Increasing triviality, the Gibbs 'kerfuffle' and the substance of President Obama

[grantcart]

The debate at DU foreshadowed the Gibbs 'kerfuffle'


The recent Gibbs 'kerfuffle' has reignited the basic divergence that DU has been experiencing and discussing captured in these two threads:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8673473&mesg_id=8673473

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/311

These two threads were unusual in the DU context because 1) they ended up discussing broad patterns of DU in a systemic way 2) they were conducted with a suspension of DU rules and 3) Skinner entered into the discussion in an usual way.

Ironically, and the irony of the issues of the Gibbs 'kerfuffle' is almost without bounds, these threads foreshadowed the issues that came to the fore with Gibbs statement. In a way, because of its open and accessible format, DU is ground zero for the comments of the Press Secretary. It would be difficult to name a site where the issues raised were more fully engaged in a daily basis by such a large number of active posters. DU is "Soapbox Central" for those who want to engage in public discussion on issues centering on the future of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

What and who was Gibbs talking about

Going back to Gibbs statement its fair to say that if you take his words literally that there is not much to be outraged about. In the first place he is addressing people who equate Obama with Bush and in the second place he is gently ribbing them by saying they need to be tested to see what drug might have influenced such a conclusion. As mild an 'up yours' as can be delivered and by DU standards not even a slap on the wrist if it had been part of an exchange here.

The reaction of threads that certainly numbered in the high hundreds, or possibly low thousands, is out of any proportion with what was said. The charge is that it was a 'veiled' statement that was aimed at the entire progressive wing.

Obviously there are those who are so antagonized by the Obama administration that the context and truth of what he is talking to are of no real importance, that it is simply another occasion to try and demonstrate an institutional antagonism between the President and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Those that hold such a view (and those who actively organize in off site 'shadow' discussion threads so that they can coordinate organized attacks on the President and his supporters here - commonly known as members of BOG) need to read no further and can skip to the reply function (or go to the 'shadow' thread that the 'hate Obama' cabal participates in before they come to discuss with their non conspiratorial DUers - threads that number in the hundreds and have over 11,000 replies) so that you can post your "Obama hates progressives" response.

If you have read this far and are a critic of some of the policies of the President but consider yourself an open minded and loyal supporter of the Democratic Party then please bear with me because I intend to use cold hard facts to prove the following:

1) There was nothing particularly remarkable about what Gibbs said except that it was the Press Secretary who said it.
2) The division at DU is becoming less civil and more trivial (and considerably less interesting).
3) The facts show that the President is pushing forth on the general principles of the Progressive wing (even though the legislative process necessitates that even as we push forward passage requires compromise).

Who Gibbs was talking about

There was a general assumption in most of the hundreds of threads that Gibbs was talking about the entire Progressive Wing.

When it is pointed out that the premise of Gibbs' remarks has to do with those that equate Obama with Bush then the response among some has been along the lines of the following:

Oh come on now- you're smarter than that You know exactly who Gibbs is referring to- and who he and the administration meant to insult.
That's one of lamer rationalizations I've seen and quite frankly, it makes me question your credibility and the objectivity of other analysis you might post.

So no evidence can be provided that Obama/Gibbs is intending to insult the entire wing, just the smarmy condescending assertion that "damn the facts DU knows better".

Closer examination of this assertion, however, cannot convince the open and fair minded DUer that in fact Gibbs was interested in a 'broad based' attack but that he had a very specific kind of target in mind. Does it really make sense that Obama/Gibbs is interested in alienating a large broad section of the Party? Is it consistent with Obama's tenor and personality, where he is constantly avoiding such broad based attacks? Clearly the answer is no.

So who was it aimed at?

On the macro level it was aimed at the Hamsher type of 'professional blogger' who is constantly arguing that there is little difference between Obama and Bush and that Obama has sold out progressives. Hamsher was on CSPAN this morning repeating the same tired line.

So who at DU was he talking about?

He was talking about those that are working on the assumption that there is no difference between the two parties, that the corporate powers have rendered them meaningless shadow puppets that are operating and controlling the two parties. In fact that is the premise of one of the thread's referred to above, a thread that clearly stated that the rules of DU were insufficient because they gave cover to DINO's:

There is a growing number of bad Democrats (DINO's) that vote Republican. There I said it. So your rules do not deal with the problem that we have DINO's) that vote Republican. There I said it. So your rules do not deal with the problem that we have progressive Democrats vs. conservative Democrats (Republicans in Democrat clothing).

So our previous discussion is a prefect foreshadowing of the very same type of thing that Gibbs was addressing. A group of DUers consider that the President, and by extension supporters of the President not to be Democrats at all. At DU there is a daily staple of attacks not on the policy of the President but his role as a 'stooge', 'corporatist lackey', 'trojan horse' and so on. BOGgers can measure their effectiveness in irritating those in the shadows by how many "Fuck You Threads" are conducted by those that return here under the false cover of enforced civility (Fuck You FrenchieCat generates 5 google pages while Fuck you grantcart measures a paltry 4 pages). So Gibbs finally got fed up with the "Fuck You" sentiment that a very small group engages in and made a mild funny retort.

It is not the supporters of the President who are being disingenuous in framing Gibbs remarks but those that are engaged in faux outrage. Why do I say faux? Let us be completely truthful. As mentioned above there is a sustained effort by a small but well organized group of DUers to control the debate at DU.

They do not come here in open debate and enter into discussion with a free flowing exchange of facts in a community that has common respect. They secretly communicate, coordinate personal attacks and campaign for recs.

They are not, however, the sharpest knife in the drawer. Note this PM sent to me. Note that it was sent 24 hours before the thread cited above that was calling for alteration in the rules so that supporters of the President can be attacked as DINO's.

(name of former DUer redacted)
From: rhett o rick
Date: Jun-30-10 05:20 PM
Is it forboten to speak of "the other site". Or can you tell me the site that (name of former DUer redacted) posts on? Is it (name of site redacted)? I haven't seen him there. It's a shame but I think there is a very strong DLC element in DU.

The connection requested was, ironically, provided and 24 hours the remarkable thread quoted launched.

In context to these attacks on the President and his supporters at DU, the mild, and accurate response from Gibbs is clearly aimed at those who
are engaged in an organized and sustained attack on their standing as Democrats. Because of this the general give and take of DU is becoming more strident and more trivial in nature.

Who is not aimed at?

It is not aimed at fellow Democrats who sustain thoughtful, informed and effective criticisms of Administration policy. We have these at DU as well, unfortunately in the present era these are a smaller and smaller mix and the attacks on the Administration as a legitimate part of the progressive movement per se dominate the forums. As the herd is formed, conspired with and directed in shadows, the threads that deal with thoughtful discussion and criticism are overwhelmed by the strident demagogue questioning both the character of the President and the worthiness of his supporters to be identified as Democrats.

The Substance of Barack Obama

In sharp contrast to those who engage in the most over the top attacks of the President is the substance of the President himself. Rather than going into a long list of actions and legislation that will lead to long and laborious technical discussions of just how 'progressive' a particular piece of legislation is let us look at two areas: Restoring the dignity and operations of the Presidency, Pursuing a rational basis for political action, Significantly expanding the role of the Federal Government.


Restoring the dignity and orations of the Presidency

It is taken for granted just how far the President has moved the dignity and operations of the Presidency. That was at least a part of what the Nobel Prize consideration. It is a huge distinction to move from a Presidency that crosses into starting a war of aggression to a President that is committed to leaving that theater.

It is much more basic than that however. Look simply at the DOJ. The President has restored the DOJ as an independent professional arm of the law enforcement function of government (indeed some regret that he is in fact following the law and should personally run the DOJ). Contrast that to the operations of the Bush WhiteHouse that came within a hair of being indicted for politicizing the role of Federal Prosecutors.

Revisionists are trying to paint Bush as being a master of passing legislation and pushing the government around in getting its way. After "No Child" was passed Bush had no further legislative successes outside of those directly related to the response to 9/11 and the country's emotional license it gave to Bush to respond. Bush's two highest domestic legislative priorities; immigration reform and social security reform were historical flops - he could not even get his own party to even hold congressional hearings on the subjects.

The President took over during a time of systemic economic collapse. Washington Mutual had just undergone the largest bank run in world history. There was "Its a Wonderful Life" type of panic that had it continued would have brought us to 1929 economic collapse. The President restored confidence in the country and allowed the rebuilding to begin.

Pursuing a rational basis for political action

The President doesn't kick the can down the road. From Health Care, Gitmo, or the Stimulus the President does not involve in demagoguery or leak secrets to discredit people he disagrees with, another huge difference with Bush/Cheney.

Rene Descarte is quoted as "I think therefore I am" which is used as the epistomological foundation for rational thought, and by extension rational discussion. It however should include the full quote “Dubito ergo cogito; cogito ergo sum. (I doubt, therefore I think; I think therefore I am)”.

As a political leader the President has taken care not to frame political discussion in an absolutist manner that stiffles debate but to embrace the essential questioning that Descrate describes as the defining element of human reason. It is the source of irritations to some progressives that he is too open and too encouraging. Again Obama is right. We are currently facing two different approaches to public debate the Republican strategy of fear and faith as seen as in the AZ Law and the half Governor Palin, and the effort of the President to establish a mechanism for open debate. Progressives should always favor open debate. It is in open debate that our advantage of facts and reason will always win out. It is a slower more methodical approach but over a longer period of time will generate better results.

Again ironically this is where their could not be a greater contrast between the President and the current outrage on the Gibbs kerfuffle. Clearly somethings that have been said about the President that are over the top. Where the President responds by always prefacing his argument with "while there is some truth to what . . . said" those that are 'outraged' spoke in absolute tones. Their arguments would have been more convincing had they simply said, "while it is true that some on the left are engaging in irresponsible attacks the overall impact of Gibbs . . .". It is in their absolute conviction, their absolute framing, their unwillingness to concede basic principles of comity that those that are organizing in the shadows reveal that their position is weak intellectually or they wouldn't have to cling to such absolutism which is clearly not supported by the facts.


Significantly expanding the role of Fedeeral Government

In two years the President has expanded the role of the Federal Government more than all but two Presidents, FDR and Lincoln.

In the last 24 months the President has orchestrated the move of the Federal Government in 3 areas;

1) Economy - openly purchsing General Motors and Chrysler and returning them to profitability is an exercise unique to the country.
2) Health Care For the first time the federal government now has a legislated approved interest in overseeing medical care from cradle to grave.
3) Financial Markets and Consumer Protection

Lets agree that where the federal government is starting in health care and consumer protection is not where the progressive wing wants to end up. It is also a clear fact that the history of federal expansion has always started at one point and evolved to another, simply getting the federal government legal authority and responsibility is the big step.

Whether it was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the EPA, the CDC or NOAA the principle or the aqency on which the Federal Government was based on was a slender thread and grew after that. Once established as under the supervision of the Federal Government Health Care and the Consumer Protection Agency will follow the growth and development of every other federal agency and in time policies that the country now considers as 'too radical' will be adopted and like every policy since Social Security, people will wonder what the fuss was in the begining.

Conclusion

It is clear that Gibbs comments mirror the same frustrations that have been expressed at DU. Every day threads are locked and responses deleted along the lines of Obama=Bush and that supporters of Obama are really only Republicans trying to pass off as Democrats.

In the face of an organized effort to campaign for that point of view on a systematic basis the individual supporter of the President cannot sustain much in light of such a 'professional' effort. I am satisfied if the visitor to DU is able to see a single thread that clearly puts forth the President's case.

Impossible to respond to a hundred threads I chose instead to make this systematic comprehensive response. It is clear that the herd at DU is in force to paint the President and his Press Secretary as irrational actors at war with the Progressive Wing.

A detached unemotional response tells a different story and even those that have strong policy disagreements with the President can still accept that the President is not an enemy of the progressive wing, is advancing its interests even if it doesn't meet either the scale or the pace that all progressives would like to see.


I was determined not to comment on the Gibbs kerfuffle. It quickly reached an 'iconic' status at DU. It is now in hallowed grounds and DU is not going to admit that its reaction may have been too emotional and that there was some truth to what Gibbs was saying but seeing Hamsher on CSPAN this morning with her smug "Democrats are no different than Republicans" knowing that she openly embraces Republicans to try and defeat the President got the better of my judgement.

I apologize for any spelling or syntax errors I have a full day and don't have time to review it and won't have time to respond to thoughtful comments.

If you found something reasonable in the OP and made a constructive response, let me thank you in advance.

If you found the entire thing an absolute and complete pile of excrement and said so in response, let me thank you in advance for making the point even better than I can.

If you are starting a 'fuck you grantcart' thread in the shadows I thank you in advance as I hate to see FrenchieCat get ahead of me.

[DevonRex]

1. ...

All I can say is golf clap, Grantcart, golf clap. Oh yeah, and :evilgrin:

[CBR]

2. K&R nt

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tridim]

9. It's a badge of honor these days

"Quickest unrec into oblivion by obvious trolls" should be a new category on the "Greatest" page.

[sufrommich]

4. lol. Your last line was a DUzy. nt

[sufrommich]

5. Meant to add that I agree with your OP. nt

[enlightenment]

6. Nice of you to tell us how to think, grantcart.

You are so very good at that. Unfortunately, your opinion is just that - an opinion.

It is so very clever of you, too, to dismiss any criticism of your opinion with your final statements; it is ironic (to use your term) that you are so completely unable to see any perspective but your own.

You do not have some super-sensibility to identify the ONLY possible interpretation of Gibbs' statements; you have an opinion that is largely informed by your very strong support of the President, his policies, and his choices.

That's fine; you are more than entitled to that opinion, but you need to remember that is all it is - your interpretation of the statements.

To begin your post with 'kerfuffle' is convenient, as it tells the reader where you stand on the issue. If the reader is wont to agree with your assessment, what follows will sound very reasonable, indeed. If one does not agree that the issue is something to be trivialized through the use of that kind of language, they will not be convinced by the remainder of your post and will see both the bias and the patronizing attitude that marks your relationship with DUer's you find disagreeable.

[cliffordu]

20. Whatever you do, don't THINK about refuting his actual points....

just snivel about the style he employs.

Fail.

[enlightenment]

68. Points? What points?

All I saw was a long-winded and self-aggrandized opinion piece by someone who is apparently very upset over something they consider very trivial - just a little 'kerfuffle' .

Unlike the OP, I think people are entitled to have opinions, even when they are logically inconsistent - like the OP's.

If there were something to 'refute' in that piece, I might have bothered - though it's really unfair to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. But there wasn't anything to 'refute' - it was just personal opinion presented as fact.

Y'all really need to get down off those hobby horses you're on - the rocking is clearly starting to affect you if you can't tell the difference between what things are and what you want them to be.

[cliffordu]

99. Ah, bullshit.

:rofl:

[Solomon]

7. K&R

Thank you for the post.

[zipplewrath]

8. You over look points you can't address

He disparaged 3 groups of people, it wasn't clear if he meant in a unified manner or not.

1) People who equate Bush with Obama

2) People who want Candian Health care

3) People who want the Pentagon to disappear.

Whether these are all one group of people, or 3 groups of people isn't clear. It is clearly far more than one person he was addressing. The second one could be described as a fairly large number of people in the democratic party. And considering these were people generally excluded from the health care reform efforts, it was particularly inflammatory. But it is far more than just "equating bush with Obama".

It was also "the professional left" which makes it even harder to understand because no one can figure out who he was talking about that was a blogger, columnist, or TV personality. And that it was so hard to find any ONE person, and it would be hard to believe he'd care about just one, it was assuredly a wider brush than that.

If we widen the assumption to more than one person, and to some sufficiently large number of professionals to warrant attention by the press secretary, now you are talking about a wide array of people that enjoy a fair amount of support of the democratic left. Criticize them, and you criticize the people that agree with them.

And at that point, you're back to the fact that he insulted and derided people who did work for the election of his boss. Once we are there, then you get to the question of whether their complaints have any validity.

Without a doubt SOME of them do. The presidency is not progressive by any stretch, and it has done some things that progressives have every right and obligation to object. This includes the escalation of the War in Afghanistan, the negotiation away of drug price negotiations, and the protection of torturers. I can go on but the wide array of legitimate complaints doesn't stop there. There may be legitimate arguments to make on behalf of the administration, but it DOESN'T mean that the critics "should be drug tested". And a very strange time to bring it up is in August before the fall elections when folks are generally trying to find a way to unite EVERYONE, not just the people that agree with Gibbs.

People want to narrow Gibbs' comment to some small selection of people through strick interpretation of one of the three characterizations he used, and ignore the other two. Simultaneously, they want to ascribe a sense of hyperbole to the specifics of his statement, and yet ignore the hyperbolic use of equating Obama and Bush on any large scale. It would seem inconsistent to view Gibbs' comments in the narrowest and most favorable light, while viewing the expressions of the critics in the broadest, and most unfavorable light.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. That about says it

[nxylas]

162. I only remember him disparaging the latter two

I include myself in category 2 and whilst I don't know if I'd eliminate the Pentagon altogether (maybe just reduce it to a Triangle), I don't see why it should gobble up 50%+ of the national budget, or dictate foreign policy. It's just as well I don't have a vote in American elections, since Gibbs clearly wouldn't want it if I did.

[Ichingcarpenter]

163. This is how I see the story too

I like grantcart but I find this thread patronizing and condescending that marginalizes
myself and my interpretation of the 'real world'




I do see things from a distance.

[Scurrilous]

10. Great job grantcart.

TOTG!!1! :thumbsup:

[NJmaverick]

11. K & R!

[RandomThoughts]

12. It was to create a news story to help a friend.

Gibbs did good.

[flamingdem]

13. REC nt

[SidDithers]

14. K&R...

:thumbsup:

Nicely done.

Sid

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[walldude]

16. LMAO.. I was with you right up until you

said "damn the facts DU knows better", and then went on to explain how you know better than the people at DU who claim they know better. Sorry I didn't finish this post but after you called people "condescending" for claiming to know what Gibbs meant, and then went on to explain what Gibbs meant.. well... :rofl:

[Mithreal]

19. I love the monumental pomposity.

Self flagellating with their left, circlejerking with their right, it's all rather embarrassing.

I really don't know how anyone can take it any longer.

[Warren Stupidity]

How many splinters can a woodchuck make?

I really don't think that 20 or so insufferable lectures at the left here every day is going to do anything positive.

If a woodchuck must split wood.

[Warren Stupidity]

134. How many splinters can a woodchuck make?

I really don't think that 20 or so insufferable lectures at the left here every day is going to do anything positive.

If a woodchuck must split wood.

[azmouse]

18. Great post.

K&R

[MadHound]

21. If it is so increasingly trivial, then why did you feel the need to start another thread

Trying to explain it away, trivialize it, and trivialize people's disagreements and frustrations with this administration and Dems in general.

Oh, yeah, because it isn't increasingly trivial, you are just trying to pretend it is, hoping you can make it go away.

[Mithreal]

22. Bingo

[mcar]

23. Thoughtful post

Thanks.

[butterfly77]

24. Kicked&Recommended!

:kick:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. It was a petulant slap at legitimate critics in the guise of criticizing the nut left.

Period.

The nut left plays no part in the American political dialog.

In fact, neither does the moderate left.

(The conservative left plays a tiny role in providing the right answers to pressing questions so that they may be ignored, which is a role of sorts.)

Kucinich got like 0.01% of the vote. No Kucinich supporter has any real world influence whatsoever, anywhere.

The WH has utterly fucked up the only issue of the day. It has ruined the lives of millions gratuitously through vanity and rank incompetence.

That is a bad and indefensible record.

But people don't usually own up to such things and instead lash out at others.

Usually the helpless and weak... the socially accepted targets of bullying, like the loopy left.

Team Obama milked the fools on the left for what use they were and, having used them and lied to them--preying on their very real intellectual defects--then turn on them?

As I am sure you know, I have no use for Kucinich and am quite centrist along the rational spectrum (though not the political spectrum, which is a cluster-fuck lacking enough intellectual integrity to be arrayed as a spectrum at all.)

But I am not going to fucking sit by and watch immensely powerful people who have perma-crippled the world's largest economy through utter fucking EGO and VANITY seek to redirect attention from their grotesque malfeasance by trashing the helpless and marginal without noting the loathsomeness of the behavior. The behavior is, in fact, very much LIKE BUSH.

The targets here are not Hamsher and Kucinich types. They are Krugman and Maddow types... the sort of smart "the emperor has no clothes" critics on the moderate left.

The mode of attack is to bully the most helpless as a brush-back to the actually inconvenient, and to broad-brush smear ALL CRITICISM OF THE ADMINISTRATION FORM THE LEFT AS TRIVIAL HIPPIE BULLSHIT.

You should have enough feel for the very human activity of politics to recognize that. I am shocked you do not.

That's where I stand.

[ljm2002]

26. "he is addressing people who equate Obama with Bush"...

...and I suppose he was also addressing those "who want to do away with the Pentagon".

Ah, sure.

So please. Tell me. WHO are these people? Please identify a professional leftist -- a newscaster, pundit or other well known figure -- who EQUATES Obama with Bush, and who wants to DO AWAY WITH our military altogether.

Don't forget to provide quotes.

Thanks.

p.s. As one other poster has pointed out: If this is in truth just an irrelevant "kerfuffle", then I wonder what inspired you to compose a post that is several screens long on the topic?

Oh yes, the ironies abound.

[asdjrocky]

27. I really tried, but I found myself dozing off about a quarter way through. nt

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[asdjrocky]

133. Oh aren't you sweet.

Smoking dope? What are you like 74?

[Ikonoklast]

28. This little contretemps sure got under the skin of many here.

Mostly the ones that never supported this president, or want the administration to fail completely so ushering in a Socialist Workers Paradise.

Gibbs got it exactly right.

If you equate Bush with Obama, there is something wrong with your mental state.

[FrenchieCat]

29. And most folks know it.......

But don't want to throw an "Incident" out that they can use in their arsenal...
some things are just too good to waste, even if you have to doctor it up
to conjure up appropriate long lasting indignation.

[Ikonoklast]

31. I wouldn't want any of those people on my team.

As soon as you get into a tight spot, they throw their hands in the air and say, "I told you so!", instead of buckling down to do the grunt work.

[Mithreal]

43. Uh huh, I'd like to know who actually volunteered and who didn't

I'd also like to know how these sad attempts win anyone over.

I'm in the camp that believes a good many well intentioned folks are pushing others away while seeming to be the biggest and best supporters.

I usually really enjoy irony, but the stupid is strong with too many.

But hey if it pays the bills, am I right?

Why would anyone vote against their interests?

The President knows your interests better than you, am I right?

[LostinVA]

49. "The President knows your interests better than you, am I right?"

:rofl:

[Mithreal]

51. It's true!!1!!!1

[LostinVA]

55. Surreal

:rofl:

[Mithreal]

70. Says you!!1!!!1 You just want to relive the primaries!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_hXxNyxkBBwY/Sla9ODF8k0I/AAAAAAAAA7I/vduGHVGT8WI/s400/goldfish+with+shark+fin.jpg

[LostinVA]

92. lol

[Solomon]

75. The irony of your sarcasm is that there are some interests that

the president knows better than us simply because he has access to more information than we do.

I'm sure there are some people in your life that you know their interests better than they do.

This is not to say that a president knows all of our interests better than we do. Just pointing out the irony in your sarcasm.

[Mithreal]

88. That's true. We need to kill more insurgents to make me safe

and I can live with that.

People are living longer and the government can't run on deficits forever. That is why the President did what he did.

Extrajudicial killing is a President's choice and I support it.

We can't know all the grey areas. The President has more facts.

I mean, when you go to see a doctor, the doctor knows you better than you know yourself. You certainly wouldn't want to think for yourself when it comes to health care. Stinking Canadians with their socialist health care don't realize what a slippery slope access to health care is.

Americans have grown to fat. Nights on the street cold, hungry, and homeless builds character and if it breaks anyone, wtf, we can't be handing out bootstraps to everyone.

Am I right?

The President knows.

[LostinVA]

93. rofl

[EFerrari]

33. Gibbs is being kicked all over the world, lol, but you try to reframe it

as some foible of DU's?

Lame, so lame, so very lame. :)

[Ikonoklast]

35. Yes, I agree, it's very lame.

And if others elsewhere have hurt feelings over this, they just might need to look in the mirror first and ask themselves why.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

37. Typo: You left off "...they're unemployed."

"And if others elsewhere have hurt feelings over this, they just might need to look in the mirror first and ask themselves why they're unemployed."

[LostinVA]

38. They also don't want us "on their team"

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

46. I don't see a problem.

lol

[LostinVA]

48. lol

[Mithreal]

36. uh huh, they never loved him

[Number23]

132. I know. It's almost embarrasing how easily people fall for the Daily Foolishness

And yet still want to pat themselves on the back, stroking themselves about how intelligent and "well informed" they are.

If you have no health insurance, are struggling to put your kids through college, or are worrying about making ends meet as 96% of Americans are right now, it is a pretty damn good bet that you are not a member of the group that Gibbs was referring to. It's really not that hard.

[saracat]

30. insufferably pompous and stupid to suggest that Paul Krugman, Cenk, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow

Alan Grayson, Keith Ellison, Raul Grijalva, John Lewis and a whole bunch more folks who are likely brighter and more observant than a tiny minority of apologia for anything WH are all mistaken and all incorrect with what they hear.
Most comments have NOT been emotional and the troubling aspect of this is not only just that the WH Press Sec said it, but as has been pointed out by many people, especially Alan Grayson, it is part of a "pattern" of such commentary stemming from the WH.

Putting an official stamp, by having the insult delivered voluntarily by the Press Sec ,on what has been said by the WH is troubling because it leads to vote suppression, and is extremely stupid. Our congresspersons know this better than anyone.

If this wasn't important, no one would be talking about it. YOU would not be talking about it. And it is extremely misleading to imply that those remarks concerned few as not only, as Cenk pointed out, Presidents and their predecessors are routinely compared to one another, particularly when they support similar legislation , and many , many people wanted an HCR similar to the Canadian one and no one ever calls for the destruction of the Pentagon. The other nasty slams implied anyone who questioned wasn't living in "real" America and took a swipe at Kucinich supporters for a finale.

This is one thing that cannot be whitewashed away. What was said was said.
It is just going to make the job of those of us who are trying to GOTV twice as hard, and that is not acceptable.

[treestar]

39. If these people can't stand the heat they should get out of the kitchen

they can criticize the WH but can't take any critiques in return? :rofl:

[saracat]

45. Another thing, WH Press Secs .don't get to air their own opinions publicly.

It part of the job. They have NO OPINIONS but that of the WH. And the WH is apparently the one complaining about the "heat" to begin with as they are referencing those who complain, so the onus is on the WH to respond with grace.That has never been the function of the Fourth estate or the voter.
The very real danger is if the WH doesn't stop "complaining about the heat", they could end up forcing our majority out of the kitchen and that is not OK with me.

[Gormy Cuss]

108. THIS!

It's his job to be the mouthpiece for the administration. Either he failed by speaking out of turn or the statements were made with approval by the White House.

I'm not surprised that he or someone in his position could forget his role and say something inappropriate but I am surprised that he hasn't retracted it -- he only apologized for the way he said it-- and that the White House didn't immediately issue a public statement distancing Obama from the remarks.

[EFerrari]

58. Who are you talking about? I haven't seen anyone running away from this.

:)

[laughingliberal]

69. Upside down! The WH's job is to hold voters accountable and critique them? What? do they pay us?

Guess that whole 'government of the people, by the people, and for the people' is just soooo 1700's.

[jgraz]

41. +1111eleveneleven1111

[laughingliberal]

42. No argument here. Guess since Gibbs isn't working the GOTV end of it, it doesn't matter to him.

No sweat off his back if he just made the work harder for the boots on the ground. Despite the fact that I live in a very red part of the state, the Democrats that do exist here are quite liberal. And we really need them to turn out if we don't want to listen to Sharon Angle's incessant dumbassness for 6 years. Southern Nevada has a lot more registered Democrats but if all the Democrats in the north stay home, we can't win.

[Kahuna]

160. Most of the critiques by the "professional left" are delivered in a vacuum

where they assume to know facts that they have no way of knowing. That goes without saying. They are not privy to the deliberations, and how concensus and policy is formed. It is fairly easy to call them out for being disingenuous, attention seekers. If they really wanted to know the truth it would be fairly easy to find out by seeking the truth directly from the administration. They seem to not be interested in the truth. They seem to be interested in creating a cottage industry as "muck-rackers." I believe that is the root of the frustration.

[EFerrari]

32. LOL

[LoZoccolo]

34. I like this, but I don't think that pointing out that the outrage is unfounded will stop it.

This is the Internet, where pretty much all you have is your words and pictures. You can write what you want and people are largely unaccountable to anyone, and it's very hard to detect if someone is putting on an act or not. If you want something from the administration, an easy way to try to get it is to make them feel indebted to you, and one way to do that is wait for an opportunity such as this to twist their arm for an apology. It costs people very little to do this in this venue.

If you browse this forum with the idea that some people are not here to persuade other DUers, but manipulate the administration, you find that this is an explanation that fits a lot of behaviors here. An example: when people threaten to vote third party, they rarely try to persuade others to do so, but rather simply state that they are doing so. Trying to persuade someone else to vote third party runs the risk that the arguments will be exposed as faulty; sweeping the reasoning behind the rug and emphasizing the action being taken is an attempt to manipulate without the risk of being exposed.

[Bobbie Jo]

40. Nicely Done!

:applause: And thank you for doing it.

[Ramulux]

44. This whole division thing on DU is pissing me off

because there is no real political divide. The divide is between intelligent, reasonable people who are willing to engage in genuinely contructive debate and those who are unreasonable and uninformed.

There are people on here who are just straight-up annoying dumbasses who have some sort of narrative they are trying to push regardless of whether or not its based in reality. These people are on the pro-dlc side and the hardcore anti-Obama side, however I cant deny that most of it is coming from people who for some weird reason absolutely refuse to acknowledge valid criticism of Obama.

The point is that we need to decide whether or not this site is for people who want to engage in real political debate or sort of just want to go somewhere to have their ideas validated. Or at the least set up designated forums for these two camps.

The problem is we have two groups of people who look at politics differently, some who take it very seriously and arent willing to give politicians a pass bcause they are a democrat and those who are sort of engaged but unwilling to listen to things they dont want to hear.

[saracat]

47. +1000

[Mithreal]

56. I'm not listening to you.

:applause:

The decision was already made. I am uncertain there is any going back.

Either way, I think it was tragically misdiagnosed, more the pity.

[EFerrari]

57. The problem is people justify anti-social behavior

on grounds of defending their political position. Clear example, trivializing the concerns of others. DU used to be better than that.

[NJmaverick]

50. 20 or 30 public recs

the ghost rec/unreccers are out in force today. :boring:

[Raineyb]

84. There's no ghost here. I unrecced this bloviating drivel.

Yet another overly wordy, pompous screed that pretends to be reasonable when is in reality deliberately putting down anyone who doesn't agree with him. Are the unrec's a surprise? Yeah I unreced it. I don't think I need to explain every unrec I give any more than I need to announce every time I take a shit.

No one owes you an explanation so get over yourself.

[Ignis]

89. Here's the contact info for the site Admins:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/contact.html

We peons can't do a damned thing about your fears of the Mighty Unwashed Ghost Rec Horde.

If you really want to do something other than complain, contact an Admin and ask them to check into it.

If.

[Warren Stupidity]

152. what fucking ghosts?

You are delusional. Your faction is outnumbered here 10-1. Deal with it.

[blueworld]

52. You wrote an awful lot of trivial for such a tiny kerfuffle! Feel better? n/t

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

60. No, the poster was referencing the OP's hamfistedness.

:)

[NJmaverick]

61. Are you making any efforts to help the President?

or do you limit yourself to criticizing those that do?

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJmaverick]

72. That didn't answer my question

Do you help the President or only attack those that do?

[EFerrari]

94. Maybe the poster is trying to spare you further embarrassment.

I'd take it.

[EFerrari]

87. False dilemma and crude attempt to stifle dissent.

Good grief.

[Ignis]

But are your papers in order, citizen?

Are you now, or have you ever been....

Oh, you know the rest.

[NJmaverick]

95. Yes the rest involves some sort of liberal purity test

[Ignis]

98. No, I'd say those words are pretty famous to any student of US History.

But don't feel bad if that excludes you. It's never too late to start!

[NJmaverick]

112. Yes it involved membership in the communist party

however that hardly applies to this situation literally. In this case it's an analogy where comparing those demanding ideological purity is being compared to the activities of the Un-American Activities committee. Sorry you had a mistaken impression

[Ignis]

125. Sorry, I don't argue with those who don't play by the rules.

Best of luck exploiting your unfair advantage over some other dupe. :hi:

[Ignis]

123. Please do not criticize the OP's choice of words. You are an asset to DU...

And I would hate to see you suffer unfairly for siding with someone on the Bad List.

[Ignis]

62. How exactly do I "speak like" that?

My criticism of grantcart's diction does not give you one iota of insight into what I do or do not want to see from our President.

So kindly explain in detail how your comment is anything other than a personal attack. :hi:

[NJmaverick]

63. Do you help the President win over hearts and minds

or do you limit your activity to criticizing those that do?

[Ignis]

65. I'll answer your question once you've answered mine.

I'm still waiting for you to explain exactly how you are able to divine my intent regarding our President by
staring at chicken entrails
feeling up a crystal ball
reading my criticism of grantcart's divisive rhetoric.

[NJmaverick]

73. Your answer will assist in resolving this issue

Once you answer my question, I will be able to fully answer yours.

[Ignis]

76. What does that have to do with your Telepathy Hat?

You've made the assertion that you can divine my super-duper-secret heart's desires by reading my criticism of your friend's post.

H. O. W. ?

[NJmaverick]

77. still waiting

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

128. For what? Just tell me what you want me to say, and I'll say it.

I wouldn't want to get on the bad side of someone so powerful at DU, so please provide the precise words you'd like me to repeat.

I understand now that the only way I'll be allowed to continue posting here is to agree with you and your ilk on every single issue.

So here I am, standing in front of the teleprompter. Please pass me the script.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJmaverick]

74. What have you done to help or support the President

please provide links. If you are worried about the President's situation, as you suggest in your post, I am hoping you can show me how you have worked to help him win support. I would hate to think criticizing those of us that work to support our President is the only activity you restrict yourself to.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJmaverick]

86. What about after the election. The President made it clear that he needed help after the election

as for myself, I phone banked, canvassed and gave his campaign a significant amount of money (I literally put in hundreds of hours just into this past Presidential campaign) I also talked up the President on many internet boards and to friends and coworkers. So not only did I work as hard if not harder than you (and parted with a good deal of my own money) but I continue to work for and help the President after he got election when he needed all of us to help him get his agenda passed and have people to get out their disputing all the right (and sadly fringe left) false talking points against him. So have you had his back since he got elected?

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mithreal]

102. Can't imagine why my comment was deleted, but I support the mods.

Thank you.

[Ignis]

149. Isn't it bracing to learn that EVERYTHING you type is toxic?

I mean...everything? Every post? Really? :shrug:

Oh well. Hang in there, Mithreal.

[Mithreal]

169. Actually quite a few aren't but then again I am not a woodchuck fan.

Maybe it's the place.

[Ignis]

83. Nice edit! But adding "IMO" still doesn't make you a mind reader.

So I'd like to hear precisely why you think my criticism of your buddy's diction gives you any right to say what I want to see or not see from our President.

[NJmaverick]

91. Maybe I am wrong, but you have been a frequent and harsh critic of the President

any comments about worrying about the President's support certainly ring hollow. I asked for clarifications that your refused to give, so I am left with the conclusions I have reached.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

122. That is untrue. Kindly stop stalking and harassing me.

[Ignis]

109. self-delete

[NJmaverick]

116. If I wanted the Republicans to win

I would spend my time attacking them and the President rather than spending my time disputing the attacks on them from the right (and the "professional left"}

[Ignis]

110. self-delete

[NJmaverick]

117. As a liberal protecting the civil rights of abused minorities is my highest priority

[Ignis]

111. self-delete

[NJmaverick]

118. Isn't DU a place for liberals that support the Democrats come to get information

to fight the right?

[Ignis]

113. self-delete

[NJmaverick]

119. Marriage for all!

[Ignis]

114. self-delete

[NJmaverick]

120. Marriage rights for all!

[Ignis]

115. self-delete

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

138. I was unwilling to believe it until it stared me in the face.

The inconsistency is as plain as day, and a real change from previous years.

[girl gone mad]

140. I guess I was right to put that one on ignore.

No idea who it was or what was said.

[Individualist]

150. Same here

[Ignis]

156. You were right. I was wrong to take it off ignore.

Image unrelated.

[ibegurpard]

59. you could've saved yourself some time and piled on a previous

"he's talking about a very select minority of outspoken liberals" thread.
unrec.

[Mithreal]

66. GC is dreamy. Everyone who called this post a 'kerfuffle' is just plain mean.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. So in other words

and I will keep it short.... core constituencies should just applaud the WH, get in line and shut up?

Got it...

Here is a hint. Instead of being this dismissive... start asking a FUNDAMENTAL question. WHY?

I am sure a few POLITICAL SCIENTISTS are right now trying to find that answer. You, on the other hand, are not.

[Ignis]

78. "Why?" is exactly the right question to be asking.

When I hear some knuckle-dragging, missile-humping RW asshole claim that we had to invade Iraq because "they hate us for our freedoms," my first response is, "why?"

:thumbsup:

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. In this case it is

why are core constituencies of the DNC... to put it politely, pissed.

We know the we are fired up and ready to go is mostly on the Rs side.

The Ds will do okay... but mostly because of the special brand of crazee the Rs are fielding which will drag voters. I know I am voting due to that reason... read Fiorina. But our boosters here are not asking the key question. WHY?

On the other hand the job of making friends and influencing people is going ahead 100%, NOT.

[Ignis]

85. I got a giggle out of your final line.

As it's precisely what I was attempting to say above with my "winning hearts and minds" comment. Really, have these people never read Dale Carnegie? :shrug:

When your own base (or a not-insignificant portion thereof) is pissed, the answer is not to beat them into compliance and make them say the "right" words.

The answer is to ask why they feel that way.

[nadinbrzezinski]

141. Partisans rarely ask why

it don't matter what party or where in the world.

These days I am increasingly reaching for my copy of "The True Believer," I mean it applies to both Right Wingers regarding Bush and these guys regarding Obama... and I suspect for the same reasons.

Problem is that in a democratic country (last time I checked we still are one)... that kind of make up can be exploited by a real demagogue in the right circumstances. And no, neither George or Obama qualify as real demagogues, in the sense I am thinking. That would be... right now... Glenny, or Savage. For many reasons, thankfully complex, mostly we still make fun of them.

[Ignis]

151. When the line blurs between politics and team-sports hooliganism...

My aversion to the tribal politics of the latter just makes me :puke:.

It's my belief that those who have done the heavy lifting of studies in history, philosophy, psychology, anthropology, etc., have a broader perspective that gives them at least a slight resistance to that sort of easy thinking. But then again, I'm no more afraid to be called an intellectual or an idealist than I am to be called a liberal. ;)

You're absolutely right about demagogues. It's times like these--the era of Beck and Palin--that we should be grateful for the checks and balances (and frankly, dated inefficiencies) in our political system, because they prevent these crazies and their brownshirts from rocketing to power.

[PA Democrat]

101. Exactly! You have hit on THE issue which too many are ignoring.

People who hold different viewpoints on any given subject CAN work together but it requires respecting the other's views and feelings. That's what has been missing IMHO. People are not fired up about donating, knocking on doors, or making phone calls for politicians and a party apparatus who have been dismissive of their disappointment and frustration, or worse have not even given someone representing their policy viewpoint a seat at the table.

Jeez, I think a lot of people here could benefit from a basic course in conflict resolution (AKA how to make friends and influence people as you mentioned). The first step is to validate the other person's feelings. There is a REASON that many liberals were insulted by what Gibbs said. To say that they have no right to feel the way they do or to say that they are "whiners" or perpetual "victims" or to ridicule their feelings is the most counterproductive approach possible.

Some of the legislation or lack thereof since Obama has taken office has a direct and very real, very frustrating impact on the lives of some DUers. They are entitled to feel betrayed, angry, and frustrated. We should all respect that even if we disagree with the legislation/ policies involved.

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. We gave our ONE time donation to Boxer

she is a progressive. If this had been Feinstein, she's lucky to get my vote... and that is what the locals who are boosters keep missing.

I also have a personal story re Boxer and Katrina that makes me open my wallet more readily.

[Raineyb]

79. ...

[alsame]

96. Unless you're a mind reader, you have no idea who Gibbs was talking about or

why he said what he did. It's all speculation, same as in all the other Gibbs defense threads.

[Individualist]

100. That's quite a lengthy bloviation for a mere "kerfuffle".

Unrec.

[Mithreal]

103. Does balloon animals too.

[QC]

143. 2,900 words, not counting the subject line. n/t

[Scurrilous]

147. Kudos on the fancy ciphering.

:thumbsup:

[MineralMan]

161. How on Earth did you count that high?

Heck, I run out of fingers and toes at 20. You're amaaaazing!

[Prism]

104. I'm trying, honest.

I'm really trying to read this attack OP that seems to think if you fold the attack in an avalanche of superfluous text, it will somehow read as an intellectual bit of discourse instead of the usual loyalist attack OP replete withthe same tired lines.

No one else is qualified to understand The Truth of Gibbs' words - except you. (I don't think Gibbsianity is a revealed religion, but hey, maybe!)

I don't think we ought to be discussing what the open and fair-minded DUers think (nasty debate tactic that it is). You're not coming from that kind of place in the slightest - nor am I, for that matter. This administration has prejudiced me with its bigotry. But you yourself wrote you would not be criticizing this administration ever, so the pretense of some kind of rational objectivity being applied here is humorous at best.

It's all opinion with exactly the same weight - including yours. The "professional Left," including the likes of Rachel Maddow and others who say very nice things about the President, disagree with your interpretation. They have taken great offense.

I've been content to largely ignore the Gibbs incident, but OPs like these just make me want to dig in.

The more you tell people to shut up, the more suspicious I am of your motives, and the more I will oppose you right down to the mat.

Thanks, but no thanks, GC. I already have a daddy.

[Mithreal]

105. +1 You need to read it upside down underwater, makes more sense, trust me.

[grahamhgreen]

106. You need to read:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8938105

"PROFESSIONAL LEFT" is a Public Relations scam - a war of words - a new nomenclature

meant to divide the left.

As it seems is your post?

[whatchamacallit]

107. "Thoughtful, informed and effective criticism..." Right, who decides what that is?

The president? Gibbs? grantcart?

[Ignis]

121. WARNING: Do NOT criticize the diction of the OP.

It is not clear in the DU rules, but this is not allowed.
( http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html )

Hope that helps anyone else who was unclear on that point. :hi: It's been made crystal fucking clear to me.

[Whisp]

124. absolutely marvelous. I love you, grantcart. ;) nt

[Mithreal]

131. Me too, overzealously.

[TheKentuckian]

126. A big, phat ass unrec for ya right here. Your hamfist in a velvet glove is lame and your

Faux moderation is almost worth a laugh if it wasn't so fucking phony and dishonest.

[Raineyb]

139. Seriously, I don't know who the hell he thinks he's fooling

other than himself.

His posts should come with a warning label.

[SunsetDreams]

145. "His posts should come with a warning label."

I agree, this one should have came with a warning label. Since a rant, usually isn't in grantcarts nature, perhaps he should have included one. You can save time, and not include one yourself.

[Ignis]

127. Your calling other DUers "the herd at DU" and "the 'hate Obama' cabal" is AWESOME!

Broad-brush smears against groups is THE way to GOTV in 2010 and 2012!

:yourock: :patriot: :yourock: :patriot: :yourock:

Every single word of this OP was the BEST possible choice for party unity!

:yourock: :patriot: :yourock: :patriot: :yourock:

Anyone who disagrees with your choice of words should be taken out back and SHOT!

:yourock: :patriot: :yourock: :patriot: :yourock:

This is the GREATEST post I have ever read in my 7+ years on DU!

[Warren Stupidity]

153. Elsewhere we've been called a "claque"

which word I had to look up and it was massively unintentionally ironic.

[Ignis]

154. Ah, that's refreshingly smirkable. Thanks!

:toast:

And remember to clap hard. God is watching. :spank:

[QC]

155. Oh, you mean people who are hired to applaud a performance?

Yes, that is highly ironic in this case.

[Oilwellian]

166. ROFLMFAO!

Love the subtle sarcasm!

(Here's another "ghost/troll/professional leftist" unrec.)

[Ignis]

168. I think the choice of words in the OP is PERFECT!

I am not a smart man, Jenny, but I know when a game is rigged.

[sendero]

135. An apologia..

... relying heavily on facts not in evidence, and in fact contrary to evidence.

You are not going to change anyone's mind with the sheer volume of nonsense here, but you can try.

[depakid]

137. Cognitive dissonance produces some impressive attempts at sophistry

which can be more illuminating at times than the original incident that motivated it.

[Mithreal]

142. +1 It's funny that way.

[SunsetDreams]

144. K&R great post

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Tarheel_Dem]

146. Righteous rant, GC & Agreed. (nt)

:applause:

[Sinistrous]

148. Very good. Thanks GC.

[LoZoccolo]

157. K&R

:kick:

[PA Democrat]

158. UNREC

People are upset because Gibbs' remarks are part of a pattern of insulting and excluding more liberal elements of the party. Recall Rahm's offensive "retarded" remark during the health care debate?

Why were proponents of single payer such as PNHP excluded from the health care debate?

Why are consumer and community advocate groups being excluded from the administration's housing reform panel? Looks like the banksters will be well-represented.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081206522.html

Why are gay service members still being discharged under DADT? A survey is needed? Of families of straight service members, no less?

But you ignore all of that. Tell people they have no right to feel upset. Go check out the numerous other threads calling people on DU who were upset by Gibbs' remarks whiners, traitors, etc. One poster in another thread called us "your ilk" and concluded we must be racists. And it looks like Joe McCarthy himself has been reincarnated up-thread stalking posters demanding an accounting of their activities to support Obama. Not exactly a winning strategy if you want to build party unity.

Leaders respect the views and feelings of the people they lead. If part of your base feels disrespected, you have a problem. See how many will be there when bodies are needed to GOTV. There is already low enthusiasm among Dems. This will help how?

[BzaDem]

159. K & R.

[old mark]

164. This is only my 3rd Unrec. OP is nonsense. nt

[philly_bob]

165. Well-written, reasonable tone, but finally divisive & dismissive of critics. UNRECD

[Ignis]

167. Please DO NOT criticize the OP's choice of words. It's against the DU rules.

I'd like to save others the trouble of finding that out the hard way, as I did.

[Bobbie Jo]

171. You said that already....

upthread. Anything new to add?

[Ignis]

174. I agree with everything you say. Just tell me what the new rules are, and I'll follow them.

I apologize profusely if my having dared to criticize grantcart's use of terms like "the herd at DU" has caused any offense to you or your group of friends. I understand now that every word in the OP is perfect.

[Bobbie Jo]

175. Ok...make that 3 times

Again, anything new to add?

[Ignis]

176. Sorry! Sorry! I didn't mean to offend the powerful people at DU.

I just didn't get the memo that criticizing grantcart's choice of words is against the rules that I, personally, need to follow.

But thanks for your efforts to ensure that I stay down and don't get up! :hug:
Thank you for deeming my humble self worthy of your special attention! :pals:
Truly, I am blessed to have been put so thoroughly in my place by my betters! :blush:

[Bobbie Jo]

177. What does that even mean?

Seriously?

Edited to add: :wtf:

[Ignis]

178. I agree completely!

I'm not worthy to criticize the words of a Real DUer, so it only makes sense that every word I type is utter rubbish!

I'm so sorry to have wasted your valuable time! :cry: Perhaps I can offer you restitution by letting you insult me personally? There are no repercussions for doing so.

[Bobbie Jo]

179. Hoookay.

:freak:

[LoZoccolo]

172. Were you around when the Ask the Administrators forum was still around here?

[Ignis]

173. Yes.

[johnaries]

170. fuck you grantcart. Hey, just trying to help you catch up!

Your OP was dead-on. :applause:

[Skittles]

180. this is pretzel-twisting to the extreme