"Firebagger?" I like it, O. I welcome it. I embrace it. It's far better than

[deminks]

Rahm's names for us like "f*cking retarded" .or Gibby's "professional left" or the countless names from the right.


I have been called far worse by far better.




:hippie:

[mdmc]

1. whats it mean?

I'm a LIBERAL. old school yo.

[eShirl]

4. It means GOODNESS GRACIOUS, GREAT BALLS O' FIRE!

actually I'm guessing it's something to do with Firedog Lake? dunno...

[calimary]

104. Great Bags O' Fire then?

[Mojorabbit]

125. I likes it. We have the passion in the gut. Oh yes. nt

[deminks]

5. O's staffer sent an email bashing Krugman and 'firebagger' liberals

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1758164&mesg_id=1758164

and Krugman responds to 'hippie bashing'


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1762471&mesg_id=1762471

[vi5]

12. I really just want the White House to come out and say it..

Why don't they just say specifically what they want:

"Look we want your vote. We need your vote. But just face it. We're not going to do a goddamn thing for you. At most we'll throw you some bones."

It's like the guy who tries to convince his girlfriend it's more fun if she's his "secret girlfriend" for when he wants sex, as long as she doesn't let anyone know in public that they are going out.

At least if they were honest about it I'd have a modicum of respect for them.

[immoderate]

118. We've been getting a dose "campaignObama." Different guy from "presidentObama."

"CampaignObama is full of shit but nicer. PresidentObama absolutely will never do anything that would inconvenience the ruling class.

--imm

[area51]

134. +1 n/t

[dbonds]

141. Urban Dictionary.

Firebagger

A term of derision used (usually on blogs) by supporters of U.S. President Barack Obama in arguments with people who criticize Obama and other Democrats from the political left. The term is a conflation of "Teabagger" the term of derision used to describe right wing Tea Party activists and Firedoglake, a left-leaning political blogging community founded by Jane Hamsher.




I think some of this 'embracing', might be an attempt to make the mods let the Pro Obama people use that term and laugh at the those that don't agree with him.

[Firebrand Gary]

2. I kind of like it too.

[DontTreadOnMe]

3. I never thought in my lifetime the opportunity for a 3rd party

would be so ripe for the picking.

Obama is sinking.

The Right is all clowns.

I think even someone like Bloomberg would walk away with a landslide in the current environment.

Rove and his backers see the same thing... they are desperate to find another candidate for the right. ANY moderate Republican could win too -- but I don't think there are any left.

[stlsaxman]

6. Well- let THE RIGHT form your "Ripe 3rd Party" by splitting itself down the middle.

Feel free to vote for one of them.

[Sheepshank]

47. you hit that nail Right on the head.

my sentiment includes the OP.

[DearAbby]

57. Doing the same thing over and over

and expecting different results is a sign of insanity. Voting for a party who has done nothing for your interests over and over again,,,is a sign of insanity.

[stlsaxman]

127. Social Security, The New Deal, MediCare and Medicaid were done by what party???

i guess i forgot...

or maybe YOU forgot.

:eyes:

[kath]

128. And they've all been put on the table for cuts by a Prez who is SUPPOSEDLY of that same party, but

is actually a Trojan Horse.
Where the hell have you been?

:eyes: back at ya

[stlsaxman]

132. so you post as "Dear Abby", too?

[SwampG8r]

131. actually they can join with the third wayers

and leave the party to us democrats

[yurbud]

138. if they did that, a lot of corporate Dems would join the business half--would you?

[vi5]

7. Did you see the latest polls?!?!?!

Obama has an 8 million percent approval from liberals. He doesn't need your vote anyway. :P



Except if he loses. Then it will be your fault if you didn't vote for him. All your fault. :cry:

[progressoid]

8. Heh.

Too true.

[gkhouston]

17. And that's the abridged version of the next year of DU.

I rarely have more than a handful of people on my ignore list at any given time, but I expect that will change.

[frylock]

66. i automatically ignore anyone that uses the spectre of president palin or bachmann..

in order to shut down any legit criticism. people like that clearly have nothing to say that would be in the least bit enlightening.

[PVnRT]

20. Only 8 million percent? YOU'RE DISCOURAGING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!!

You and your handful of firebaggers and professional leftist bash-mongers are SINGLE-HANDEDLY destroying Obama's re-election chances! But you're also a minority who didn't vote in 2010 and cost us the House and you're out of the mainstream anyway! Repent!

[Enrique]

23. his approval is so low because liberals are racist

#before_black_presidents, liberals supported dem presidents 30 million %. ;-)

[Bobbie Jo]

29. No, just some.

Most definitely some. They show themselves eventually.

[Enrique]

33. absolutely

some critics of Obama are racist. Also some of his supporters are racist. Many republicans are racist of course too. Racism isn't limited to any political point of view.

[Bluebear]

80. They didn't know he was black whEn they voted for him!

:cry:

[emulatorloo]

30. Strawman

[vi5]

32. That's o.k.

The "Party over Principle" crowd had plenty of straw to spare for me to borrow some.

[SidDithers]

9. If the shoe fits...

But Hamsher's slavering fanbois and fangrrls were called Firebaggers long before the staffer wrote their piece.

Sid

[Wait Wut]

119. Yep.

We were using Firebagger at TPM a long, long time ago. They didn't like it so much. :cry:

[scheming daemons]

10. Ok,,, so an email from a low-level staffer = IT CAME FROM OBAMA?

Do you think that Barack Obama even knows that this staffer sent this email?


Come on, you're not that pathetic.

[Bobbie Jo]

19. This OP is an exercise in the art of conflation and misattribution.

Sheeesh.

[emulatorloo]

31. Welcome to the New DU!

Lol

[AtomicKitten]

63. 'conflation and misattribution'

yep :thumbsup:

[Throd]

111. I first read that word as "misattribation"

which seems to work too.

[Whisp]

35. Yes, that pathetic.

Obama should have a special presser just to 'clear things up'. RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!! Why doesn't he do that? Why is he so afraid to BACK HIS PEOPLE UP? Why does he let others LIE for him like that? Why is he constantly stabbing us democrats in the back????!?/%%^^68^^# I know why. Why? Because he is a corporate stooge spineless whore manchurian weakneed Kenyan (that is not Hillary), thats why!

[MessiahRp]

48. Well now that it's out there and I am sure his team is aware of it at this point he should denounce

its message and fire the poster from his staff.

But of course they won't. It wasn't just Rahm and Gibbs going off on rants on us. Obama feels the same way which is why he lets them say that stuff without ever holding them accountable for it.

Rp

[sudopod]

72. If you're going to have Colbert as your avatar

one would thing that you'd at least try to be a little light hearted rather than Mr. Serious McAngrypants 24/7.

[formercia]

11. Firebagging

Leaving a flaming bag of Dog Shit on someone's doorstep and ringing the doorbell, hoping they will stomp on it to put it out.

[Wait Wut]

120. You stole that from me...

...even though I couldn't find a way to put it into words well enough to post it.

:P

[formercia]

124. You can have the credit if you like.

:hi:

[JoePhilly]

13. I think the term kind of fits its intended target.

There is a group on the left who has a number of similarities with the Tea Bag folks.

For instance ...

1) Both hated Obama from well before he even took office. They both even hated his inauguration.

2) Both see everything that Obama does or says as absolute proof that he is a SOCIALIST / CAPITALIST ... or that he wants to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH TO THE POOR / REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH TO THE RICH ... or that he UNWILLING TO USE THE MILITARY / TOO WILLING TO USE THE MILITARY .... and on, and on ... respectively.

3) They often become breathless and apoplectic over the same nonsense topics ... "OMG, he's riding a bus!!", OMG, he's taking a vacation!!!", "OMG, he turned 50 in the middle of THIS economy!!!" ...

4) Both groups believe that his every statement is filled with secret code words which mean something different.

5) Both groups think that their extreme view of Obama is the correct extreme view of Obama, and that everyone else is too stupid not to realize that. This allows them to call Obama (and his supporters) all kinds of names, slurs, and disrespectful terms ... and then they scream bloody murder when "what goes around, comes around".

6) Both groups appear to have a serious persecution complex. They both seem to think that Obama is out to get them, and that spends all his time trying to anger them.

7) Both groups seem to think that the GOP had no role in damaging our economy prior to Obama taking office, nor do they have any role in improving it after.

Personally, I don't use the term much ... but I definitely understand how it came to be used. Their reasons for hating Obama are often 180 degrees apart for these groups, but the characteristics of the hate are very similar.

[scheming daemons]

14. This post should be its own thread! Awesome..... +1000

Captures what the firebaggers and teabaggers are all about perfectly.


If you don't mind, I might expand on this and make a new thread with it at some point... unless you want to.

[JoePhilly]

45. Feel free ...

[SidDithers]

15. Great post. You captured it perfectly...nt

Sid

[Historic NY]

16. I agree....

just like the PUMAS.

[EFerrari]

22. LOL. The only reason this term was made was as a way to shut down dissent.

When you are unable to reason, crude name calling is the only tool you have.

[JoePhilly]

43. Like calling Obama supporters "sycophants", right? See item 5 in my list.

Or calling them "infiltrators" ... no?

Or saying they don't have the right "core values" ... that's another one shared with the Tea Party for totally opposite reasons, and it was a recent theme.

And again, very similar to Tea Party folks calling Obama supporters "baby killers" or "socialists" (Tea Party version), and then them getting angry when similar labels are returned "in kind".

[EFerrari]

50. You're collapsing description and name calling.

Pointing out that some supporters are organized around a person and not around core values is not name calling, it's observation. That you don't agree with it or like it doesn't make it an epithet.

[emulatorloo]

54. Hmm. So how would you feel about this statement: "I have no problem with Hamsher, just her DU syncho

Synchophants, who take her dramatic hyperbole literally"

[EFerrari]

59. It's pretty mild compared to what I usually read here.

Myself, I'd favor dialing back the pejoratives and moving in the direction of real arguments again. Mudslinging can feel really good but it screws up the air conditioning at DU and makes our office parties awkward.

[Kurovski]

140. LOL!

I love you.

[JoePhilly]

90. So "sycophant" is a complement? Spare me ...

I also like the term "infiltrator" ... from your perspective, that's not an attack, not an "epithet", just a "description".

On DU just recently, a well known poster critical of Obama, claimed that Obama supporters do not share the correct "core values". Maybe they meant that in a good way.

[Marr]

60. If it's used in an accusatory way towards other posters, yes.

However, words like "sycophant" and "apologist" are real words that actually describe something. They might be used simply to describe a situation. "Firebagger" is an epithet, and inherently accusatory and divisive.

[JoePhilly]

91. Can you use either of the terms "sycophant" or "apologyist" in a

complementary manner for me, in a sentence?

Both, are DEROGATORY TERMS.

Or .... Firebagger is a DESCRIPTIVE term too.

I do find it funny when folks on the left, us smart people, pretend words like "sycophant" and "apologist" are simply "descriptive" and not "epithets".

[Marr]

96. Of course I can. They're actual words. Watch:

"Columbus apologists argue that slavery was considered acceptable in his day."

"Bob is such a sycophant. Did you see how he was sucking up to the old man in that meeting?"

Can you use the word "Firebagger" in a way that isn't inherently divisive and insulting?

[JoePhilly]

100. Your examples insult Columbus supporters, and "Bob" ... you miss that?

And in a similar fashion, Firebagger is a descriptive term, that intends to describe, and insult the target.

Let me give you a different example ... "FDR apologists and his modern day sycophants, argue that FDRs economic policies are far more important, than is use of internment camps for Asian-American citizens ... and that this was simply a small, unfortunate, and forgettable, event."

See how easy that is?

[Marr]

101. The words aren't inherently insulting to *posters on this board*.

I didn't think that needed to be spelled out.

"Firebagger" is, as I'm sure you know, being used as a derogatory term for people on the left who are critical of Barack Obama.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Fumesucker]

49. Nope, someone at FDL coined the term for him/herself in a rather awkward post..

It's being *used* as a way to shut down dissent but the firebagger did it to himself, something about the last true progressive standing I think..

[EFerrari]

51. Oh, wow.

lol

[Luminous Animal]

75. That might be true.

Here is the post at FireDogLake on December 24th.

"Call me PUMA. Call me Firebagger. Call me the last true Progressive standing."

http://firedoglake.com/2009/12/24/treasury-okays-unlimited-slush-fund-for-fannie-freddie/#comment-2043408

Here is the first incidence of it being used on DU 2 days later.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7328789&mesg_id=7328803

[bvar22]

135. COOL!

a history
and a heritage!!

....a Movement!

Proud Working Class FDR/LBJ "Firebagger"!


Was Paul Wellstone the first Firebagger?
He began calling out the Democratic Party Leadership shortly before he was killed,
as you can see in the quote below?
"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed


"By their WORKS you will know them."


Solidarity!

[newspeak]

73. bingo!!!

The term was made up to neutralize those who have stood for and will always stand for the old democratic platform, since we are not "new democrats." It is to neutralize those FDR-Wellstone democrats. See, they're as crazy as those teabaggers.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bobbie Jo]

26. You nailed it.

:applause:

[ecstatic]

39. excelente! nt

[jpak]

42. !

:yourock:

[JTFrog]

44. +++

:thumbsup:

[GillesDeleuze]

58. All of that clearly applies to Nobel economist Paul Krugman. great screed.

[GillesDeleuze]

62. ill put krugman and stiglitz up against summers and staffers anyday

[EFerrari]

81. This list will turn up again, likely in some OFA memo, so for the record

I've responded to each item:

1) Both hated Obama from well before he even took office. They both even hated his inauguration.

In order for this to be true, you’d have to believe that the 70% of DU that is critical of Obama hated him before he was inaugurated. Obviously, that didn't happen. Calling disagreement 'hatred" doesn't free you from the obligation of engaging the issues and not the posters.

2) Both see everything that Obama does or says as absolute proof that he is a SOCIALIST / CAPITALIST ... or that he wants to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH TO THE POOR / REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH TO THE RICH ... or that he UNWILLING TO USE THE MILITARY / TOO WILLING TO USE THE MILITARY .... and on, and on ... respectively.

Teabaggers don’t even know what “socialism” means. On the other hand, progressives see how Wall Street funded and continues to fund Obama, how he installed it in his cabinet and how he has given a pass to the banksters. Who do you have to be to be able to ignore that? Even under Reagan, about 1000 banksters were criminally prosecuted.

That being said, that only makes Obama a contemporary American president, not singular in any way except maybe in the scope of his embrace of Wall Street.

3) They often become breathless and apoplectic over the same nonsense topics ... "OMG, he's riding a bus!!", OMG, he's taking a vacation!!!", "OMG, he turned 50 in the middle of THIS economy!!!" ...

That a topic isn’t important to you doesn’t mean it’s not important, no matter how you trivialize the concerns of others in this community.

4) Both groups believe that his every statement is filled with secret code words which mean something different.

Obama, like all politicians, uses dog whistles and weasel words. Like “reform”, as I have noted elsewhere. Whenever his administration sets out to undermine one of our democratic institutions in favor of monied interests or for political gain -- be it the school system, Medicare or public employees’ unions, he calls it “reform”. That just makes him a politician, it’s not special to him.

5) Both groups think that their extreme view of Obama is the correct extreme view of Obama, and that everyone else is too stupid not to realize that. This allows them to call Obama (and his supporters) all kinds of names, slurs, and disrespectful terms ... and then they scream bloody murder when "what goes around, comes around".

Obama sets the tone. He was calling his base “noisy” and “opinionated” before he was even inaugurated. And the left’s view of Obama turns out to be the majority view on the issues, not “extreme” at all. On the wars, on the public option, on jobs, on the Big Three.

6) Both groups appear to have a serious persecution complex. They both seem to think that Obama is out to get them, and that spends all his time trying to anger them.

I don’t know anyone who obsesses over Obama as much as his supporters do. On the contrary, most progressives I know try to avoid the topic as much as possible because he is such a disappointment. And we know pretty well that he spends little or no time considering us at all.

7) Both groups seem to think that the GOP had no role in damaging our economy prior to Obama taking office, nor do they have any role in improving it after.

This doesn’t even make sense on a literal level. The crash happened when Bush was in office, our majority in Congress did little to alleviate the situation for most people and now Obama is reciting recycled Reaganomics along with the Republican led Congress as if most people care about deficits over jobs. It does get harder and harder to distinguish between Obama and the Republicans, that much is true.

[GillesDeleuze]

89. dont expect a meaningful response from flag wavers

[EFerrari]

97. That's all right.

It was mostly bookkeeping any way. :)

[JoePhilly]

93. I almost stopped reading at your reposne #1, because you provide a DU Statistic you can't defend.

I never said all of DU hate Obama before the inauguration, or even 70% ... you pulled that number out of you ass, I guess.

I decided to read your response to #2, for fun ... and your response to #2 reinforces my point in #5.

And then as I read on

#3 ... you prove my point.

#4 ... you prove my point.

#5 ... here, oddly, you remake my point in #2 regarding the anger pre-inauguration.

#6 ... Here, you added some projection to the persecution complex. Here on DU, the folks who are angry at Obama post 24/7, there are actually very few OPs praising Obama on DU.

#7 ... thanks again for proving my point ... apparently, the stimulus never happened, protections for the unemployed, so on ... and back we go to #2.

[GillesDeleuze]

94. entirely nonresponsive

flagwavers can't handle constructive criticism

just like teabaggers

[EFerrari]

98. Here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1764279

Your non-response is one of the most dishonest ones I've ever gotten on DU. Congratulations. :)

[BzaDem]

103. Just because JoePhilly's response contains some uncomfortable truths doesn't make it dishonest.

Here is a sample of the behavior of the firebaggers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1342284&mesg_id=1348652

[Starbucks Anarchist]

82. +100.

[Rex]

107. Same could be said for the people that hate liberals.

They seem to think liberals are horrible people and love to bash them 24/7. Sad to see Dems doing it too.

[Wait Wut]

122. +2

and a :toast:

[Number23]

126. KILLED. IT.

Number 6 is the real clincher:

6) Both groups appear to have a serious persecution complex. They both seem to think that Obama is out to get them, and that spends all his time trying to anger them.

[Hart2008]

18. The real problem is that Obama doesn't have any fire for anything but compromise. NT

[Javaman]

21. I prefer Firebreather, but I guess firebagger will work...

I feel a new update to the urban dictionary is in order. ;)

[Erose999]

25. What could we counter it with? Obamatons? or even better...

Democratic Leadership Cowards?

[EFerrari]

36. It would be nice if we could reason our way through instead of throwing

tan bark at the other side of the playground. lol :)

[GillesDeleuze]

95. Flag Wavers (like a Sean Hannity, but pro-obama)

[LanternWaste]

27. Your martyrdom is noted.

"I have been called far worse by far better..."

Your martyrdom is noted. Try wearing purple leisure suit on a podium in front of a congregation-- it completes the dogma and victimization.

[AtomicKitten]

64. +1

[matmar]

28. In the words of FDR - I welcome their hatred. n/t

[Little Star]

71. +1

[Luminous Animal]

34. I've had "proud firebagger" in my sig for a couple of months now.

[ecstatic]

37. Get real. "O" didn't call you that

Name calling (of anyone left or right) isn't his style.

Edited to add: But your (not just you but the firebagger/ professional left crowd in general) over the top post blaming Obama for something someone else said is kind of why some people (myself included) have grown tired of your childish ways and have come up with new terms to describe your antics. If the shoe fits, wear it.

[EFerrari]

79. If Obama's surrogates engage in a pattern of behavior

it is with his tacit approval or that makes him a crappy leader. Because that's what those people are, his surrogates.

So, it's not childish to hold him responsible for them, not in the least. And don't blame other people because you engage in childish name calling. You are the owner of your own speech.

[GillesDeleuze]

102. im waiting for my paycheck. i assume you are handing out checks

to the people you are calling professionals?

[bvar22]

142. What happens to Obama's Staff members...

who say anything that can be twisted by Fox News as an insult to Republicans?




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[JVS]

38. At least I'm not a douchebagger like Rahm

[MessiahRp]

41. +Infinity

LOL! No shit, right?

[phleshdef]

40. Rahm never called you "fucking retarded". Thats a lie thats been well refuted here numerous times.

I will point this out everytime someone tells that lie here.

Rahm called a commercial against passing HCR fucking retarded (and he was right).

You are a person, not a commercial. This is something you should already know.

[GillesDeleuze]

65. actually, thats wrong.

he called liberal holdouts who were threatening to run the ad "fucking retarded"

[sabrina 1]

68. No, he didn't. He screamed at Liberal Orgs who were

placing ads aimed at the Blue Dogs, blamed by the Admins for not being able to get a PO, challenging them to do what was right, 'a fucking retarded idea'.

And he demonstrated what a total idiot he is when he did that. First, he insulted people no Progressive, especially one in the position he was in, should ever do.

Second he revealed that it was a lie that this Administration was pushing for a PO. And that it was a lie when they blamed the Blue Dogs, which had been their excuse for not being able to get a PO.

He showed that he did not want the Blue Dogs to be influenced to do what was right. And with that childish explosion of anger, he revealed that all along, this administration was not for a PO, and it was not the fault of the Blue Dogs who could have been influenced, that we did not get one.

In a sane society, that man would never be in a position of power, but as everyone knows, it's been a while since we've lived in a sane society as far as politics goes.

[sabrina 1]

67. True, he did worse. He called the Progressive idea of

removing Dinos (Repubs with a 'D' after their names) a retarded idea. That said so much about the man chosen as COS for a Democratic President. And especially since Rahm was desperate to protect the 'no PO' goals of his buddies from the Corporate World.

It would have been better if he, infantile though it is and shameful for someone in that position, had simply been calling PEOPLE names. Ideas are why we are Democrats. Rahm displayed his total disdain for Progressive ideas with that angry outburst AND he insulted a whole group of the very people who need to be covered by insurance.

What a total fool that man is. No better than Rove, who he emulates.

[Marr]

74. I agree completely. They really put their cards on the table there,

for anyone who cared to notice. You can't simultaneously blame a handful of conservative Democrats for not allowing you to enact an agenda *and* strenuously protect them from the liberal backlash.

[phleshdef]

85. Actually it was a fucking stupid idea. I'd love to have a bunch of those "Dinos" back in congress...

...right about now. They might have held back the progressiveness of some of these legislations, but they could be counted on to extend the debt ceiling, pass a budget, sign off on a jobs bill and not try to purposefully sabotage the economy. There ARE a good number of conservative districts in this country and the people that live in those districts will not vote for all out liberals, period. Its time we all accepted that not everyone in this country sees the world the way we do and that there are in fact people that are on the wrong side of things and we have to work around them. A bluedog is not nearly as bad as a tea partier, no matter how much some would like to pretend otherwise.

The only thing about what he said that should have warranted any anger was the use of the word "retard" as it should be unacceptable in this day and age. But that statement alone and the context it was made in was not a big deal. Thin skinned bloggers need to get over themselves.

[sabrina 1]

87. Oh please, what was accomplished when they were there?

All we heard from Rahm was 'it's the Blue Dogs who won't help us out' then when they were taken at their word, they flipped out, which exposed the real story behind the so-called 'HC Bill'.

That incident woke up a lot of people and it was pretty sad to get a look at what was really going on. Rahm is not particularly bright. Which is probably a good thing in retrospect or we would still be under the illusion that there actually was a fight for the people going on during that whole debacle. I prefer to to know the truth.

[BzaDem]

105. Clean debt ceiling increases. That sounds pretty good right about now, doesn't it? n/t

[sabrina 1]

106. You really think that's what would happened?

If that was going to happen, it would have, long before it got to the point it got to.

It was the Dem Leadership who blamed the Blue Dogs for everything they claimed they could not get passed. In response to that claim, Independents didn't bother going out and voting for them. They can hardly be blamed for taking the WH at its word, can they? And then, when they did accept that as the problem, the excuses changed.

There is always an excuse. Why is that? Before the 2008 election it was 'elect a majority and we'll get things done'. So people did that, then it changed to 'it isn't a big enough majority, especially because of the Blue Dogs'.

People are sick and tired of excuses, as they should be. Republicans get things done their way even when they are in the minority, as we are told happened when Dems had a majority. How do you explain that? Repubs were in the minority and did not have the WH, yet they had more power than the majority we were told. The only conclusion that can be reached is that Republicans fight for what they want because they really, passionately want it. Dems do not fight, because it's not that important to them. That is what people are concluding. Now we are asked to go back to 2008 and repeat that victory. What will be the excuse then?

[BzaDem]

110. It is what DID happen. Every single debt ceiling increase that passed in the 111th Congress did not

cut spending by one dime.

If people are sick and tired of excuses, maybe they should look in the mirror (or better yet, take a class on how our government works). Progressives who expect to get progressive policy passed without having anywhere close to 218 progressives in the House (let alone 60 progressives in the Senate) are going to be disappointed each and every minute of their lives.

The myth that Bush got whatever he wanted through is just that: a myth. His entire second term legislative agenda (along with many items of his first term legislative agenda) crashed and burned, and that was when he had 55 votes in the Senate.

[sabrina 1]

112. Well then we may as well give up. Republicans don't need

these huge majorities to win. They got what they wanted even when Dems had a majority in both houses and the WH. They got a shitty HC Bill with no PO eg without even having to vote for it. The President said he included over '200 hundred of their ideas' and still didn't get a single vote from them. Why did he do that? Since they weren't going to cast a single vote anyhow, why did not do what Dems and a majority of the American people wanted him to do?

As for Bush, Bush and the Republicans totally changed this country in eight years even with part of the time being in the minority. And they made no excuses, just scorched earth policy. And if that's the way the game is played, then that's how Dems ought to be playing. But to do that, they would have to WANT things, like a Universal HC system, and no one believes that fairy tale anymore.

[BzaDem]

114. Certain people NEED to give up on what they expect to happen. They are even going to give up now, or

after they live the next 30 years seeing their hopes dashed time after time after time.

Then, after they come to that realization, they can start thinking about what is actually possible. Continuing to inaccurately claim that Bush got even CLOSE to whatever he wanted does not help.

[sabrina 1]

123. You've got to be kidding. The only thing Bush didn't get

was to destroy SS. The left stopped him. But now that Democrats are in power, it looks like that's about to happen though, sadly and definitely ironically. Those who fought Bush so hard seem to be silent lately.

He was better on Immigration than this president though, and that did lose him a lot of support among his base. Of course why he was is another matter.

You need to stop patronizing people. We KNOW what is possible. And we can tell when politicians do not want something. When they get what they want and say so, we take them at their word, don't you?

It is this realization that has awakened many people. Being able to tell the difference. It was a difficult thing to acknowledge for many Democrats.

But being in a constant state of denial did not accomplish anything. Now, with so many people far more aware of how things actually work and with the blinders off, maybe we can begin to actually change things. If it's not too late.

[phleshdef]

116. You are right, they don't. Thats because all they need to do is stall, obstruct and stagnate.

As long as those of the conservative persuasion have just enough numbers to stall, obstruct and basically flatline government action, they can slowly cause government to die from atrophy.

On the other hand, in order to achieve a progressive agenda, you have to pass comprehensive legislations which requires a tremendous amount more work than what the conservatives have to do in order to get their agenda through.

They have and always have had an easy battle because the nature of conservatism is to not do shit. Its a funny ideology because its end and means are exactly the same. Progressive government is a much harder thing to achieve. It requires a bullet proof majority and nothing less. Conservative government, not so much.

[phleshdef]

113. The stimulus and HCR and Financial Reform all had a shit load of merits in their favor...

...regardless of the places where those bills fell short. And aside from all that, they kept government running without any unnecessary drama. Nancy Pelosi got a shit load of bills through. Her house even passed a public option and many other progressive things that didn't get through the Senate. That was the most productive Congress in decades.

[A Simple Game]

86. Looks like there are a lot of conflicting opinions.

Perhaps you could provide a link to clear things up.

Thanks in advance.

[LLStarks]

52. Sounds like an STD. nt

[Jester Messiah]

53. At least it doesn't carry a sexual connotation like the Teabaggers.

Although I suppose it could refer to a scorching case of the clap. Ouch.

[in_cog_ni_to]

55. Have they gotten to "Dirty Fucking Hippie" yet?

:smoke::smoke::hippie::hippie:

[Marr]

56. I don't like it, and I see no reason to tolerate such insults.

[sabrina 1]

70. A lot of people agree with you.

Something not very good has happened to this party. These kinds of attacks on their own members are more like what you would expect from Freepers against the left. And if it keeps up, will lose a lot of support for this president.

Someone grown-up in the party needs to reign in these people whoever they are. I wouldn't be surprised if they were infiltrators trying to destroy the Democrats' chances of winning in 2012.

[A Simple Game]

88. It already has lost a lot of support for the President and

the Democratic party.

I swore off ever voting for a Republican years ago and that included one relative.

I am very close to swearing off voting for any Democrats, sadly for mostly the same reasons.

President Obama will not get my vote in 2012 unless he does a 180 degree turn, and does it very soon.

[bvar22]

143. What happens to somebody in the Administration...

...who says anything that can be twisted into an insult to Republicans by Fox News?

Do we need a list of The Dead?




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Mr Deltoid]

61. Comparing the Left with the Tea Party

Hell of a get out the vote message.

[EFerrari]

78. Maybe it makes sense if you are defending a Republican health insurance plan,

a Republican remodeling of our school system, recycled Reaganomics, hawkish Republican foreign policy abroad and an expansion of Republican incursions on civil liberties at home.

[HappyMe]

69. I don't know.

Firebag sounds like something you would leave on an enemies front porch.

[Romulox]

76. That's fine, as long as I can call anyone who calls me that a "Free Republicrat." nt

[meow mix]

77. haha yah, firebags it is..

thanks for the nifty new label whoever you are... (obamabot) :patriot:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

83. Too bad he never said it.

I know that throws a wrench in your persecution complex, but that's too bad.

[Erose999]

84. Worse, he paid someone to say it on his behalf. If he's gonna hire neoliberal douchebags to run his

campaign, he ought to at least put some sort of system in place to keep their contempt for the party base under wraps.

[Major Hogwash]

99. Where do I sign up?

You sound like you're someone in the know about this.
Do you know if they have any qualifications other than just being able to post on a blog?

[krabigirl]

92. i think the whole thing is laughable.

[Rex]

108. Well, what do you expect from children?

Not much.

[bvar22]

109. If "Firebagger" means an old FDR/LBJ Working Class Liberal,

then I am a proud Firebagger who is more than happy to Speak Up.
When the Party I joined 45 years ago pushes Republican Ideology,
like slashing Government Spending & The Safety net during a Recession,
then I'm NOT afraid to call it.
I voted for DEMOCRATS,
not Republicans.

FireBag away!




Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
This "Firebagger" WILL!!

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[sabrina 1]

115. Well said! n/t

[bvar22]

117. I'm thinking about adding it to my sig line!

:patriot:

[Luminous Animal]

121. I added it to mine a couple of months ago. I think we need an avatar.

[kath]

129. +1000

[blkmusclmachine]

130. I welcome their Hate for us.

n/t

[lonestarnot]

133. Firebagger!

Firebagger. :7

[grahamhgreen]

136. My bags are on fire!

[yurbud]

137. what it should mean is a bag full of dog shit set on the porch of corporate Dems and set on fire

metaphorically, of course.

[Kurovski]

139. "Sans-culottes" has a nice ring too.