of center cabinet? Get off your sanctimony and help elect a left of center CONGRESS. You seem to have an idea that he can pull candidates for his cabinet to pass your rarified muster from his royal imperial arse. It doesn't work that way. Advise and consent is the way we Americans do things, and the consenters gravitate towards the right side of the spectrum.

He does the best he can with the cards he's dealt. Never good enough for you, though, while anti-choice/anti-gay Venezuelan leaders get nothing but sweetness and light from you. Talk about hypocrisy. If Obama had the same attitude towards choice or equality as Hugo or Maduro, you'd want him "frogmarched." But it's OK if those guys down south do it, because it's "cultural."

Yeah, right.

[sabrina 1]

187. Again you are wrong . I am not only willing to admit my 'bias' as you call it, I am

proud of my bias towards the Constitution of the US and and my intense bias against those who violate it, for profit especially.

Again, ASK me first before you make yourself look silly. I am never shy about admitting biases. It's a Liberal Bias and I've been boasting about it since I first engaged Bush Bots back in the year 2000.

I don't like Republicans. I don't support Democrats so they can put Republicans back in power.

How many Democrats were in Bush's Cabinet? Why is it always Democrats who have to do these unthinkable, to the other team, things? Why do always get excuses instead of a FIGHT because if we are the party that is RIGHT on the issues, then it is worth FIGHTING for, isn't it? Instead of this mealy-mouthed 'we can't do what they do because, because, well, we just can't.

Here's the problem now. Everything you are saying to me summed up, is this: 'Vote for Democrats but don't expect much because we are weak so don't blame us'.

We VOTED IN a Democratic WH and a Democratic Senate and a Democratic Congress in 2008! And even then we heard the same whining 'they can't do anything because the bullies won't let them'.

Bullshit! Because what you are saying is that even in the minority in all branches, Republicans are just better than Democrats even when Dems have such a huge mandate. THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

And no one believes it anymore. Don't tell ME to fight tell THEM to fight. All you do is make excuses for them and that only makes them seem weak. STOP BLAMING the people WHO DID THEIR JOB. We threw then out, now they are back in a Democratic Cabinet. Unbelievable to even try to defend this BS.

[MADem]

189. Again, you don't understand that CONGRESS gatekeeps who gets into the Cabinet, apparently.

Get off your bias and put more Democrats in Congress. The reason Bush had mostly Republicans advising him is because both he and CONGRESS liked it that way.

Our Senate is barely Democratic, and we need sixty votes to lock that down. We do not have a majority in the House, where laws are initiated. And no one--save YOU--is inferring that Repubicans are "better"--just that there are MORE of them, and that's why they get to dictate what happens on the Hill.

There's no "mitigating" that. It's a show stopper. It's not "bullshit" -- it's what Obama has to deal with.

There is no "fighting" when the critical mass in the legislature is not there. DO SOMETHING about it, rather than criticize the guy who is doing the best he can after having been dealt a bad hand.

What's this "we" you're talking about? "We" elected a President, but "we" didn't give him the tools--in the form of a House majority and a few more seats in the Senate--to actually get anything done. "We" elected a figurehead for hope and change, but "we" didn't finish the job--and now "you" are demanding he do the work without any tools.

It's absurd.

[AgingAmerican]

83. "Issues get pushed to the background"

Is the irony lost on you?

[MADem]

88. I think it might be on you.... nt

[rhett o rick]

33. There are those that would be nasty, but the problem is that those defending the Pres

too often try to lump all critics into the same category, thereby ruining their cause. It is unreasonable for supposedly "politically liberal" people to try to stifle criticism of any president. It is not conceivably possible for the USofA to have a president that I would not criticize.

We need to get over the liking or disliking the personality and concentrate on realistic evaluations and discussions of policies and issues.

Polarization is killing us.

[MADem]

87. Sort of like the disruptors running around calling anyone who has a problem

with the way Snowden aired his grievances "authoritarians."

That sort of 'lumping' most definitely speaks to the character of the individuals deploying the characterization.

[rhett o rick]

92. Whistle-blower character assassinations are typical authoritarian behavior.

As is kill the messenger. I am for increased transparency. I believe the 4th Amendment is clear and has been violated by our government. You can argue whether is Snowden's fault, Greenwalds fault or Morales' fault. It doesnt matter. It started under Bush and is continued under Obama. THe spy program is bigger than the president.

[MADem]

94. Because.... you say so?

One person's valid critique seems to be your (or should I say Glenn Greenwald's, since he's the guy handing out the dog whistle words) "authoritarian" behavior, or the other tired one, "smear."

Anyone who can say, with a straight face, that the way to "get the word out" is to go to two of the most repressive nations on the planet, is a candidate to purchase a rickety broken bridge for a high price in the Pacific Northwest.

Snowden hasn't proven a damn thing. He should have gone to the Attorney General or someone on Senate Intel oversight if he truly had concerns (and I am wondering about that, too; he took the job simply to steal, he said)--but no...he was the smartest guy in the room and he knew best.

Now he's learning how little he knew. Bet he doesn't feel so smart now that Hong Kong and MOCKBA haven't greeted him as a liberator, even as Putin rides his story like a worn out mule.

[rhett o rick]

98. "Valid critique"? I might agree that you might provide valid critiques but most of what I have

read about Snowden is pure character assassination. And the same for Greenwald, Morales, Rep Grayson, etc.

"Snowden hasn't proven a damn thing." I dont care. I dont care if his girl friend was a pole-dancer, etc. Our intelligence services are ripe for corruption. They hide behind secrecy. We have heard about their excesses in the past. Their budget is almost unlimited. Their oversight is poor at best. We shouldnt be ignoring these issues. And it isnt whether we trust Pres Obama or not either. It's about whether we trust conservatives like Clapper, Mueller and Alexander. Their spy machine has transcended the Bush/Obama change over.

We are not headed for a revolution, we are headed for a civil war. The 1% is playing the conservatives against the liberals. The conservatives want secrecy and the liberals want transparency.

[MADem]

105. You 'don't care' that Snowden hasn't proven his case. It sounds good, so that's

enough for you.

What's the difference between that sounding good, and a Kenyan birth certificate sounding good?

You are conflating people having a problem with Snowden's bullshit with a complacency that doesn't exist about the tone and susbstance of an intelligence program. The "it's not about Snooooooowden" whining is entirely off the mark--it is about him, because he's telling half truths, conflating, and who knows what he ran off with? If he has the names of contacts within those "freedom loving" regimes of China and Russia, people could be KILLED. That's something to care about.

And this isn't a "conservatives v. liberals" issue. If it were, Al Franken would be screaming for Snowden to be greeted as a liberator. He's not doing that. Fox and Friends would be screaming for his head--they're not doing that.

Trying to draw this matter along simplistic ideological lines is where you're screwing it all up--there are plenty of conservatives who want to canonize Snowden as a living saint after they finish buying up a few thousand guns for their personal arsenals and then drowning the entire government--to include social security and medicare--in the bathtub.

As for Snowden--his own words are what are being used against him. His attitudes, his behaviors. His comments on Ars Technica are very revealing, and not in a good way. He's not anyone I'd want to associate with. A very selfish and immature young man, IMO, to say nothing of a world class liar.

[rhett o rick]

130. It is no longer Snowden's job to "prove" anything. I want pres Obama to prove that he is looking

for my interests and not looking to stifle dissent. Snowden merely opened the door. I want transparency. I will fight those that want secrecy.

You want to make this about Snowden and forget about the possibility that we have intellegence community that has over stepped it's bounds. The spy agency works for me, they get billions of taxpayer dollars. They are beholden to us. I want to know what they are doing. You seem to be happy not to know. Heaven save us from those that choose willful ignorance.

[MADem]

131. You want simple answers to complex issues, and you aren't going to get them.

You are wrong re: your POV about me. I just know there's a right way, and there's a dead-wrong, dumbass way. Snowden--and he is the issue here--did this the wrong way. I can only hope he hasn't jeopardized anyone's life with his antics.

[Zorra]

165. First post, thread is disrupted by another irrelevant Obama comment. Everything is about Obama. nt

.

[MADem]

167. Only if you think the leader of all Americans--including the ugly ones named in the OP,

doesn't have a role to play in the conversation.

[Zorra]

173. Thanks for validating my point. No. It is not about Obama.

But it is about Ugly Americans:

Ugly American is a pejorative term used to refer to perceptions of loud, arrogant, demeaning, thoughtless, ignorant, and ethnocentric behavior of American citizens mainly abroad, but also at home.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Although the term is usually associated with or applied to travelers and tourists, it also applies to U.S. corporate businesses in the international arena

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugly_American_%28pejorative%29

It appears, given this definition, and in observing this thread, that cali's OP was extremely accurate.

[MADem]

176. Not sure how I "validated" your "point." I simply pointed out that Obama is the President of all

Americans--not just the adorable ones and the ones who set a good example. He's even the President of racists and criminals, imagine that...

But hey, you go on and do what you gotta do to make it feel all right for yourself.

[Zorra]

184. What in the hell are you talking about? I'm outta here, this is

getting kind of scary.

Best wishes.

[RC]

177. The President ... or his policies?

[MADem]

179. Give him the Congress, and he'll give you the policies.

He can't pull them out of his ass, you know.

Congress, not POTUS, makes law.

[RC]

182. Where is Obama's bully pulpit?

Why has Obama appointed so many Republicans to his Cabinet? The Drones against civilians in countries we are not at war with is Obama's program. He can at least pretend he has a (D) by his name.

[MADem]

183. Because they can get CONFIRMED, that's why.

Chuck Hagel is more of a "Democrat" than many Democrats sitting in Congress.

Pay less attention to labels and more attention to where people stand.

And also note the shitstorm Susan Rice endured when she was ready to stand for SECSTATE nomination.

Why did the Republicans cheer for Kerry to have the job? Because they hoped that Gabriel Gomez, the turd-a-licious wingnut, would win his seat.

Too bad for them.

[CakeGrrl]

188. Right?

There doesn't seem to be as much admonishment of bullshit like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x756612

[MADem]

190. Day-um....! nt

[BeyondGeography]

2. And it's possible for John Kerry to say "backyard" without being just another gringo imperialist

The knee-jerk crap on this board has run about 100X more the other way: against this country and this administration.

[Scootaloo]

4. Actually, it's really not

After all, your backyard is part of your property. To tell another nation that they are your backyard is to send the same message - that they belong to you, and you have say over what happens within them.

Calling latin America "our backyard" is the defining mark of the "gringo imperialist.." It assumes privilege of ownership.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Very true - there's a lot of difference between "our neighborhood" and "our backyard"

It's about ownership.

[cali]

8. you said it far better than I did. that's exactly it.

[ProSense]

17. That's absurd.

"After all, your backyard is part of your property. To tell another nation that they are your backyard is to send the same message - that they belong to you, and you have say over what happens within them. "

That's taking an innocuous comment and making it confrontational, but I guess confrontation, not diplomacy is what some are expecting.

President Morales wants to inflame the situation. His treatment of that comment is no surprise given his rhetoric of the last few days.

He's threatening to close the U.S. embassy in his country. He now has an excuse. He should do it.

[cali]

20. Context, Pro, context.

The term "America's Backyard" started in reference to Central and South America. "America's Backyard" is about the United States' traditional area of dominance and major sphere of influence, which was Central and South America for a long time.

<snip>

Latin America as America's backyard

Since the establishment of the United States, international relations have been of political concern in securing the nation’s developed democracy and influential power. With Latin America in near proximity to the US, the neighboring continent has been labeled as “America’s Backyard.” In attempts to further economic development, the US government has exercised many strategies towards Latin America, especially over the past half century, including the Alliance for Progress.

The examination and analysis of relations between Latin America and the US over the course of history has increased in recent years. The declassification of official documents concerning Latin America by the Clinton administration allowed for more public information on the matter. In result, the public has been increasingly exposed to a much larger array of perspective and information on America’s backyard and the United States’ role in Latin America.

Recent popular publications offer a more detailed insight into the development of relations between the United States and Latin America. The course of history leads to the overall inquiry of whether the US should be perceived as a good neighbor or a big bad wolf. Most popularized is Grace Livingstone’s America’s Backyard: The United States and Latin America from the Monroe Doctrine to the War on Terror, which accounts the US strategy towards Latin America over the past half century, specifically revealing its intrinsic weaknesses and the profound ignorance and prejudice of US policymakers.[5] Though Livingstone admits to a negative bias—one that focuses on the negative aspects of US policy towards Latin America at the expense of the positive efforts, such as the Alliance for Progress—she claims that the history needs to be exposed.

Though Latin America is not the poorest area in the world, it is the most unequal; historically a small elite has controlled most of the wealth. The US has traditionally dealt with that elite, however repressive or reactionary it has been, because they controlled the government and market economy. The masses of poor often were illiterate, not Spanish speaking, lived a subsistence economy. These later facts help explain the Latin America’s uneven development. Livingstone expresses that even though in the US and Europe revolutionary upheaval or war has at times been the necessary precursor to change, the US government has acted as a counterweight to reform, regarding upheaval, mass protest (and of course revolution) as a threat to stability and therefore its own interests.[5]

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Backyard

Nobody's backyard

http://www.economist.com/node/16990967

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/13/why-the-u-s-cant-afford-to-ignore-latin-america/

Clearly what's absurd is your abysmal lack of knowledge or callous disregard for history.

[ProSense]

22. No

"Clearly what's absurd is your abysmal lack of knowledge or callous disregard for history. "

...what's absurd is presenting that information to justify using the statement to fan a confrontation.

[cali]

25. lol. my but that's as lame as could possibly be in the face

of clear evidence that using the term "backyard" to refer to South America, is broadly offensive.

you're just getting increasingly ridiculous.

Done here. You post no evidence for your position while I post clear evidence for mine

[ProSense]

26. You know,

"you're just getting increasingly ridiculous. "

...I guess you think that these kind of comments bolsters your case.

The premise that this was a statement that should be challenged in a confrontational way is only valid to those seeking a confrontation. Period.

[cali]

30. no, just stating the obvious. As I said, I posted evidence and you did not, old Pro.

[L0oniX]

58. You don't really want to start a link war do ya?

[iemitsu]

57. Cali is right Prosense.

It is very clear that Kerry's words were insulting and that they imply much about our attitude and our policies toward Latin America.
Every Latin American leader has the duty to point out, to their own people and to the world, US transgressions toward their state, their region, or their persons.
Your absolutist argument is ridiculous.

[L0oniX]

61. Now you've done it. You are not of the body!

[iemitsu]

63. :) I'm not sure that this phantom is

of the body either.

[ProSense]

78. Absolute nonsense.

"It is very clear that Kerry's words were insulting and that they imply much about our attitude and our policies toward Latin America.
Every Latin American leader has the duty to point out, to their own people and to the world, US transgressions toward their state, their region, or their persons.
Your absolutist argument is ridiculous."

The piece posted as evidence shows that the phrase has been used for decades and provides a context.

You may want to pretend that whatever "every Latin American leader" says to "their own people and to the world," including their characterization of comments, is the last word, but it isn't.

I mean, there is deep seated and justifiable mistrust of the United States in Latin America, but you can't pretend that the flames of confrontation are being intentionally fanned.

Like I said, the only people who see this as a valid justification for confrontation are those who are salivating for a confrontation.

[galileoreloaded]

103. good reframe! good job! nt

[Scootaloo]

116. You're putting it on display with this post, I'm afraid

You don't get to tell the people of Latin America what they are and are not offended by, what htey should and should not think, and how they should and should not feel. They were annoyed by Sec. Kerry's comment. That is their right, and it is not your right to tell them they're not allowed to be annoyed by it.

It's like the white people on this board who pat people of color on their heads here on DU and "explain" why something isn't racist, and they're silly for thinking so.

It doesn't matter what Kerry's intent was, whether he thought it was innocuous or not. it was not taken as an innocuous comment, and I just explained to you why that is. "Backyard" implies that these nations belong to the United States and that it has control over them.

A much more diplomatic - and accurate - statement would have been to refer to these nations as our neighbors, equals within a common territory, each with their own domains. Instead he said something that made him look like an asshole landlord. Whether he meant to or not, that's what he said, that's the message that was received, and it irritated the people in that "backyard" to a great degree.

If you can't get these simple concepts through your head, well I don't know what to tell you Prosense. But with your help, i'm starting to see what these posters lobbing the term "fan club" are on about. It's embarassing to watch, and I do wish you'd come up for air now and then.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

136. You probably haven't noticed but in diplomatic circles, words are chosen very carefully.

If "backyard" was a off-hand comment, it wasn't a very wise one.

[rhett o rick]

34. Most Americans are in blissful ignorance of what our country has become.

We killed between 250,000 and 500,000 innocent Iraqi children (depending on whose propaganda you believe) without a blink of an eye. We have destroyed the lives of possible 5,000,000 Iraqi peoples. Many now without jobs, homes, complete families, and without hope. Five million people that hate America to the bone and most Americans dont even realize it. And that's only Iraq. How much hate has America sown? As a nation we are oblivious.

We have become an authoritarian state. The deniers will object and point out that we are still allowed to send email to our so-called representatives.

[zeemike]

44. +1

[iemitsu]

59. You forgot to mention the depleted uranium that we

spread throughout Iraq too.
The birth defects and the pain caused by that action will keep the hatred of America alive for generations.

[rhett o rick]

84. Yes, that's true. Quite a legacy. nm

[leftstreet]

64. +1

Nicely stated

[cali]

6. He could have chosen his words more carefully, no?

Backyard implies ownership.

[BeyondGeography]

10. It was a faux pas, it shouldn't be a death sentence for Kerry in the region

at least not on a Democraric message board, which, one would think, would give Kerry a chance to prove malicious intent in the region as SoS before they consign him to the dustbin.

[cali]

13. I agree with that. I don't think there was any malicious intent

It does unfortunately reflect an mindset we need to shed. I think pretty highly of Kerry and believe he can do that.

[arely staircase]

27. I actually agree with you on this one.

Both that there was no malicious intent and that it is a phrase that needs to be abandoned.

[cali]

35. both a phrase and a pov

I'm not saying that Kerry holds that pov but it's still pretty pervasive- and my guess is that its still pretty pervasive within State.

[arely staircase]

36. agreed. I actually pointed the arrogance of the phrase out to a friend of mine years ago

and she was like "oh, I suppose you are right." It is so widely used (pervasive) that even people with good intentions use it. The friend in question wasn't complaining about communists or drug cartels but rather the "horrible poverty that's right in our backyard."

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Get familiar with the Monroe Doctrine

And it's history. Perhaps then you will understand why those were the absolute worst words to use.

I don't expect an America first gringo to get it by the way.

USA USA USA!!!!

[BeyondGeography]

62. And I don't expect CT's to think clearly about much

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. It is a conspiracy theory to speak of the Monroe doctrine?

I guess President James Mnroe was the head of that conspiracy.

You are really funny sir, and I doubt you realize why.

I am damn serious...read into it and it's history. Preferably from a Latin American perspective.

When I heard his words I knew it would go well, NOT, in Latin America. Mostly I hold a masters degree in Mexican history and funny shit, I grew up down there.

USA, USA, USA!!!!!

[BeyondGeography]

68. Oh I know, you grew up down there and know the darker meaning of everything

we say and do. Have it all figured out, right down to the day Amerikkka will become a shriveled husk of nothing.

Tiresome.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. You are proud of your ignorance Sir

Good going.

Read the OP, applies to you.

Actually no, your handle is beyond ironic the entertainment is worth it

[treestar]

76. When it comes to sovereign nations

they have a certain equality in being such. But there is a reality to the fact that each one is there on a different basis and that some countries are bigger and more influential world wide than others. Kerry might have been a bit undiplomatic there, but then, there's also the realistic aspect to it. Explaining why there are no countries just jumping to take Snowden. It's not all US bullying and bluster, but some of their own interests in it, too. The US ain't all bad when it comes to other countries. There is too much knee jerking here that it's always based on "bullying" and that no other country would have a positive vibe towards the US.

[dgibby]

125. Perhaps the reason there are no countries willing to take Snowden

is because they are not idiots. They've seen what we do with our Drones to countries with whom we are not at war, and perhaps, just perhaps, they don't want to incur our wrath.

[ananda]

9. Yeah.

It's probably coming from the troll mentality that's infected this place to a degree.
It looks as though they're here to stay too.

There's also something called the "right man" mentality that my sister mentioned
reading about from Thomas More (I think). White Americans definitely have this
mentality, all of us, bar none. It's an endemic part of the culture.

A way to counteract it is to believe that "right" thinking will take place without any
sense of right and wrong when people realize and see our sacred connectedness
and responsibility for each other and our ecosystem.

[Catherina]

11. I love you first thing in the morning Cali Thank you.

Thank you.

"It's possible to criticize without falling into xenophobic bullshit."

[cali]

15. right back at you, my friend

to rework an antiquated but sturdy phrase: You've been doing yeowoman's work here. It's fantastic.

(when I worked as the cook at a tea garden I put on the menu something I called the ploughwoman's lunch. It was a big hit)

[rhett o rick]

55. Thanks to both of you. nm

[idwiyo]

12. There was a post yesterday that dropped as low as making comments about Morales' hairstyle.

I can just imagine shitstorm of accusations of bigotry and racism if the same type of comment was made about Obama.

[rhett o rick]

48. They have nothing to give but the ROFL emoticon. That's their total

contribution. They never engage in honest debate, and never even enter discussions in areas where Pres Obama's stand isnt crystal clear. Righteous name-calling and ridicule, and their signature, the ROFL emoticon.

[idwiyo]

51. I just had a look at the thread Pic Of The Moment: Restore The Fourth, amusing to see what usernames

are not on the list of people recommending that thread.

Silly me, I thought upholding the 4th amendment would be something overwhelming majority of people would agree with. Regardless where they live.

I would never thought to see Americans treating support of the Constitution as a partisan issue.

[Bluenorthwest]

52. The emoticon in place of content does define them, and that ROFL emoticon is

simply out of place in discussions about very serious matters. Not appropriate at all. It is the snicker at a funeral, the fart at a wedding.

[cali]

66. and another slimy post just now doing that and worse.

[idwiyo]

97. Can you please PM me a link to that?

[Enrique]

18. did someone really say that about the cyst?

i knew that people acted like ignoramuses at times, but seeing that would surprise me.

[cali]

21. yes.

I alerted but the jury let it stand with a 3-3 vote.

[QC]

40. Could you please post the jury comments?

I bet they are interesting.

[cali]

50. they weren't. they were almost all posted without comment, but here:

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Just do a DU search for Tarheel Dem's posts.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

[Enrique]

53. that's the kind of post I'm glad is allowed to stand

it's incredibly revealing, as Tarheel_dem is one of the top Obama defenders here. Talk about Obama Derangement Syndrome, what is it about Obama that causes someone to post such a Freeper-like post here at DU?

[cali]

54. I'm not. you can always hit 'show post'

what it says is that there are a lot of xenophobes here.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

42. You can still see that douchebag reply. It's been left intact. nt

[marmar]

19. k/r

It's all too reminiscent of "Freedom Fries". A complete and total flip of the script circa 2003. Sickening.

[nineteen50]

46. Yes but it is a cyst of our own making.

[HappyMe]

49. I don't know enough about

South American politics to comment on anything that goes on there.

Why are people making fun of Morales and other SA leaders? I guess I stayed out of the right threads.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

67. first ban all negative name calling of our president on DU

then we'll talk

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. Won't call him names

But this fiasco has done damage abroad that Americans fail to comprehend. Let's put it this day, comparisons to Bush the lesser are the vogue now.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

71. Bully is a name. And he has been called that on here

maybe not by you, but by several. They have no evidence. It is exactly the right of the President of the United States to lobby other countries to not harbor a fugitive from U.S. justice.

You are sad because Snowden didn't get away to a tropical paradise in South America. I get it. But this whole series of events proves the U.S. has more influence over other nations than has been in vogue to admit recently.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. Don't read foreign press.

Please.

Especially the editorial pages.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

75. do editorial pages inform? Or try to persuade?

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. Well even straight reporting is all but nice

But if your sensibilities are hurt...just stay away from them...just stay in the bubble.

Serious.

Let's put it this way, if you should travel abroad, time to invest in a Canadian flag.

We are back to that, if not worst.

[cali]

77. Bully? You actually think calling the President a bully should be

an offense that gets someone banned from DU?

I haven't called him that and wouldn't, but it's absurd to consider that as a bannable offense.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

79. no. I said such name calling should be banned--not the poster

of course, if someone receives repeated warnings of the rules and keeps doing it, it is up to the admins whether the person is banned.

[cali]

85. so, you're saying that a post calling the President a bully should be hidden?

yikes. glad you're not the admin.

[treestar]

81. This is true

They may not like admitting it, but the US is not all bad. Ecuador doesn't want to give up trade with the US over harboring Eddie. They've had enough with Julian.

The idea of a president flying Eddie out on a private jet has been floated as a possibility for his escape from US justice ("torture" to the more unhinged). But neither the president of Venezuela or Bolivia actually did so. Notice that the accusation of the possibility "harms our country" per Bolivian Foreign Minister.

[cali]

73. could you please link to some of these examples of negative name calling?

I keep hearing from people like you that it happens all the time and I'm not seeing it. also what do you consider negative name calling?

[Rex]

100. You cannot expect much from trolls imo.

When they say, ""Latin America is a cyst on the anus of the world" it shouldn't leave much doubt in the readers mind as to which political party they really belong to.

[magellan]

117. Name the person/thing du jour that's "making Obama look bad"

The ugliness has everything do with the motives of the commenter. The only reason to mock and insult someone like Morales is to derail the discussion.