I posted this in the BOG ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

and have since deleted it because it proved disruptive to a group I support 100%. To my BOG brethern/sistern, I apologize. I am re-posting to a more appropriate place:

As I observe this latest round of “I know better than the President” ...


I have to admit … I am perplexed! How can people argue the triumvirate of:

1) The Government keeps too many secrets;

2) The media can’t be trusted; and,

3) I know what is best for the President to do in any/every situation?

At the risk of being called all sorts of authoritarian, corporatist, 3rd-Way lackey, to hold those three positions makes no sense.

The first proposition is an admission that the government (President) knows/has access to more information than the public; the second, absent disclosure by the government, (and even with leaks) is the public’s sole source of information; and the third, is an admission that people are basing their opinion on incomplete and/or suspect information.

I’m sorry (well … not really); but I’m going to say it … At the end of the day, in this representative form of government, and because we do not, and arguably, cannot/should not, have access to the information available to our national representatives, we can only select our representatives with hope and faith that they will act in our best interests.

In President Obama, I believe that we have such a man. In the vast majority of seating Democrats, I believe we have those men and women. My mission for 2014 is to work my butt off to seat other Democrats, with whom I have a similar faith.

[villager]

1. Yes, democracy means never, ever, *ever* questioning anyone with enough money to get elected

...to office!

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. Did you read what I wrote ...

or did you just do the new DU?

[villager]

4. Do you just do reflexive snark, or actually consider replies?

What I'm saying is that in a democracy, it's everybody's job to question the President, especially in times of war.

Unless, you're convinced Bush had access to information "the rest of us didn't," and was therefore entirely justified in what he did?

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. Funny ...

I was wondering the same thing about you.

But that said, I have no problem with anyone questioning anything ... It's just the "I know better" attitude that sets me off.

Did you not read the last 2 paragraphs of my post? Here:

I’m sorry (well … not really); but I’m going to say it … At the end of the day, in this representative form of government, and because we do not, and arguably, cannot/should not, have access to the information available to our national representatives, we can only select our representatives with hope and faith that they will act in our best interests.

In President Obama, I believe that we have such a man. In the vast majority of seating Democrats, I believe we have those men and women. My mission for 2014 is to work my butt off to seat other Democrats, with whom I have a similar faith.

And BTW ... your b!tching and moaning on an anonymous message board is not "questioning the President" ... it's b!tching and moaning on an anonymous message board.

[villager]

14. And your bitching and moaning isn't really "supporting" the President...

...it is also just more message board bitching and moaning.

Now that we have that out of the way, you have set up a straw man. We are supposed to question Presidents.

But in this era, I'm sure they will always say they have "secret information" to justify about anything they want (as per the previous administration).

So we need to question that too -- vet it, as it were.

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. See, the difference is ...

my "bitching and moaning" is not about supporting President Obama ... it's calling out the bullshit "I know better" posts that are based on admittedly incompete information.

But in this era, I'm sure they will always say they have "secret information" to justify about anything they want (as per the previous administration).

So we need to question that too -- vet it, as it were.

Vetting isn't a problem ... calling bullshit on the information provided by the government because it is from the government, based on the "analysis" of media "experts" that we once distrusted and have no more access to information than you or I, is the problem ... it's the difference between fact and fantasy.

[villager]

83. So now you're claiming that "you know better?"

You are free to keep taking the PTB at their very word, and finding reasons not to question it a whit.

Some of us, however, will keep asking just what it is that the rich, and powerful, are really up to.

[Union Scribe]

24. Obama would shudder at many of his "supporters" here.

While I firmly disagree with the President on numerous issues, I recognize him as a (sometimes too) civil person. He would not be happy to see the kind of behavior considered "support" here being attached to his name and his cause.

[SwampG8r]

33. correct

in rl I do nothing but support him but come here
I ask questions and get shit answers stirred with condescension
I speak my mind about what I consider to be reasonable issues of concern to democratic party supporters and every opportunity to twist and turn what I say and to jam into my mouth things I never said will be taken
I am an agent of satan it seems
shudder is not a descriptive enough term
I believe if I were to sit down with the POTUS the only thing we would debate would be the timetable of changes this country needs
I think he is in a bad spot he has shit to work with and it just gets deeper shit
even if we get a dem majority we stay screwed because we might not get the right kind of dems
I would advise him to find some diplomatic way to donkey punch assad
I would like to see him be the president who finally declares ww2 over and takes our toys home
I would hate to have his job in these days

[1StrongBlackMan]

62. I think ...

what you are experiencing is exactly what occurred (is occurring) in the republican party, with the paul folks ... they joined the republican party (some as tea partiers that supported paul, others as libertarians, that supported paul) and turned it into a conservative versus REAL conservative fight ... creating an us versus them environment.

The same thing is happening on Democratic supporting message boards and it is causing reflexive President Obama (and Democratic) supportive responses to meet the tirade of President Obama (and Democratic) bashing threads ... and many sincere folks are getting caught in the middle.

But FWIW, I do not believe that your sit down with the POTUS would be much of a "debate", as he would no doubt agree with your timetable for change ... he agrees that everything needs to change right now; but he would probably point out the reality (in politics and in real life) that all lasting change starts slowly and builds.

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. I would agree ...

except that President Obama is also a very perceptive man, who would recognize that many of his "supporters" here are not supporters and have never been ... despite their post preamble claims of having voted for him - twice, having donated to his campaigns - twice, and their having driven 2,000 inner-city old ladies to the polls - twice.

[SwampG8r]

32. i read them

they are why I recced this

[LWolf]

75. Some points:

I always start out believing that "I know better." Why? Because I trust myself, with good reason, more than others. I don't trust politicians, any of them, on principle. They get paid to manipulate people and events. When someone offers me what I consider to be reliable information/evidence, I can change my mind. Until then, I trust my own judgement more. That's how I've survived my 53 years.

Representative government: As I said, I don't trust any of them. In my younger years, I had hope. Not so much in the last 13 years. I cast my support and vote based on the actions, not the rhetoric, of the people on my ballot. I continue to support them in office, or not, based on their actions in that office. Some of them earn my support, and the votes I cast. Some do not. President Obama, like the rest of the corporate/neo-liberal wing of the party, has clearly not acted in "our" best interests. Perhaps "our" is not one massive block. I could give you a long list of examples, but that's not my point here. If you want them, ask me.

There is a lack of intellectual integrity in calling someone else's criticisms "bitching and moaning," but assuming one's own criticisms are valid. For example, your OP could be taken as "bitching and moaning" about those who criticize Barack Obama. This is an anonymous forum for political discussion. I hear the same talking points and arguments in the real world; they are just usually couched, at least by Democrats, in less aggressive terms, because the real world is NOT anonymous. Anonymity seems to invite people to tell others how they really feel. Argument is embedded in political discussion. I think we might agree that the board would be more constructive if we engaged in more formal argument/debate, and less juvenile attacking of everyone who disagrees with us; with providing reasons for our positions instead of personal attacks.

[madamesilverspurs]

13. The thing about Bush is

that he was talking war against Iraq on the day he moved into the White House, and had discussed the possibility with cronies long before he was ever selected to the presidency.

There IS a difference.

[pnwmom]

3. I'm surprised this was controversial in the BOG.

I've had the same thoughts. No one trusts anyone anymore -- not the government, not the media, not any institution. Everyone's running around sure about their own facts, even though they don't trust the people who are filtering facts for them.

I still think Obama is doing very well, considering all the circumstances. And I'm very glad he's in charge now -- not Bush/Cheney or McCain/Palin.

How soon we forget . . . .

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. It was a controversy ...

in the BOG because too many people came in loaded for (President) Obama.

You are correct ... these days, no one trusts anyone and I suspect that is the plan.

Everyone's running around sure about their own facts, even though they don't trust the people who are filtering facts for them.

That is my exact point ... not 6 months ago, DU was laughing at folks that blindly trusted the media (because it was feeding a clearly partisan base); but now, those same people completely trust anything reported in the media ... so long as it casts Democrats and/or President Obama in a negative light.

[SwampG8r]

35. i think

that things we would get the ban hammer for a year ago as conspiracy theory nuttiness
are now known to be true and its shaking to absorb
I mean a year ago if I posted 50 threads about the nsa and wiretapping and unauthorized file searches and parallel chains of evidence being supplied by the feds I would have been written off as a bull moose loony and tombstoned
what does that roman guy ask? who will guard the guardians ?or something of the like?
we looked away and bad things crept into our country
we took a good first step to reamericaning America with the 08/12 elections and if we can give him a congress to work with I expect to see more forward motion

[1StrongBlackMan]

59. Actually ...

a year ago ... and 5 years ago ... people WERE posting threads about he nsa and wiretapping and unauthorized file searches and parallel chains of evidence being supplied by the feds (well maybe not the last point). With every reauthorization of the PA, we saw it and few if any were shown the door.

However, it is only recently that anyone felt the need to post 50 threads on the topic ... and it is usually done by people that do not identify as Democratic, as their primary political descriptor and/or use the threads as an opportunity to bash this Democratic President and/or Democrats, as not REAL Democrats and to call everyone that supports the President (or Democrats, or even asks that we tone down the hyperbolic ranting, with respect to President Obama and Democrats), authoritarian-loving, 3rd Way, corporatist lackeys.

A year ago ... well, maybe 4 1/2 years ago ... such conduct would have gotten you tombstoned (and, IMO, rightfully so) ... I mean, who would imagine DUers openly "standing with rand" and surviving the day, let alone living to a 1,000 post count?

we took a good first step to reamericaning America with the 08/12 elections and if we can give him a congress to work with I expect to see more forward motion

I completely agree ... and that statement distinguishes you from those that made my post in the BOG, controversial.

[SwampG8r]

71. look at us discussing and stuff on du

who woulda thought?
I sometimes wonder if the support I see is sincere
sometimes its so mean spirited
just as you note this happens with posters not fully identifying as democrats I see it also from some who identify too deeply with the party
I identify as a democrat but my morals and beliefs are not negotiable
If I think its wrong then I think its wrong and devil take the law or whatever justification used
and if it was wrong on sunday its still wrong on Wednesday
there is no prize or penalty in my opinion
its just my opinion and who the hell am I?

[Junkdrawer]

6. And this, children, is why I've never visited the BOG...

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. Thank you! ...

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 09:48 AM - Edit history (1)

for not visiting the BOG.

[Cha]

15. We so appreciate you not bring your vomit into the BOG.

[Comrade Grumpy]

81. Way to raise the level of discourse. n/t

[Mojorabbit]

23. I posted there by accident this past week and was banned from the group

My post wasn't even a bad post. I could give a flip about the ban but one of the moderators of the group had the nerve to smugly message me that I obviously did not support the President which is not true. I totally support this president but I do not support many of his policies. Anyone who unconditionally supports any politician needs to read some history IMO.

[Logical]

31. LOL, how progressive of them! n-t

[1StrongBlackMan]

65. That's what you don't get ...

Members in the BOG are not (primarily) progressives; but rather, we are DEMOCRATS.

[Logical]

66. I had never read the forum until your post.....

I read it and understand blind support. They kind Bush had from Republicans.
It is also interesting to the the majority posters there and it explains what they bring back to this forum. It was an eye opening experience.

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. I disagree ...

there is "blind support" and there is a place where people choose to focus on the things they believe President Obama (and Democrats) are getting it right ... the BOG is representative of the latter.

[Andy823]

78. I agree with you

Seems like whenever someone posts something "GOOD" about the president here on GD, or talks about his accomplishments, which are many, the same crowd of nay sayers jump in and trash the thread with all kinds of BS. Over on BOG group that doesn't happen and I see nothing wrong with making that a safe place to show support for the president.

Now I am not one to say nobody should question what president Obama does, but since the first right wing "SCANDAL" jumped up earlier this year, this board has been infested with posters who simply do not like the president, and nothing he will ever do will change that. So many obvious trolls come in and instead of others calling them out for their obvious hate for president Obama, those nay sayers jump in and back up the trolls, and that's just plain insane.

President Obama has accomplish one hell of a lot since he took office, and when people try and say he has been a total failure, and there have been those who have posted that, something is just plain wrong with their thinking process. Questioning the president and trashing him are two different things, and constantly highjacking threads that support the president to bash him, is just wrong.

[Mojorabbit]

80. That was not my experience with the group so I will disagree. nt

[Union Scribe]

25. But now, according to the OP,

they're dumping their refuse in GD so the rest of us can enjoy it. Yay!

[SwampG8r]

37. i went there once

just like anywhere else you follow the rules everyone plays nice
I drop in and read sometimes
its a unified group and I wish I saw the same passion for all democrats here
i don't try to join
they don't try to convert me
kind of like a Methodist church

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. And that is ...

what many posters whining about the BOG don't seem to get.

I imagine they are of the same mentality of white folks that go to an NAACP meeting to complain about Black folks ... and then whine that they are not accepted.

[neverforget]

7. that is controversial?

[DevonRex]

47. No. It brought people into the BOG who only wanted to disrupt

our discussion. You see, apparently we aren't allowed to discuss things in our own group without people barging in who know it's a group but choose to disrupt anyway.

[delrem]

8. Not the only "analysis" possible.

The first proposition is an admission that the President uses secrecy to manipulate the population into war.
The second proposition is simply false, since no informed citizen would limit their source of info to the corporate MSM.
The third proposition is again false, since the claim is because of #1 and #2, and the lies of the past, there's no reason to trust the President yet again about the *identical* PNAC subject.

At the end of the day a democracy does *not* blindly trust politicians because of #1 and #2. Quite the opposite, and US history is filled with the greatest democratic voices providing the argument. Just to take the focus off Obama, how well does your argument stand vis-a-vis Bush/Cheney/and-crew?

Your last statement reads like a religious affirmation of faith in a Party, whereas your arguments 1,2,3, are an admission that you're quite happy to continue in a state of ignorance. Not a good combo, IMO.

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. Okay ...

The first proposition is an admission that the President uses secrecy to manipulate the population into war.

Is that not an admission that the secrecy that is used to manipulate is based in information that you/we do not have?

The second proposition is simply false, since no informed citizen would limit their source of info to the corporate MSM.

And how do you judge the veracity of these alternate media sources?

The third proposition is again false, since the claim is because of #1 and #2, and the lies of the past, there's no reason to trust the President yet again about the *identical* PNAC subject.

Huh? What? This is what I posted:

the third, is an admission that people are basing their opinion on incomplete and/or suspect information.

You have done nothing to indicate that your opinion is based on anything but incomplete and/or suspect information.

[delrem]

19. reply:

you: Is that not an admission that the secrecy that is used to manipulate is based in information that you/we do not have?

me: that's self-evident.

you: And how do you judge the veracity of these alternate media sources?

me: In an absolute sense, I don't. But in a relative sense I tend to trust unembedded over embedded sources and so on. But I can't explain the process of winnowing information from the world of information to someone who's captive in the bubble of corporate MSM reports.

you: Huh? What? This is what I posted:

me: yes, I was unclear. Let me restate it, inserting the term "critics" to distinguish from the willfully ignorant.
The third proposition is again false, since the critics claim is because of #1 and #2, and the lies of the past, there's no reason to trust the President yet again about the *identical* PNAC subject

you: You have done nothing to indicate that your opinion is based on anything but incomplete and/or suspect information.

me: what opinion?

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. IOW ...

I believe what I want to believe. Okay!

[delrem]

22. Well, you speak for yourself, so yes, Okay!

[hfojvt]

39. I tend to trust things when I can check the math and/or the logic

in the case of Syria, I will honestly admit to a combination of apathy and ignorance. I don't know and I don't really care to learn.

Is that bad of me? How many hours am I supposed to dedicate to studying about Syria and what is going on there? And for what purpose? So I can advise a President who is not going to listen to me? So I can advise a Congressperson who is not gonna listen to me? So I can educate my neighbors who probably have even less concern about Syria than I do?

But what makes you think people who disagree with you are captive in a corporate M$M bubble?

I find that people are more captive to their own pre-suppositions which they adamantly refuse to examine. That they are captive to a worldview and they distinguish truth from falsehood by a double standard. In short, they are highly critical and doubtful to sources which challenge their worldview or have a different worldview and they are uncritically accepting of sources which affirm their worldview.

That would seem to be a default human position, but some of the debates here are basically clashing worldviews that will never be resolved. Certainly not when the actual worldview is never discussed.

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. Bingo ...

I find that people are more captive to their own pre-suppositions which they adamantly refuse to examine. That they are captive to a worldview and they distinguish truth from falsehood by a double standard. In short, they are highly critical and doubtful to sources which challenge their worldview or have a different worldview and they are uncritically accepting of sources which affirm their worldview.

I didn't want to go into that in my post, but I think that is where most of this "I know I don't have as much information as the President, but I know what he should be doing" stuff is coming from.

[msongs]

9. u must believe everything the leader tells you. never question authority no matter who it is nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. No ...

I believe what I see ... and that, generally, takes time ... and not the knee-jerk reaction of folks that are pressing an agenda (whatever that agenda might be).

[another_liberal]

30. Nothing to see here folks. It's all under control.

Go on about your business. Nothing to see here.

[Autumn]

10. Point 1 and 2, that's what I believe

point 3, I don't know what is best for the President to do in any/every situation, however, I expect him to be honest and truthful with the American people, I expect him to try EVERY option before any military strike. I will not blindly trust any politician. I guess I'm 2 out of 3 and that makes sense to me.

[old guy]

18. My sentiments exactly.

If someone posts what I think I rarely post myself. This is one of those rare times.

[MisterP]

26. take it back there--back to that fetid little sandbox

[quinnox]

27. Should have kept it in the BOG

It is perfect for that forum and its mindset.

[kardonb]

28. BOG

halleluyah , finally , someone with common sense ! Kudos to you , strong....

[HangOnKids]

52. Halleluyah!

Comedy gold.

[another_liberal]

29. I offered this response . . .

I offered this response to your initial post on BOG.

I worked for Barack Obama's election. I gave more money to his campaign than I really had any business giving. I cheered with the crowds in Washington D. C. on the night his election was announced.

No one has the right to tell me I should stop criticizing President Obama. He is about to make a huge mistake. If there is any way I can help to stop him from making that mistake, no one has the right to tell me I should not.

For doing so I was blocked from ever posting on BOG again. Some people . . .

[cui bono]

36. That group should be banned from everything I've read about it and from the one peek I took.

Closed minded, self-righteous, discriminating, name-calling and nasty bunch in there.

[another_liberal]

38. Every effort should be made to warn the President against this potential attack.

Instead the people on BOG refuse to question anything he says or plans to do. That is not real loyalty, it is mere sycophancy.

[JI7]

41. the groups are all mostly to post supportive things, that's why they are made

they are made because people asked for them.

it's nothing different from other groups.

[another_liberal]

42. Whatever you say.

It hardly matters much to me. I'm excluded anyway.

[JI7]

43. yes, that's how groups work. all groups

are created at the request of DUers and they can set whatever rules they want for that.

[another_liberal]

44. Perhaps . . .

Perhaps their selective postings should not be offered for comment on the DU home page then? Or a warning of the specialized rules which apply should be given when they are so offered on the DU home page.

I was only responding to a provocative post I saw among many others listed on the left column. I was almost completely blind-sided by what happened.

[JI7]

45. they use to not be shown there,, i don't know why they changed it

[another_liberal]

46. It does seem a bit misleading . . .

It does seem a bit misleading to elicit general comment only to then punish with such finality anyone who violates their private rules.

[DrDan]

55. I responded to a post also found on the DU home page - made a couple-word post about

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 07:58 AM - Edit history (2)

3-dimensional chess - BAM - banned.

There is more honest discussion among those venturing into the gungeon than from the BOGGERS.

I shall never forget one post from that group - "I not only love my President, I am in love with him". That pretty much sums up their hero-worship.

[another_liberal]

58. If they can arbitrarily block anyone they disagree with . . .

They should not be able to put BOG posts on the DU home page and solicit comments if they can then arbitrarily block anyone they disagree with. Let them have their private place, sure, but the home page is for discussion and debate not their kind of censorship.

[DrDan]

74. agree 100% - did you post that on ATA? Someone did and I wanted to

respond but only posters and admins can respond

[another_liberal]

82. No, I had not.

Does sound like a good idea though.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. I bet they have blocked 20x more DUers than any other group.

Exclusionary groups are what they are. 'Our kind only'. Like old skool country clubs with restrictions on membership....

[hfojvt]

49. that does not answer the question though

How do YOU KNOW that the President is about to make a huge mistake?

Does that not imply many things, or perhaps a combination of things?

1. You have information about Syria that Obama does not have.
2. Perhaps you are just smarter than Obama
3. perhaps you care about some things that Obama does not

Okay, now I will make the case for my own hobby horse - taxes and the budget. When I oppose things like the Obama/Bush tax cuts, or the accursed payroll tax cuts, I sorta take the same position. I am very critical of Obama, sometimes bombastically so. Heck, sometimes I am the same way with Krugman.

But in that case I would say
1. I have knowledge that the President does not have. I have a BA in math and an MA in economics and Obama does not. I know some things about economics and statistics that he perhaps does not. (I would not make the same claim, however, against Krugman - quite the opposite (but I still found his reasoning to be spurious))
3. I care about the bottom 60%, of which I happen to be a part, and neither Obama nor Krugman (in this instance) seem to be all that concerned about a group they also happen to NOT belong to.

So back to Syria, what is the basis for you knowing the right choice and Obama not knowing it? Or not caring about it?

[1StrongBlackMan]

67. My point exactly! ...

How do YOU KNOW that the President is about to make a huge mistake?

Does that not imply many things, or perhaps a combination of things?

1. You have information about Syria that Obama does not have.
2. Perhaps you are just smarter than Obama
3. perhaps you care about some things that Obama does not

But it'll be lost because to answer honestly will be an admission that their argument boils down to "My opinion is just as valid as President Obama's facts" ... a position that was once abhorent on DU and among liberals.

[hfojvt]

79. except one could make the same parallel to Iraq

1. Did I have information about Iraq that BushCo did NOT have?

a. I was of the opinion that Iraq did NOT have WMD while BushCo (and the media) claimed he did. Certainly Bush had more information than I did, but it turned out that I was right.
b. I was of the opinion that we should let the inspectors do their job and that Saddam was cooperating (I originally thought that Saddam would not cooperate and thus give Bush an excuse to invade, and I also thought that Bush would not invade without a good excuse - two wrongs for me there.)
c. I expected the war to cause many more American casualties than it did, but knew that invasion meant death and destruction. BushCo surely knew that too.
d. I was afraid that Iraq would be hard to stabilize as some were predicting. Again, the antiwar people were right and Bush wrong.
e. I was afraid war would be very expensive - and it was.

and so on

2. It never seemed to me that Bush was very smart (although, unlike me, he did become rich AND serve two terms as President - but still struck me as a doofus every time I heard him speak.)

3. It never seemed to me that Bush cared about human life, either in America or in Iraq. That he was quite willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of human lives to make a few million dollars for KBR and friends.

At this point in the Obama Presidency though, I do not really believe Obama cares very much about ordinary Americans. So I am not sure what to believe about his motives in regard to Syria. Hard to see a clear profit motive and presumably Obama does not have the same ties to KBR and such that Bush did/does.

[Marr]

34. I guess they're a full blown cult now, if they're calling sycophantic crap like THAT heresy.

[Hekate]

50. You misread. The post drew disruptors there.

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. Sycophantic crap? ...

Okay!

[SwampG8r]

40. can i ask a favor?

will you take this down?
i am not in the bog and i myself have been run over many times by their actions
but the bog is a protected forum and it has its own rules and an expectation of privacy within its confines
this is just me asking one duer to another duer
please reconsider this?
im sorry this happened to you but i doesn't make this right
thanks

[Marrah_G]

48. I disagree with you on this topic

[Cha]

53. No need to apologize, 1StrongBlackMan.. But, thank you

for being so kind.

I wholeheartedly agree that President Obama acts in our best interests and we will be working our collective off in 2014!

[MADem]

56. +1,000 nt

[LostOne4Ever]

54. I have been to the BOG a few times

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 10:19 AM - Edit history (1)

And all of you have been very nice when I been there. I am sorry that others have disrupted your group.

Overall, I am very supportive of PotUS. I just disagree with him on some issue, and when I do I try to take it to other areas and respect the safe haven nature of your group.

My problem with your list is number 3. I don't think anyone is really claiming that. There are definitely areas he knows alot more than us. But there are probably a few areas where we know more than he does. I bet my knowledge of Engineering (being an Engineering student) is higher than his, as is my knowledge of anime

Further, just because he is more knowledgeable on a subject does not mean that hes is right or that I am wrong. It means he is more informed and has a higher likelihood of being correct than I do. But, again, he could be wrong as could i. Maybe he was mis-informed by his sources, or lied to, or he simply came to the wrong conclusion. Just because someone has more information on a subject and to ASSUME that they are right solely based on that is to surrender your ability to think and you have no one but yourself to blame should they do something wrong.

We are all responsible for our actions and because of that we must all try to analyze the situations that come before us to the best of our abilities and come to our own conclusions. Further, we all have limits on the knowledge we posses and most work within the constraints of that knowledge. Just because I like and trust PBO does not mean I am just going to go along with him on anything without thought or reflection.

If he wants to change my mind he is going to have to give me his information so that I can see the error of my ways. If he can't give me that information then he needs to inform me of that and even then accept that I am coming to a conclusion missing that data. And even assuming that I do have the same info does not mean I will come to the same conclusion.

I am deeply appreciative of the president and what he has done for this country. Especially his support for Marriage equality, equal rights and passing healthcare reform. I just disagree with him on issues like the NSA, Drones, and Syria. I believe in Obama and the democrats but they need to believe in us also. They need to believe we are doing what we think is best and standing up for what we believe in. Even when we disagree we need to respect each others view and see if just maybe we have a point.

Again, I am sorry for the people who have broken your safe haven. And I wish you all the best!

[MADem]

57. What a thoughtful post, full of nuance and mature thought.

Such a pity that some have reduced your reasoned comments to "I don't like the BOG because I'm not allowed to insult POTUS there," and other nit-picky remarks that really have nothing to do with your thesis, save that's where you initially posted it.

FWIW, I'll join you in 2014.

[1StrongBlackMan]

69. Thank you ...

Yes ... it's a shame when people admit they don't have anywhere near the information as the POTUS; but wish to believe that their opinion, informed by that insufficient information, is equally, if not more, valid than a more fully informed POTUS.

IMO, that is either the height of arrogance; or willful ignorance.

[sheshe2]

61. K&R!

Well said, 1SBM.

[Bluenorthwest]

73. The BOG really misses Meta because so much of their work consists of sermons against the sinners

that surround them here on DU. Sad that that stuff has to be dragged into GD now that Meta is gone....
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President or that we must stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, it is morally treasonable to the American public."
Teddy Roosevelt, who would have been banned from the BOG for saying this.

[1StrongBlackMan]

76. Actually ...

No. The vast majority of BOG posts are merely supportive of President Obama (and Democrats in general) and those policy position that we believe are positive. The "sermons" that you refer to are in response to the REAL democrats that feel the need to go into the BOG for the sole purpose of criticizing President Obama (and Democrats, in general).

[Bluenorthwest]

77. Self serving characterization that is not supported by the fact that you broght this from BOG

to GD where the sermon was delivered a second time. No one in this thread had to go to the BOG to hear this sermon, nor the many others placed in GD. You came to GD with this and that speaks loudly about the agenda at play.

[TheKentuckian]

84. Faith is for spirituality and deeply personal associations not for anything approaching

self governance.

Trust us not your lying eyes, we know things you don't have access to. Tell you??? Oh fuck no, that would compromise us to our enemies.

The disconnected from all observable outcomes in reality that the proposed political outlook bakes into the cake is epic in scope.

Let's examine reality over the past 50 or 60 years with points #1 and #2. #3 is some basic disagreement with democracy and independent thought, I guess. I don't know what to say to someone operating from the premise that they will decide what they believe is right when they are told.

Are you seriously going to argue that some things kept secret by the government should not have been secrets in a democracy. Are you arguing that there can be secret laws in a democracy? Then by extension asserting the constitutionality of case law, precedent, and pervasive rationales based on those secret laws?

Are you trying to argue lack of past abuse of secret status and that the great risk of potential abuse is not given all the infrastructure it needs to function?

If you are trying to argue that the media is trustworthy then I guess we will just have to give up the ghost of trying to have a conversation of any sorts because to make such a claim defies observation in such irreconcilable fashion that I would be forced to more easily swallow that one or bot of us is caught between to very different parallel universes.

In my universe, they lie, mislead, and distract all the time. At least one major organization has sued to have the right to lie (and won). No shit they can't be trusted. That doesn't mean absolutely nothing can be gleaned from them it means one must always use whatever discernment is available to them in processing all information and one especially must be skeptical of voices almost unerringly on the side of those that get wealthier through the trials and tribulations that have been the fruit of secrets, lies, "errors", "surprises" (counseled strongly by the "ignorant" somehow), and that not so coincidentally get paychecks written by the same folks that always seem to reap the benefits.