Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

***azmouse*** · 12-21-2011, 03:03 PM

Quote:In one of his most biting comments on Obama yet, Damon told Elle magazine that "a one-term president with some balls" would have been better.

Elle characterized Damon's comments as "disappointment ringing with a now-familiar tone of wounded idealism."

The actor, whose on-the-ground support in 2008 was crucial for Obama's in key states, especially Florida, started publicly criticizing the president in March during a CNN interview with Piers Morgan. "I really think he misinterpreted his mandate," Damon said. " A friend of mine said to me the other day, I thought it was a great line, 'I no longer hope for audacity.'"

Damon's criticism has not gone unnoticed by Obama. In May the president used the actor's comments as material for his speech at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in Washington, D.C.

"I've even let down my key core constituency: movie stars," Obama told the crowd. "Just the other day, Matt Damon -- I love Matt Damon, love the guy -- Matt Damon said he was disappointed in my performance," Obama told the crowd. His retort: "Well, Matt, I just saw The Adjustment Bureau, so...right back atcha, buddy."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ma...ama-275920

**Treestar** · 12-21-2011, 03:10 PM

Is there anyone seriously claiming Matt Damon's support was "crucial?"

Facepalm

**SeattleGirl** · 12-21-2011, 03:12 PM

LOL! Loved PBO's response!

Damon's, mmmmmm not so much.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 12-21-2011, 03:20 PM

**jaxx** · 12-21-2011, 03:28 PM

I betcha Matt Damon wants to play the president on the big screen. roflmao

**sandnsea** · 12-21-2011, 04:14 PM

You have to forgive him. Matt's idea of ballzy is to make the bodacious career altering move from playing a drunken pol to a daddy buying a zoo.

**PoliticalTiger** · 12-21-2011, 04:19 PM

Bratt Damon needs to listen to his (much smarter) elders, like George Clooney:

“I’m disillusioned by the people who are disillusioned by Obama, quite honestly, I am. Democrats eat their own. Democrats find singular issues and go, ‘Well, I didn’t get everything I wanted.’ I’m a firm believer in sticking by and sticking up for the people whom you’ve elected.

“If he was a Republican running, because Republicans are better at this, they’d be selling him as the guy who stopped 400,000 jobs a month from leaving the country. They’d be selling him as the guy who saved the auto-industry. If they had the beliefs, they’d be selling him as the guy who got rid of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ who got Osama bin Laden. You could be selling this as a very successful three years.”

Even better, he should listen to the Angry Black Lady:

"I’m more than disillusioned by these people. I’m sick and tired of them. When you have so-called progressives arguing that Bill Clinton has a better record on LGBT issues than President Obama does, there’s a serious problem. When you have progressives calling for President Obama’s impeachment based on nothing but the opinions of Glenn Greenwald, there’s a serious problem."

http://www.angryblacklady.com/2011/10/10...a-w-video/

**JeffR** · 12-21-2011, 07:26 PM

Please don't tell the magnificent Nance Greggs, but I think I've fallen in love with the Angry Black Lady. I can't believe I'd missed that piece.

**Ikonoklast** · 12-21-2011, 05:50 PM

I would bet everything I own that Matt Damon could not tell me the process under which a bill gets made into a law in this nation, or what role the vice-president plays in the Senate.

I'd bet that he has no fucking clue whatsoever.

Damon is an actor.

I don't listen to adults that get paid to pretend that they are someone else for a living, and read words written for them by someone else for incisive political commentary.

**JeffR** · 12-21-2011, 07:27 PM

You just described them to a tee.

**Julie** · 12-21-2011, 08:02 PM

(12-21-2011 05:50 PM)Ikonoklast Wrote: I would bet everything I own that Matt Damon could not tell me the process under which a bill gets made into a law in this nation, or what role the vice-president plays in the Senate.

I'd bet that he has no fucking clue whatsoever.

Damon is an actor.

I don't listen to adults that get paid to pretend that they are someone else for a living, and read words written for them by someone else for incisive political commentary.

well said, as usual.

**Velleity** · 12-22-2011, 11:20 AM

Yes to all, but let's look at the bigger picture here.

What I'm seeing is fewer and fewer comments like Damon's as people seem to be focusing on the need to re-elect President Obama. And no matter how many "balls" Obama had during his tenure we would be facing a huge, and I mean huge, crisis if we only got one term.

That crisis being Supreme Court appointments.

We need to start shrugging off Damon asshattery, I think, and continue drawing the lines between our great president and the clown car contingency of the wannabes.

I think we're winning.

**Velleity** · 12-22-2011, 11:22 AM

And as I just heard from Ed Schultz, the economic picture is turning against the radical "conservative" Republicans.

**Treestar** · 12-22-2011, 02:51 PM

"balls" just strikes me as another one of those things like the magic wand, or the bully pulpit. They have no real answers, just vague generalities. They are all looking for a short cut or end run around the system.

**janedrake** · 12-22-2011, 06:12 PM

I really, really don't like it when "the disappointed" suggest that Pres. Obama somehow lacks courage. Damon is indeed an asshat. It's not like I watch or buy his movies anyway, but he can be damn certain that I prefer the real-world courage of a Barack Obama to the fictionalized courage of a Jason Bourne. One type of courage looks out for folks like me, the pretend-kind makes a buck off folks like me. It truly must be nice to have the luxury to talk such nonsense.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-22-2011, 06:22 PM

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/12/ma...riter.html

Damon has been on a tear lately.

**MandelaObama** · 12-24-2011, 04:49 AM

Matt Damon reveals himself to be a spoilt, pampered, privileged, elitist 1 per center who obviously believes in stamping his feet and whining if the President doesn't cater to his every whim and who doesn't give two hoots about what the President has done for those less fortunate because it doesn't match up to what he wants in his sheltered little world. If you ever wonder why the term "limousine liberal" has become so fashionable, we only have to look at idiots like Matt Damon to understand the reason

Instead of having spent the last three years using his fame and name recognition to work constructively to help President Obama deliver a more progressive America, he gives up at the first opportunity and instead starts carping like a petulant child.

But I thank you for enlightening us about your true state of mind, Matt Damon. You've just shown us how little class and substance you have

**KonaKane** · 12-24-2011, 05:30 PM

At the risk of falling out of favor with Obama's Praetorian Guard here on DFP....again....it's time to inject a little information into the current fuck-a-thon on Matt Damon.

I do not agree with him about Obama. But calling him stupid, and never doing anything for Democrats or progressivism before criticizing this president, is just plain erroneous. He has long been a member of the Working Families Party, a leftwing political group that according to the Guardian, “exists as a sort of pressure group in New York state on Democrats and leftists in order to pursue progressive ideals.”

He is in fact well educated, and routinely gives large amounts of his own money to numerous charity organizations including Water.org, H2O Africa Foundation, and ONE Campaign.

Is it possible that we can disagree with someone's stance on Obama without devolving to the politics of personal destruction, carving them down to the Devil Incarnate based on that alone? Just once?

**Baltoman991** · 12-24-2011, 07:03 PM

(12-24-2011 05:30 PM)KonaKane Wrote: At the risk of falling out of favor with Obama's Praetorian Guard here on DFP....again....it's time to inject a little information into the current fuck-a-thon on Matt Damon.

I do not agree with him about Obama. But calling him stupid, and never doing anything for Democrats or progressivism before criticizing this president, is just plain erroneous. He has long been a member of the Working Families Party, a leftwing political group that according to the Guardian, “exists as a sort of pressure group in New York state on Democrats and leftists in order to pursue progressive ideals.”

He is in fact well educated, and routinely gives large amounts of his own money to numerous charity organizations including Water.org, H2O Africa Foundation, and ONE Campaign.

Is it possible that we can disagree with someone's stance on Obama without devolving to the politics of personal destruction, carving them down to the Devil Incarnate based on that alone? Just once?

Really? Some left another sight because we were called cheerleaders for Obama and now we have to be called basically the same thing here?

Why don't you give the name calling a damn rest for once? Again, you defend someone who slams Obama FOR NO REASON AT ALL.

Oh well, from this Praetorian Guard, Merry Christmas. Rolleyes

**KonaKane** · 12-24-2011, 07:11 PM

(12-24-2011 07:03 PM)Baltoman991 Wrote: Really? Some left another sight because we were called cheerleaders for Obama and now we have to be called basically the same thing here?

Why don't you give the name calling a damn rest for once? Again, you defend someone who slams Obama FOR NO REASON AT ALL.

Oh well, from this Praetorian Guard, Merry Christmas.

My understanding was, a lot of us left (or as in my case, delivered a pizza) because we didn't ilke the incessant, unthinking attacks on Obama on a so called Democratic site. Tell me, how much different are we from those we wanted to distance ourselves from, if we unthinkingly dismiss someone's entire worth and being because they criticized a president we support? Does that really make sense to you?

I hope not. And Merry Christmas.

**Still a Democrat** · 12-24-2011, 07:15 PM

(12-24-2011 07:11 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-24-2011 07:03 PM)Baltoman991 Wrote: Really? Some left another sight because we were called cheerleaders for Obama and now we have to be called basically the same thing here?

Why don't you give the name calling a damn rest for once? Again, you defend someone who slams Obama FOR NO REASON AT ALL.

Oh well, from this Praetorian Guard, Merry Christmas.

My understanding was, a lot of us left (or as in my case, delivered a pizza) because we didn't ilke the incessant, unthinking attacks on Obama on a so called Democratic site. Tell me, how much different are we from those we wanted to distance ourselves from, if we unthinkingly dismiss someone's entire worth and being because they criticized a president we support? Does that really make sense to you?

I hope not. And Merry Christmas.

Damon isn't simply disagreeing with Obama on particular issues. He's trashing him in general. The scorn is deserved in this instance.

**Baltoman991** · 12-24-2011, 07:25 PM

(12-24-2011 07:11 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-24-2011 07:03 PM)Baltoman991 Wrote: Really? Some left another sight because we were called cheerleaders for Obama and now we have to be called basically the same thing here?

Why don't you give the name calling a damn rest for once? Again, you defend someone who slams Obama FOR NO REASON AT ALL.

Oh well, from this Praetorian Guard, Merry Christmas.

My understanding was, a lot of us left (or as in my case, delivered a pizza) because we didn't ilke the incessant, unthinking attacks on Obama on a so called Democratic site. Tell me, how much different are we from those we wanted to distance ourselves from, if we unthinkingly dismiss someone's entire worth and being because they criticized a president we support? Does that really make sense to you?

I hope not. And Merry Christmas.

My problem is being told to shut up because I speak out against people like Damon and all the other asshats who speak out against Obama for no fucking reason.

You don't like it when we speak out against Michael Moore but tell me, what has Obama done that pisses Moore off so much? Not a damn thing thats what but look out if one of us here dare say anything about Moore or in this case Damon.

No, sorry, people can criticize Obama all they want. But at least have a damn good reason for doing it and don't continue to say that Obama has done nothing and thats exactly what Damon, Moore and many others continue to say on a daily basis.

**KonaKane** · 12-24-2011, 07:41 PM

(12-24-2011 07:25 PM)Baltoman991 Wrote: My problem is being told to shut up because I speak out against people like Damon and all the other asshats who speak out against Obama for no fucking reason.

You don't like it when we speak out against Michael Moore but tell me, what has Obama done that pisses Moore off so much? Not a damn thing thats what but look out if one of us here dare say anything about Moore or in this case Damon.

No, sorry, people can criticize Obama all they want. But at least have a damn good reason for doing it and don't continue to say that Obama has done nothing and thats exactly what Damon, Moore and many others continue to say on a daily basis.

I would never want you to be shut up about any subject, because that's not how I operate and not what I believe in. However, if you say things that are simply wrong, expect to get some blowback on that.

Like for instance, this insistence of yours that Damon is bagging on Obama "for no reason". Whether we agree with Mr. Damon or not, he certainly does have his reasons for the critique, which he has elucidated more than once.

I have absolutely zero problem criticizing the criticizers, be they Moore or Damon or whoever. But for the love of fill-in-your-favorite-deity-here, can't we do it without completely trashing the person's being as if they don't count as a human at all or have "never done anything to help us"? I do not get this fascination with the politics of personal destruction, which was sadly a gift the republicans gave us all those years ago and we seem only to eager to use?

What's wrong with a little temperment and common sense along with the ire we have at those who attack this president, especially if they HAVE certainly done things in line with our values in the past? What's with the extremist, all or nothing attitude?

**Velleity** · 12-24-2011, 08:50 PM

I hear what you're saying Kona and tend to agree, to a point. I have noted before that I find more than a little cognitive dissonance here, but the only way I can figure of really dealing with it is to let it go. The bottom line is that ultimately we have to re-elect President Obama and as many Democrats as possible and I am actually quite pleased right now at how good it's looking.

With the economy apparently coming around, slowly, it can only help.

As long as the trend continues in this direction I really don't care what a Matt Damon says.

**RoyGBiv** · 12-24-2011, 09:06 PM

(12-24-2011 07:11 PM)KonaKane Wrote: My understanding was, a lot of us left (or as in my case, delivered a pizza) because we didn't ilke the incessant, unthinking attacks on Obama on a so called Democratic site. Tell me, how much different are we from those we wanted to distance ourselves from, if we unthinkingly dismiss someone's entire worth and being because they criticized a president we support? Does that really make sense to you?

Nope, not a bit of sense at all.

**Velleity** · 12-24-2011, 09:13 PM

(12-24-2011 09:06 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:
(12-24-2011 07:11 PM)KonaKane Wrote: My understanding was, a lot of us left (or as in my case, delivered a pizza) because we didn't ilke the incessant, unthinking attacks on Obama on a so called Democratic site. Tell me, how much different are we from those we wanted to distance ourselves from, if we unthinkingly dismiss someone's entire worth and being because they criticized a president we support? Does that really make sense to you?

Nope, not a bit of sense at all.

Well, in a perfect world. . .

But I don't need perfection. I need "conservative" losses, but not just for the sake of those losses. If "conservatives" ever came to their senses I could tolerate them more.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 12-24-2011, 07:28 PM

(12-24-2011 05:30 PM)KonaKane Wrote: At the risk of falling out of favor with Obama's Praetorian Guard here on DFP....again....it's time to inject a little information into the current fuck-a-thon on Matt Damon.

I do not agree with him about Obama. But calling him stupid, and never doing anything for Democrats or progressivism before criticizing this president, is just plain erroneous. He has long been a member of the Working Families Party, a leftwing political group that according to the Guardian, “exists as a sort of pressure group in New York state on Democrats and leftists in order to pursue progressive ideals.”

He is in fact well educated, and routinely gives large amounts of his own money to numerous charity organizations including Water.org, H2O Africa Foundation, and ONE Campaign.

Is it possible that we can disagree with someone's stance on Obama without devolving to the politics of personal destruction, carving them down to the Devil Incarnate based on that alone? Just once?

I think the pile-on is unnecessary as well, though it doesn't bother a lot either. I just think of it as "venting". It does sometimes bother me that said person will be put by some on a permanent "naughty" list based on being stupid and wrong perhaps 5% of the time. I am a lot more forgiving of those that I know have their heart in the right place, but fly off the handle due to being highly passionate about what they believe in - something we could use more of. I don't know about the rest of those reading my post, but when political historians talk about the 30+ year funk the left has been in, I tend to think a little more passion on the left side of the aisle couldn't hurt. Some on the left these days act more conservative than the Republicans I knew as a kid.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-25-2011, 01:02 AM

(12-24-2011 07:28 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:
(12-24-2011 05:30 PM)KonaKane Wrote: At the risk of falling out of favor with Obama's Praetorian Guard here on DFP....again....it's time to inject a little information into the current fuck-a-thon on Matt Damon.

I do not agree with him about Obama. But calling him stupid, and never doing anything for Democrats or progressivism before criticizing this president, is just plain erroneous. He has long been a member of the Working Families Party, a leftwing political group that according to the Guardian, “exists as a sort of pressure group in New York state on Democrats and leftists in order to pursue progressive ideals.”

He is in fact well educated, and routinely gives large amounts of his own money to numerous charity organizations including Water.org, H2O Africa Foundation, and ONE Campaign.

Is it possible that we can disagree with someone's stance on Obama without devolving to the politics of personal destruction, carving them down to the Devil Incarnate based on that alone? Just once?

I think the pile-on is unnecessary as well, though it doesn't bother a lot either. I just think of it as "venting". It does sometimes bother me that said person will be put by some on a permanent "naughty" list based on being stupid and wrong perhaps 5% of the time. I am a lot more forgiving of those that I know have their heart in the right place, but fly off the handle due to being highly passionate about what they believe in - something we could use more of. I don't know about the rest of those reading my post, but when political historians talk about the 30+ year funk the left has been in, I tend to think a little more passion on the left side of the aisle couldn't hurt. Some on the left these days act more conservative than the Republicans I knew as a kid.

That's it exactly. It is frustration because Damon can fall off the face of the planet and most of us wouldn't even notice. But if Obama loses because of this fucking whine fest we are all screwed.

**KonaKane** · 12-24-2011, 09:44 PM

Conservatives are already positioning for a loss, and I applaud that. I just believe that allies and assets come in all forms, and with no small amount of imperfections. We should be glad they are there, and that we have them at all.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-25-2011, 12:56 AM

How about expecting him to criticize in a way that is helpful instead of parroting whiny, asshole talking points? "Obama has no balls" is not helpful and it isn't insightful. I prefer Maddow or Sanders notes. They speak like adults.

In addition, he has been on a tear lately...trashing the scriptwriter of a movie he received millions for being in after the fact is an assholeish move.

But thanks for the namecalling, Helpful.

**jaxx** · 12-25-2011, 08:50 AM

I see no reason for anyone supposedly supporting the Democrats to speak out against the Democratic President who is running for re-election. If I want to read that I can look at FR. Also, Working Families Party is a defined third party who does get on ballots and does support both republican and Democratic candidates or has it's own candidate. This election doesn't need third party candidates, or it's groupies, against President Obama.

It might be PC to let the disenchanteds put down PBO, but it's not smart. If we remember, the disenchanteds are what drove us to DFP....and I have no sympathy for any of them.

**KonaKane** · 12-25-2011, 12:26 PM

(12-25-2011 08:50 AM)jaxx Wrote: I see no reason for anyone supposedly supporting the Democrats to speak out against the Democratic President who is running for re-election. If I want to read that I can look at FR. Also, Working Families Party is a defined third party who does get on ballots and does support both republican and Democratic candidates or has it's own candidate. This election doesn't need third party candidates, or it's groupies, against President Obama.

It might be PC to let the disenchanteds put down PBO, but it's not smart. If we remember, the disenchanteds are what drove us to DFP....and I have no sympathy for any of them.

Not entirely true.

The WFP is a party that is very progressive, far to the left of the current Democratic Party on most issues. It does not flat out "endorse" republicans. It uses a system of "cross-endorsment" based on individual issues, when a republican might be in agreement with one of the principles of WFP. That is not an endorsement of the republican party in the least. Go take a read of the actual principles of the Working Families Party and you tell me which republican on the national stage would get behind ANY of those....

http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/abou...rinciples/

WFP supports Democrats 90% of the time, and sometimes runs its own candidates. There is more republicanism in the Blue Dog Dems in Congress than will ever be in the WFP, yet I don't see you roasting the Blues on a spit.

**jaxx** · 12-25-2011, 10:03 PM

<..> Usually, the WFP endorses the Democratic Party candidate, but it has occasionally endorsed Republican Party candidates in Westchester, Nassau, and Erie counties, often as a strategy for spurring bi-partisan action on its policy priorities. The party's sometime-position at the balance of electoral power and the threat of Republican endorsement has allowed it to influence the politics of local Democratic candidates and the state Democratic party.

<..> In unusual cases, the WFP has put forward its own candidates. In the chaotic situation following the assassination of New York City councilman James E. Davis by political rival Othniel Askew, the slain councilman's brother Geoffrey Davis was chosen to succeed him in the Democratic primary. As it became clear that Geoffrey Davis lacked his late brother's political experience, fellow Democrat Letitia James decided to challenge him in the general election on the WFP ticket and won Brooklyn's 35th City Council district as the first third-party candidate elected there in 30 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Families_Party

**KonaKane** · 12-25-2011, 10:20 PM

Yes, as you can see (if you actually read the entries) it is not a tactic which advocates the republican party, but increases the visibility of issues in elections.

I suggest you actually read what you post. All of it, not excerpts which taken out of context, can support your beliefs.

**jaxx** · 12-25-2011, 10:26 PM

Since you have no idea what I read you are once again jumping the gun. It would be welcome if you could discuss anything without the bs.

**KonaKane** · 12-25-2011, 10:37 PM

(12-25-2011 10:26 PM)jaxx Wrote: Since you have no idea what I read you are once again jumping the gun. It would be welcome if you could discuss anything without the bs.

It's obvious to me that you jumped on a hasty Google of a wikipedia entry and didn't take the time to go more in depth about the practices of the WFP. All it takes is a look at their mission statement (principles) page to see that there is no way in hell they would be endorsing the GOP. Cross endorsement is about getting issue visibility as a step to building party popularity, not about a blind one sided endorsement of an opposing party, which makes no sense at all.

If you want to call a sober assessment of fact "BS", then good luck on that.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 12-25-2011, 11:05 PM

I read the wikipedia entry and didn't think the quoted sections fairly represented the WFP mission. Shrug

**jaxx** · 12-25-2011, 11:25 PM

There are, of course, other sites but I was in a hurry and chose that one. You can be assured that this won't happen again. I see that third parties are now welcome....simply amazing.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 12-25-2011, 11:31 PM

(12-25-2011 11:25 PM)jaxx Wrote: There are, of course, other sites but I was in a hurry and chose that one. You can be assured that this won't happen again. I see that third parties are now welcome....simply amazing.

WFP is not a party, they are a group. I was reading this discussion and was interested in this group that I was previously unfamiliar with. As with everything else, I see no reason to reflexively reject said group based on their said "pragmatic" approach. In the end, achieving their stated goals is important to them and after seeing what those are, I can't see myself rejecting their goals out-of-hand simply because they do some clever things to promote/achieve said goals.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 12:00 PM

(12-25-2011 11:31 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote: WFP is not a party, they are a group. I was reading this discussion and was interested in this group that I was previously unfamiliar with. As with everything else, I see no reason to reflexively reject said group based on their said "pragmatic" approach. In the end, achieving their stated goals is important to them and after seeing what those are, I can't see myself rejecting their goals out-of-hand simply because they do some clever things to promote/achieve said goals.

I don't get it either. Everything they promote, every principle they espouse, is right down the line in sync with Democratic Progressive values.

I'm not liking this trend of chucking the baby out with the bathwater simply because the right keywords were not uttered, or some verbotten ones were.

**jaxx** · 12-25-2011, 11:48 PM

The Working Families Party (WFP) is New York’s liveliest and most progressive political party. Formed by a grassroots coalition of community organizations, neighborhood activists, and labor unions, we came together build a society that works for all of us, not just the wealthy and well-connected.

<..> Unlike other political parties, our work doesn’t end on election day. We’re always fighting – in Albany and in towns and cities across New York – for a working families-friendly agenda, and Working Families votes help push politicians to support progressive legislation. (more)

<..> The Working Families Party is a third party with a twist, fusion voting.

<..> Most of the time, the Working Families Party cross endorses Democrats or (occasionally) Republicans who promise to fight for issues that matter to working people. But we do run our own candidates, if we think we can win. Letitia James was elected to the New York City Council, Luci McKnight was elected to County Legislature in Albany, and Wayne Hall was elected mayor of Hempstead, Long Island, all solely on the WFP line.

http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/about/

**RoyGBiv** · 12-26-2011, 12:07 AM

(12-25-2011 11:48 PM)jaxx Wrote: <..> Most of the time, the Working Families Party cross endorses Democrats or (occasionally) Republicans who promise to fight for issues that matter to working people. But we do run our own candidates, if we think we can win. Letitia James was elected to the New York City Council, Luci McKnight was elected to County Legislature in Albany, and Wayne Hall was elected mayor of Hempstead, Long Island, all solely on the WFP line.

http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/about/

This is how so-called third parties involve themselves in politics effectively and productively. At this level of politics, a major party affiliation is less important than the issues a candidate considers important and intends to pursue when elected. I have, for example, actually voted for a Republican who was running for city council. It was one guy, several times for council, and then I voted for him once for a state legislator. His Republicanism was not dogmatic, and the with issues that were important to the city, he held the correct positions. His Democratic opponent was an aging crony who had been in office since segregation was still legal, and he had not given up his racism or his firm belief that "those people" were the cause of all the ills of our little town.

When the guy ran for legislator, I gave him a chance. His Democratic opponent wasn't much different on the issues expressed and was in any case clearly not a liberal. This convinced me that at worst the Republican would vote similarly to how the Democrat would if elected. Unfortunately, at the state level, the guy became dogmatic and adhered to a party line with national influence behind it, apparently because he wanted a higher office. I did not vote for him again, nor did most of his former supporters. He now operates a tire and alignment shop.

At the national level "fusion" voting is an effective strategy for liberals and progressives and has been for a very long time. One of the least understood things about the 1864 election, for example, is that Lincoln didn't run as a Republican. He was the National Union candidate, which was a fusion of Republicans and "War Democrats." This, along with a little help from good old Tecumseh Sherman, worked. Disavowing the Democrats who helped would have proved disastrous.

There are many other examples of this sort of thing. It seems the people who work with WFP have studied their history.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 12-26-2011, 12:08 AM

Well, I'm learning more about this group - uh, er, party.

They are fighting for Democratic Party ideals, though it appears they are a local level "party" - which is cool I guess. I wouldn't exactly call them a group that can't coexist with Democrats though - I think that's relatively obvious.

**RoyGBiv** · 12-26-2011, 12:11 AM

(12-26-2011 12:08 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote: Well, I'm learning more about this group - uh, er, party.

They are fighting for Democratic Party ideals, though it appears they are a local level "party" - which is cool I guess. I wouldn't exactly call them a group that can't coexist with Democrats though - I think that's relatively obvious.

This is the kind of group that can effectively promote liberal Democrats since they work outside the official Democratic party channels and are not bound by official party doctrine. We have a similar group in Oklahoma, and every progressive Democrat who manages to get elected here has been heavily supported by them while at the same time having received almost no money or support for the Democratic party itself.

As I've mentioned at other times, Democrats aren't even running opponents to most of the Republican candidates here. Those who are running are often supported by these "third party" organizations.

***azmouse*** · 12-26-2011, 01:40 PM

And I ask myself why, if he generally supports Democratic values, he would chose to tear down this president knowing the 'ihateobama' is hanging on every word, the same so-called Democratic crowd who will lift on their shoulders and carry around any person who spews negative words about the president and who will elevate to a possible contender for the Democratic nomination anyone who hates the president?

Damon knows he'll get attention and that's what it seems to be all about for him. Doesn't seem to matter to him if it negates any positives he may have accomplished. Unfortunately all anyone will remember or talk about is his dislike for a Democratic president. It becomes all about bad publicity for Obama.

Notice the news stories do not balance out Damon's words with what he may have done for other causes... only the negative words on Obama get press. He's not helping any causes he may espouse with his words. And he knows that and obviously doesn't care or he wouldn't continue to spew.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 01:52 PM

azmouse, why are you so quick to dismiss Damon as nothing more than an attention whore? It took me very little research to find out the dozen causes and organization the guy is involved with, and how he gives copious amounts of his money and time to them. Recently I saw a video clip of him going to bat for teachers, raking the "reporter" from some rightwing net rag over the coals in the process.

It sounds to me like your beef is with the media rather than with Damon per se, if all you "see or hear" is his criticism of Obama. That's not totally in Damon's control, is it.

I am really bewildered at how quick some here are to completely trash a person's past good works, and even worth as a human being ("asshat who could fall off the face of the earth and no one would notice") if they dare criticize this president. I sincerely hope we are above cults of personality. Can't we leave that to the right-tards, who's intellectual curiosity on any subject is never more than an inch deep?

***azmouse*** · 12-26-2011, 02:03 PM

(12-26-2011 01:52 PM)KonaKane Wrote: azmouse, why are you so quick to dismiss Damon as nothing more than an attention whore? It took me very little research to find out the dozen causes and organization the guy is involved with, and how he gives copious amounts of his money and time to them. Recently I saw a video clip of him going to bat for teachers, raking the "reporter" from some rightwing net rag over the coals in the process.

It sounds to me like your beef is with the media rather than with Damon per se, if all you "see or hear" is his criticism of Obama. That's not totally in Damon's control, is it.

I am really bewildered at how quick some here are to completely trash a person's past good works, and even worth as a human being ("asshat who could fall off the face of the earth and no one would notice") if they dare criticize this president. I sincerely hope we are above cults of personality. Can't we leave that to the right-tards, who's intellectual curiosity on any subject is never more than an inch deep?

Damon brought this on himself with his words. As far as I know, no one twisted his arm to say these things.
Yes, I do have a problem with the media too. It's very quick to lap up any words from a Hollywood celebrity who'll say negative things about the President.

Not sure anyone here it "trashing anyone's good works" so much as being tired of the same old tripe of "I didn't get everything I wanted so I'll claim disappointment in the President and slam him in the press".

Someone can criticize Obama all they want, just back it up. Vague crap about a "lack of balls" doesn't help Damon's causes, does it? It would seem to me it distracts from any good he does.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 02:10 PM

I agree with you about his vagueness regarding Obama, and for the record I do not agree with his assessment of this president. But what gets me is, why is that all we're concerned about here, while being satisfied with ignorance or dismissal about all the good he has done for Democratic/Progressive causes and issues?

That simply does not make sense to me. Our minds are big enough to acknowledge the good as well as criticize the bad stuff, aren't they?

***azmouse*** · 12-26-2011, 02:28 PM

(12-26-2011 02:10 PM)KonaKane Wrote: I agree with you about his vagueness regarding Obama, and for the record I do not agree with his assessment of this president. But what gets me is, why is that all we're concerned about here, while being satisfied with ignorance or dismissal about all the good he has done for Democratic/Progressive causes and issues?

That simply does not make sense to me. Our minds are big enough to acknowledge the good as well as criticize the bad stuff, aren't they?

I don't understand dismissing the causes Damon may have helped.
My beef with him and his words are how does he think this is helpful to the causes he cares about? If he is passionate about them, why not try to arrange a meeting either with the president or a rep of the pres, and express his concerns directly? Trying to do the maximum good with the celebrity he has would benefit everyone. Instead, as you say, everyone is focused on the negative words. I don't understand what Damon thought he was accomplishing this way.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 02:48 PM

Let me explain this as simply as I can Kona, lest you misunderstand.

A president, by virtue of position, has a bigger effect on our lives than a celebrity, no matter what that celebrity does. Damon may give millions to charity, but with the stroke of a pen a president manipulates BILLIONS. What Damon does with charity is great and has helped dozens, maybe hundreds, maybe thousands. But there are 300 million people in this country and most aren't touched by his actions. ALL are affected by the healthcare bill. If the Republicans win because "progressives" stay home, my aunt loses her health insurance. That's a death sentence. So please understand when people just want to let off some steam without having people look down their noses at them.

Matt Damon will live.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 02:39 PM

Once again, you are blaming Damon for the press ramming a spotlight on his criticism of Obama while ignoring all the great stuff he does for other Democratic and progressive causes. Does that sound fair to you? It doesn't to me.

Instead of HELPING the press keep such a one dimensional light on Obama, it might be good to focus on some of the good things WFP and other such organizations are doing to keep the principles which Democrats still stand for, uppermost in the minds of the voters. Good people can disagree on things, it happens every day. Tossing someone who is making a difference generally for the better because of difference on a single issue, is really a case of foot shooting if I ever saw one.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 02:54 PM

Also, yes, I expect people to know the world in which they live. This means I expect people to know the media hangs on every criticism of Dems. This is why I was pissed at Weiner...not because I care what he does, but because everyone knows how the media is.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 03:16 PM

I understand you perfectly. I hope you understand me when I say that the willy nilly fragmentation of our energies based on personality cult sensitivities will do more permament damage to our agenda than anything Damon could ever say.

Dismissing him as someone not worthy to suck air on the same planet because of something he says about this president is not only ridiculously petty and shortsighted, but definitely emboldens the real enemies of our world view.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 05:36 PM

(12-26-2011 03:16 PM)KonaKane Wrote: I understand you perfectly. I hope you understand me when I say that the willy nilly fragmentation of our energies based on personality cult sensitivities will do more permament damage to our agenda than anything Damon could ever say.

Dismissing him as someone not worthy to suck air on the same planet because of something he says about this president is not only ridiculously petty and shortsighted, but definitely emboldens the real enemies of our world view.

No, you clearly do NOT understand what I'm saying. I'm saying he does not have the capacity to impact lives a president has. I'm saying no matter what good he does if we lose the presidency or fail to regain congress because of careless words, a lot of people are going to be hurt. It's the same with you and the same with me...no matter how much we may want to help people, we don't have the tools to do so and consequently most people don't care or know who we are or would miss us if we were gone. And this is a small messageboard, not an interview with a nation wide magazine...don't overdramatize people venting.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 05:40 PM

(12-26-2011 05:36 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: No, you clearly do NOT understand what I'm saying. I'm saying he does not have the capacity to impact lives a president has. I'm saying no matter what good he does if we lose the presidency or fail to regain congress because of careless words, a lot of people are going to be hurt. It's the same with you and the same with me...no matter how much we may want to help people, we don't have the tools to do so and consequently most people don't care or know who we are or would miss us if we were gone. And this is a small messageboard, not an interview with a nation wide magazine...don't overdramatize people venting.

Wait, are you seriously suggesting he has the ability to determine who the president will be? Tell me you aren't suggesting that.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · (This post was last modified: 12-26-2011 06:36 PM by SemiCharmedQuark.)

(12-26-2011 05:40 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 05:36 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: No, you clearly do NOT understand what I'm saying. I'm saying he does not have the capacity to impact lives a president has. I'm saying no matter what good he does if we lose the presidency or fail to regain congress because of careless words, a lot of people are going to be hurt. It's the same with you and the same with me...no matter how much we may want to help people, we don't have the tools to do so and consequently most people don't care or know who we are or would miss us if we were gone. And this is a small messageboard, not an interview with a nation wide magazine...don't overdramatize people venting.

Wait, are you seriously suggesting he has the ability to determine who the president will be? Tell me you aren't suggesting that.

No. He is, however, another straw to the camel's back.

Id also like to point a couple of things out:

1. You say it doesn't matter what the "anti-Obama" brigade thinks or says. But appparently the "anti-Damon" brigade emboldens the enemy?
And
2. People disagreeing with you does not a clique make. I disagree with Mouse on the Morning After Pill. The difference between that discussion and this is that we can disagree without calling names.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 06:53 PM

(12-26-2011 06:33 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: No. He is, however, another straw to the camel's back.

Id also like to point a couple of things out:

1. You say it doesn't matter what the "anti-Obama" brigade thinks or says. But appparently the "anti-Damon" brigade emboldens the enemy?
And
2. People disagreeing with you does not a clique make. I disagree with Mouse on the Morning After Pill. The difference between that discussion and this is that we can disagree without calling names.

1. It does embolden them, because it makes us look like a tiny clique of personality cult worshippers. Emboldening doesn't necessarily mean it makes them all powerful, with the ability to change a presidency, though. I just see no reason to portray that image.

2. Not sure where I "called you a name", as that's not the way I usually operate.

3. I bristle at the idea that a person's worth gets entirely written off because they scratch the Golden Calf. That shows a lack of depth of intellectual curiosity, to me.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 07:18 PM

(12-26-2011 06:53 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 06:33 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: No. He is, however, another straw to the camel's back.

Id also like to point a couple of things out:

1. You say it doesn't matter what the "anti-Obama" brigade thinks or says. But appparently the "anti-Damon" brigade emboldens the enemy?
And
2. People disagreeing with you does not a clique make. I disagree with Mouse on the Morning After Pill. The difference between that discussion and this is that we can disagree without calling names.

1. It does embolden them, because it makes us look like a tiny clique of personality cult worshippers. Emboldening doesn't necessarily mean it makes them all powerful, with the ability to change a presidency, though. I just see no reason to portray that image.

2. Not sure where I "called you a name", as that's not the way I usually operate.

3. I bristle at the idea that a person's worth gets entirely written off because they scratch the Golden Calf. That shows a lack of depth of intellectual curiosity, to me.

"Clique" "Cultist" "anti intellectual"...

Just as in the Rocky Anderson thread, you simply cannot disagree without resorting to insults.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 07:23 PM

(12-26-2011 07:18 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: "Clique" "Cultist" "anti intellectual"...

Just as in the Rocky Anderson thread, you simply cannot disagree without resorting to insults.

Oh horseshit. I never called you any of those things. If you identify with them, that is YOURS to deal with, not mine. Try to read for meaning as well as just words to be offended at.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 07:37 PM

(12-26-2011 07:23 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 07:18 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: "Clique" "Cultist" "anti intellectual"...

Just as in the Rocky Anderson thread, you simply cannot disagree without resorting to insults.

Oh horseshit. I never called you any of those things. If you identify with them, that is YOURS to deal with, not mine. Try to read for meaning as well as just words to be offended at.

Says the poster who claimed I said Matt Damon doesn't deserve to breathe.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 07:45 PM

(12-26-2011 07:37 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: Says the poster who claimed I said Matt Damon doesn't deserve to breathe.

If you are referencing post #53, you are wrong. I never claimed you said he doesn't deserve to breathe. Here is what I said -

"Dismissing him as someone not worthy to suck air on the same planet because of something he says about this president is not only ridiculously petty and shortsighted, but definitely emboldens the real enemies of our world view."

Do you see your name anywhere in there? Any hint that I was leveling that view at you specifically? Of course you don't, because it's not there. It was a general comment, condemning an attitude, and I meant every word of it. Still do.

**Baltoman991** · 12-26-2011, 04:37 PM

Ya know what, I have no problem being called petty, shortsighter, a cheerleader, a guard or anything else you or anyone else wants to call me

You can sit here and dismiss and defend Damon, Moore and anyone else who CONSTANTLY slashes Obama but I choose not to.

You act as though their words aren't really going to have any affect on peoples opinions, I see it differently.

How about instead of you telling us that we should leave these poor Obama bashers alone and work on the bluedogs, why don't YOU tell the likes of Moore and Damon to run their mouths about the real culprits.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 05:15 PM

On one hand, some of you are saying that Damon is only a celebrity and nothing he says matters, and he could "fall off the planet and no one would notice".....yet suddenly, Damon and others have the ability to decide who will be president or not depending on what they say. It's enough to make one's head spin.

It's not my place to "tell" Damon, Moore or anyone else what to "run their mouths" about. Nor is it my place to tell you or anyone else here what they can think about them. But it is my place to tell you what I think about personality cult driven construction of "enemy" lists, who's with us who's not, who's in the club but now out of the club based on something they said regardless of their actual productivity.

Clearly, nothing I say will matter to a clique. I was just hoping upon hope that we were bigger and more thoughtful than that.

My bad.

***azmouse*** · 12-26-2011, 05:24 PM

(12-26-2011 05:15 PM)KonaKane Wrote: On one hand, some of you are saying that Damon is only a celebrity and nothing he says matters, and he could "fall off the planet and no one would notice".....yet suddenly, Damon and others have the ability to decide who will be president or not depending on what they say. It's enough to make one's head spin.

It's not my place to "tell" Damon, Moore or anyone else what to "run their mouths" about. Nor is it my place to tell you or anyone else here what they can think about them. But it is my place to tell you what I think about personality cult driven construction of "enemy" lists, who's with us who's not, who's in the club but now out of the club based on something they said regardless of their actual productivity.

Clearly, nothing I say will matter to a clique. I was just hoping upon hope that we were bigger and more thoughtful than that.

My bad.

Interestingly, we've got far more diversity of opinion on Damon's statement than some other sites (sites I should say that claim to be 'Democratic' but are far from it).
The 'ihateobama' crowd wants Damon to run for president because they regret voting for someone like Obama who didn't have much political experience. They won't be fooled again they say. The irony of this thought is thick enough to cut with a knife.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 05:30 PM

1. Matt Damon is not going to be president.

2. Matt Damon does not have the power to determine who will be president.

3. Why do I give a shit what the "ihateObama" crowd thinks? Nothing we say here is going to sway them in the least, so why care?

***azmouse*** · 12-26-2011, 05:35 PM

(12-26-2011 05:30 PM)KonaKane Wrote: 1. Matt Damon is not going to be president.

2. Matt Damon does not have the power to determine who will be president.

3. Why do I give a shit what the "ihateObama" crowd thinks? Nothing we say here is going to sway them in the least, so why care?

And with those thoughtful comments, I'm done with this thread.

**Treestar** · 12-26-2011, 06:05 PM

Whether it is charity or other causes. He is now acting like an idiot. And I will say so.

If I had his money and fame I could do a lot of good too and in addition, I would not be slamming a good President with vague generalities. And if he does have influence, he's using it for ill to such degree that it exists.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 06:30 PM

"I don't care what good Damon is doing"

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the root of the problem.

**jaxx** · 12-26-2011, 07:21 PM

chooses to come out against President Obama it's not just us that see it and hear it. The country sees and hears, the independent voters see and hear...and they wonder why it is being said if PBO is a good president.

The idea of spouting off isn't new to the celebs and the well known, but it's new to the fact of some of them trying to destroy a President that is working for the people. Why would they do that? For personal satisfaction? To promote their personal issues? Or just for publicity?

They've run their mouths for 3 years, and tried to muddy the waters with the ignorant rantings and out and out lies. Why people would think this is a good thing is a problem itself.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 07:29 PM

(12-26-2011 07:21 PM)jaxx Wrote: chooses to come out against President Obama it's not just us that see it and hear it. The country sees and hears, the independent voters see and hear...and they wonder why it is being said if PBO is a good president.

Indpendent voters tend to be of a little hardier stuff than that. They are indies because they usually put a little more thought into a candidate than a rigid partisan. If anything, you should be glad it's the indies listening.

Quote:The idea of spouting off isn't new to the celebs and the well known, but it's new to the fact of some of them trying to destroy a President that is working for the people. Why would they do that? For personal satisfaction? To promote their personal issues? Or just for publicity?

Do you seriously believe that Matt Damon, who supported Obama in the beginning, supports and gave his money to Democratic causes, just woke up one day and said to himself "Gee, today I think I'll have a sweet roll, have a jog and then destroy Obama"? Give me a break.

Quote:They've run their mouths for 3 years, and tried to muddy the waters with the ignorant rantings and out and out lies. Why people would think this is a good thing is a problem itself.

You misrepesent Mr. Damon's views and actions if you are attempting to claim he has been trashing Obama for three years. Go back and look at the record, and see when it all really started (relatively recently).

See this is what happens when personality cult/rigid partisanism starts to take hold. Reality and reason start flying out the window. I know we are better than that.

**jaxx** · 12-26-2011, 07:49 PM

(12-26-2011 07:29 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 07:21 PM)jaxx Wrote: chooses to come out against President Obama it's not just us that see it and hear it. The country sees and hears, the independent voters see and hear...and they wonder why it is being said if PBO is a good president.

Indpendent voters tend to be of a little hardier stuff than that. They are indies because they usually put a little more thought into a candidate than a rigid partisan. If anything, you should be glad it's the indies listening.

Quote:The idea of spouting off isn't new to the celebs and the well known, but it's new to the fact of some of them trying to destroy a President that is working for the people. Why would they do that? For personal satisfaction? To promote their personal issues? Or just for publicity?

Do you seriously believe that Matt Damon, who supported Obama in the beginning, supports and gave his money to Democratic causes, just woke up one day and said to himself "Gee, today I think I'll have a sweet roll, have a jog and then destroy Obama"? Give me a break.

Quote:They've run their mouths for 3 years, and tried to muddy the waters with the ignorant rantings and out and out lies. Why people would think this is a good thing is a problem itself.

You misrepesent Mr. Damon's views and actions if you are attempting to claim he has been trashing Obama for three years. Go back and look at the record, and see when it all really started (relatively recently).

See this is what happens when personality cult/rigid partisanism starts to take hold. Reality and reason start flying out the window. I know we are better than that.

And really, when you must use inflammatory rhetoric like "personality cult/rigid partisanism" you have lost the battle.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 07:52 PM

(12-26-2011 07:49 PM)jaxx Wrote: And really, when you must use inflammatory rhetoric like "personality cult/rigid partisanism" you have lost the battle.

Really? Even when it's true?

***There Is No Spoon*** · 12-26-2011, 07:34 PM

Well, we're now famous - if you Google "Matt Damon asshat", this thread pops right to the top. roflmao

His comments are still assholish, but it's probably a little too soon to order his crucifixion.

**jaxx** · 12-26-2011, 07:57 PM

Even when you think it's true. That's what this is all about, you trying to project your allowances for trashing the President and expecting those of us who disagree with you to go along with that lofty bs.

No Sale!!

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 07:59 PM

(12-26-2011 07:57 PM)jaxx Wrote: Even when you think it's true. That's what this is all about, you trying to project your allowances for trashing the President and expecting those of us who disagree with you to go along with that lofty bs.

No Sale!!

Grasping reality and using logic is "lofty BS"?

Wow.

No problem, I'm retracting my credit card.

**Treestar** · 12-26-2011, 08:27 PM

We support the President here. He's come out as being against him. Why do we have to be his fans?

The frustrati, famous or not, can go pound sand. They aren't helping, in the long run they are hurting far more than they can help anyone individually.

Reminds me of right wingers who claim they are personally charitable and therefore cannot be considered selfish for supporting right wing/libertarian positions.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 12-26-2011, 08:37 PM

(12-26-2011 08:27 PM)Treestar Wrote: We support the President here. He's come out as being against him. Why do we have to be his fans?

That's a bit of a strawman, don't think anybody is asking that anybody else be his "fan", just that he not be condemned for all eternity based on a few uncomplimentary remarks he's made.

Quote:The frustrati, famous or not, can go pound sand. They aren't helping, in the long run they are hurting far more than they can help anyone individually.

It's true, but they aren't a cohesive "enemy", Kona is suggesting that we think before creating an "enemies" list - lest we be no better (arguably worse) than they are.

Quote:Reminds me of right wingers who claim they are personally charitable and therefore cannot be considered selfish for supporting right wing/libertarian positions.

Well, give a little take a little huh? Using prior arguments, this could be construed by Kona as an insult, but I don't think he's too worried about it.

**jaxx** · 12-26-2011, 09:09 PM

(12-26-2011 08:37 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:
(12-26-2011 08:27 PM)Treestar Wrote: We support the President here. He's come out as being against him. Why do we have to be his fans?

That's a bit of a strawman, don't think anybody is asking that anybody else be his "fan", just that he not be condemned for all eternity based on a few uncomplimentary remarks he's made.

Quote:The frustrati, famous or not, can go pound sand. They aren't helping, in the long run they are hurting far more than they can help anyone individually.

It's true, but they aren't a cohesive "enemy", Kona is suggesting that we think before creating an "enemies" list - lest we be no better (arguably worse) than they are.

Quote:Reminds me of right wingers who claim they are personally charitable and therefore cannot be considered selfish for supporting right wing/libertarian positions.

Well, give a little take a little huh? Using prior arguments, this could be construed by Kona as an insult, but I don't think he's too worried about it.

________________________

Quote:The frustrati, famous or not, can go pound sand. They aren't helping, in the long run they are hurting far more than they can help anyone individually.

It's true, but they aren't a cohesive "enemy", Kona is suggesting that we think before creating an "enemies" list - lest we be no better (arguably worse) than they are.
________________________
The Matt Damons and Michael Moores have a choice, either keep trashing the President or start supporting him. It's all theirs. I think the wrong element is being touted as being no better than.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 09:19 PM

(12-26-2011 09:09 PM)jaxx Wrote: The Matt Damons and Michael Moores have a choice, either keep trashing the President or start supporting him. It's all theirs. I think the wrong element is being touted as being no better than.

Not too long ago, a small but enthusiastic group of people on political forum which will not be named here, got disgusted that Obama was being maligned no matter what he did - and that his supporters were being attacked and dehumanized.

They created their own site, where many of them praised Obama no matter what he did, and his critics were attacked and dehumanized.

Tell me, outside of switching shoes on the feet, what has changed?

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 09:35 PM

(12-26-2011 09:19 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 09:09 PM)jaxx Wrote: The Matt Damons and Michael Moores have a choice, either keep trashing the President or start supporting him. It's all theirs. I think the wrong element is being touted as being no better than.

Not too long ago, a small but enthusiastic group of people on political forum which will not be named here, got disgusted that Obama was being maligned no matter what he did - and that his supporters were being attacked and dehumanized.

They created their own site, where many of them praised Obama no matter what he did, and his critics were attacked and dehumanized.

Tell me, outside of switching shoes on the feet, what has changed?

One site claimed to be for Democrats while trashing Democrats. The other claims to be for Democrats and if trashing is done, it is done to people who trash Democrats. Hence, Democrats come here to vent.

I don't have a problem with Damen's thoughts, feelings or criticisms. My anger comes from his piss poor way of expressing said thoughts in a sexist and obnoxious way.

Bernie Sanders criticizes Obama. So does Rachel Maddow. I would never complain about either because they are both smart enough to keep the big picture in mind. However they both have been criticized on this site. I usually chalk it up to people venting their anger.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 09:57 PM

(12-26-2011 09:35 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote:
(12-26-2011 09:19 PM)KonaKane Wrote: Not too long ago, a small but enthusiastic group of people on political forum which will not be named here, got disgusted that Obama was being maligned no matter what he did - and that his supporters were being attacked and dehumanized.

They created their own site, where many of them praised Obama no matter what he did, and his critics were attacked and dehumanized.

Tell me, outside of switching shoes on the feet, what has changed?

One site claimed to be for Democrats while trashing Democrats. The other claims to be for Democrats and if trashing is done, it is done to people who trash Democrats. Hence, Democrats come here to vent.

And to trash those who participate on the site, who don't agree that trashing those who critiicize Obama but otherwise work hard for Democratic ideals should be dehumanized.

Sad, that.

Quote:I don't have a problem with Damen's thoughts, feelings or criticisms. My anger comes from his piss poor way of expressing said thoughts in a sexist and obnoxious way.

Bernie Sanders criticizes Obama. So does Rachel Maddow. I would never complain about either because they are both smart enough to keep the big picture in mind. However they both have been criticized on this site. I usually chalk it up to people venting their anger.

I find that astounding. Sanders has professed MUCH harsher criticism of Obama than Damon has.

You sure about that?

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 10:12 PM

(12-26-2011 09:57 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 09:35 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: One site claimed to be for Democrats while trashing Democrats. The other claims to be for Democrats and if trashing is done, it is done to people who trash Democrats. Hence, Democrats come here to vent.

And to trash those who participate on the site, who don't agree that trashing those who critiicize Obama but otherwise work hard for Democratic ideals should be dehumanized.

Sad, that.

Quote:I don't have a problem with Damen's thoughts, feelings or criticisms. My anger comes from his piss poor way of expressing said thoughts in a sexist and obnoxious way.

Bernie Sanders criticizes Obama. So does Rachel Maddow. I would never complain about either because they are both smart enough to keep the big picture in mind. However they both have been criticized on this site. I usually chalk it up to people venting their anger.

I find that astounding. Sanders has professed MUCH harsher criticism of Obama than Damon has.

You sure about that?

Sanders criticism doesn't get headlines because it is composed of dry, intellectual arguments rather than "OBAMA HAS NO BALLS!!!!!" hysterics. When push comes to shove Sanders also acknowledges the good Obama has done.

You are the only poster I have butted heads with on this site, despite others often sharing your viewpoints. I butt heads with you not because of your views, but because I feel you are dismissive of those with whom you disagree.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 10:21 PM

(12-26-2011 10:12 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: Sanders criticism doesn't get headlines because it is composed of dry, intellectual arguments rather than "OBAMA HAS NO BALLS!!!!!" hysterics. When push comes to shove Sanders also acknowledges the good Obama has done.

So you just don't like Damon's tone? OK, that's fair. People express themselves in different ways. But don't use that to dismiss all the good they have done, either.

Quote:You are the only poster I have butted heads with on this site, despite others often sharing your viewpoints. I butt heads with you not because of your views, but because I feel you are dismissive of those with whom you disagree.

I don't like ignorance. Otherwise smart people can express ignorance now and again, and when it comes from people I usually respect, I like to to bring it to their attention. If you call that "being dismissive", then I think you have grossly missed the point.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 10:28 PM

W

(12-26-2011 10:21 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 10:12 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: Sanders criticism doesn't get headlines because it is composed of dry, intellectual arguments rather than "OBAMA HAS NO BALLS!!!!!" hysterics. When push comes to shove Sanders also acknowledges the good Obama has done.

So you just don't like Damon's tone? OK, that's fair. People express themselves in different ways. But don't use that to dismiss all the good they have done, either.

Quote:You are the only poster I have butted heads with on this site, despite others often sharing your viewpoints. I butt heads with you not because of your views, but because I feel you are dismissive of those with whom you disagree.

I don't like ignorance. Otherwise smart people can express ignorance now and again, and when it comes from people I usually respect, I like to to bring it to their attention. If you call that "being dismissive", then I think you have grossly missed the point.

Yes, in my case, that is correct. I don't like the way he expressed himself when he is smart enough to know that his comment would wind up on every media outlet in the US and perpetuate the "obama is a sissy" meme. It was a tactless and obnoxious thing to say and since the incident is recent, I don't begrudge people their anger in their initial responses. If a year from now in an article about Damen building a house for HfH, someone said "aw, he sucks remember that one time he said such and such" I'd rise an eyebrow.

**jaxx** · 12-26-2011, 09:41 PM

(12-26-2011 09:19 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 09:09 PM)jaxx Wrote: The Matt Damons and Michael Moores have a choice, either keep trashing the President or start supporting him. It's all theirs. I think the wrong element is being touted as being no better than.

Not too long ago, a small but enthusiastic group of people on political forum which will not be named here, got disgusted that Obama was being maligned no matter what he did - and that his supporters were being attacked and dehumanized.

They created their own site, where many of them praised Obama no matter what he did, and his critics were attacked and dehumanized.

Tell me, outside of switching shoes on the feet, what has changed?

It was the posters who were dehumanized there. Here it is the speakers (the ones who are saying the things). I think there is no comparison between going after each other or going after the perp. In the end people think what they think.....here at least you can think what you want without being shown the door.

Public people can expect the public to take them to task for what they say. It's how it's always been.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 09:59 PM

(12-26-2011 09:41 PM)jaxx Wrote: It was the posters who were dehumanized there. Here it is the speakers (the ones who are saying the things). I think there is no comparison between going after each other or going after the perp.

You do go after posters here. I have the logs to prove it.

Quote:In the end people think what they think.....here at least you can think what you want without being shown the door.

Public people can expect the public to take them to task for what they say. It's how it's always been.

Taking someone to task for a criticism you don't agree with is one thing. Dehumanizing them and trashing any good works they have done before the great offense, is quite another.

**jaxx** · 12-26-2011, 10:12 PM

(12-26-2011 09:59 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 09:41 PM)jaxx Wrote: It was the posters who were dehumanized there. Here it is the speakers (the ones who are saying the things). I think there is no comparison between going after each other or going after the perp.

You do go after posters here. I have the logs to prove it.

Quote:In the end people think what they think.....here at least you can think what you want without being shown the door.

Public people can expect the public to take them to task for what they say. It's how it's always been.

Taking someone to task for a criticism you don't agree with is one thing. Dehumanizing them and trashing any good works they have done before the great offense, is quite another.

I think you just like to argue. But bring on all the ammo you have because this is getting good and I don't like threats.

I will 'dehumanize' any big mouth who gets his name in the paper for trashing President Obama. Is that straight forward enough for you? I really don't care what 'good works' they have done, or how wonderful they think they are.....if they think they are important enough to rail against the President, they are fair game.

Now, about that threat?

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 10:24 PM

(12-26-2011 10:12 PM)jaxx Wrote: I think you just like to argue. But bring on all the ammo you have because this is getting good and I don't like threats.

I will 'dehumanize' any big mouth who gets his name in the paper for trashing President Obama. Is that straight forward enough for you? I really don't care what 'good works' they have done, or how wonderful they think they are.....if they think they are important enough to rail against the President, they are fair game.

Now, about that threat?

I don't know what "threat" you're talking about - maybe you can enlighten us.

As for dehumanization, that is exactly the kind of politics of personal destruction the rightwing rethugs introduced into the political discussion decades ago. So if you want to learn from them, your choice. Me...I would prefer better teachers.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 09:26 PM

The thing is, everyone has a different idea of how far you can go before your pros outweigh your cons.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 09:29 PM

(12-26-2011 09:26 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: The thing is, everyone has a different idea of how far you can go before your pros outweigh your cons.

And apparently, some of us believe that one con can outweigh a busload of pros.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · (This post was last modified: 12-26-2011 09:44 PM by SemiCharmedQuark.)

(12-26-2011 09:29 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 09:26 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: The thing is, everyone has a different idea of how far you can go before your pros outweigh your cons.

And apparently, some of us believe that one con can outweigh a busload of pros.

When that con is helping to create a situation that would deprive millions of healthcare and labor rights, I can understand how some would see that as larger than donating a million dollars to fight hunger or even having best intentions at heart.

Best intentions don't force insurance companies to eliminate caps and a million dollars would help roughly four uninsured families have healthy premature (6 weeks or more) babies.

Doesn't mean I necessarily agree with that assessment, but I understand it.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 12-26-2011, 09:48 PM

I love this thread! Nothing better than a nice heated discussion. Nanner

The only problem is I can't stop thinking of alternative titles.

"Matt Damon, Anus Hat"

"Matt Damn, Pantload Helmut"

"Matt Damon, Sphincter Ring Dome"

"Matt Damon, Puff Pastry Noggin"

"Matt Damon, Butt Plug"

"Matt Damon, Douchenozzle"

"Matt Damon, Rock on, Garth!"

"Matt Damon, Crusty Underware Dome"

roflmao

**jaxx** · 12-26-2011, 09:52 PM

"Matt Damon, Crusty Underware Dome"

How much worse can you get? Wink

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 10:00 PM

Lol TINS

So much of what we say is how we say it. For example, I've been veg for 15 years and I consider PETA to be an asshole group because they go about everything in the most unhelpful way possible. I think they've made people eat more meat than the beef council could ever hope for.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 12-26-2011, 10:04 PM

(12-26-2011 10:00 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: Lol TINS

So much of what we say is how we say it. For example, I've been veg for 15 years and I consider PETA to be an asshole group because they go about everything in the most unhelpful way possible. I think they've made people eat more meat than the beef council could ever hope for.

On this we can agree wholeheartedly. roflmao

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 10:04 PM

No shit. And if you bag on people who have any sort of criticism of Obama vociferously enough, you'll reinforce the "Messiah complex" stereotype we have among those who are still deciding these things.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 12-26-2011, 10:12 PM

(12-26-2011 10:04 PM)KonaKane Wrote: No shit. And if you bag on people who have any sort of criticism of Obama vociferously enough, you'll reinforce the "Messiah complex" stereotype we have among those who are still deciding these things.

I've come to realize that people have hardened their positions as the terms of discussion have become more and more unyielding and dehumanizing. And I'm not speaking of one side or the other, I've noticed a bilateral escalation between those who get all huffy when told they "can't" criticize the President (nobody said they can't, they were asked to do it in a constructive way initially) and those who eventually become so sensitized to the Obama bashing that there becomes a blurring of the line between "constructive" criticism and "you're one of them" if you offer any criticism at all.

I wonder if this is a new phenomenon, I don't recall it being so ridiculous before the internet existed.

**jaxx** · 12-26-2011, 10:17 PM

(12-26-2011 10:12 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:
(12-26-2011 10:04 PM)KonaKane Wrote: No shit. And if you bag on people who have any sort of criticism of Obama vociferously enough, you'll reinforce the "Messiah complex" stereotype we have among those who are still deciding these things.

I've come to realize that people have hardened their positions as the terms of discussion have become more and more unyielding and dehumanizing. And I'm not speaking of one side or the other, I've noticed a bilateral escalation between those who get all huffy when told they "can't" criticize the President (nobody said they can't, they were asked to do it in a constructive way initially) and those who eventually become so sensitized to the Obama bashing that there becomes a blurring of the line between "constructive" criticism and "you're one of them" if you offer any criticism at all.

I wonder if this is a new phenomenon, I don't recall it being so ridiculous before the internet existed.

You could say it's a fairly new phenomenon at DFP.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 10:21 PM

(12-26-2011 10:12 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:
(12-26-2011 10:04 PM)KonaKane Wrote: No shit. And if you bag on people who have any sort of criticism of Obama vociferously enough, you'll reinforce the "Messiah complex" stereotype we have among those who are still deciding these things.

I've come to realize that people have hardened their positions as the terms of discussion have become more and more unyielding and dehumanizing. And I'm not speaking of one side or the other, I've noticed a bilateral escalation between those who get all huffy when told they "can't" criticize the President (nobody said they can't, they were asked to do it in a constructive way initially) and those who eventually become so sensitized to the Obama bashing that there becomes a blurring of the line between "constructive" criticism and "you're one of them" if you offer any criticism at all.

I wonder if this is a new phenomenon, I don't recall it being so ridiculous before the internet existed.

I highly doubt anyone would call Damen names to his face. Or at least I wouldn't. But then I doubt he would say the same thing to Obama's face.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 10:17 PM

(12-26-2011 10:04 PM)KonaKane Wrote: No shit. And if you bag on people who have any sort of criticism of Obama vociferously enough, you'll reinforce the "Messiah complex" stereotype we have among those who are still deciding these things.

Damen's sexist exclamation is not "any sort of criticism". It is exactly the type of poorly argued comment that deserves condemnation. When people call Rachel Maddow an asshat, I'll feel differently.

All criticism is not equal and it shouldn't be treated as such.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 12-26-2011, 10:23 PM

(12-26-2011 10:17 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote:
(12-26-2011 10:04 PM)KonaKane Wrote: No shit. And if you bag on people who have any sort of criticism of Obama vociferously enough, you'll reinforce the "Messiah complex" stereotype we have among those who are still deciding these things.

Damen's sexist exclamation is not "any sort of criticism". It is exactly the type of poorly argued comment that deserves condemnation. When people call Rachel Maddow an asshat, I'll feel differently.

All criticism is not equal and it shouldn't be treated as such.

I agree, but all too often the person is condemned versus the dumb-assholish comments Matt made, for instance. And I have seen Rachel and Krugman and Olbermann and O'Donnel - all good liberals - personally attacked for stating a position that said person disagrees with - you know the "never liked that so-and-so ass hole anyway" type comments. Venting is good, but sometimes it has unintended consequences.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 10:26 PM

(12-26-2011 10:17 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: Damen's sexist exclamation is not "any sort of criticism". It is exactly the type of poorly argued comment that deserves condemnation. When people call Rachel Maddow an asshat, I'll feel differently.

All criticism is not equal and it shouldn't be treated as such.

Excuse me, are you actually referring to "ball-less" as sexist? Are you aware that term has made it into mainstream speak as simply meaning "cowardly", "spineless" or lacking courage? It has even been used by women - toward women.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 10:30 PM

(12-26-2011 10:26 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 10:17 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: Damen's sexist exclamation is not "any sort of criticism". It is exactly the type of poorly argued comment that deserves condemnation. When people call Rachel Maddow an asshat, I'll feel differently.

All criticism is not equal and it shouldn't be treated as such.

Excuse me, are you actually referring to "ball-less" as sexist? Are you aware that term has made it into mainstream speak as simply meaning "cowardly", "spineless" or lacking courage? It has even been used by women - toward women.

Yes I am saying it is sexist. It perpetuates the notion that testicles equal courage or fortitude. It makes me cringe to hear it.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 10:33 PM

(12-26-2011 10:30 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: Yes I am saying it is sexist. It perpetuates the notion that testicles equal courage or fortitude. It makes me cringe to hear it.

If you're put off by "ball-less" then I'm afraid politics sure isn't for you, and I mean that in the most respectful way.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 10:37 PM

(12-26-2011 10:33 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 10:30 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: Yes I am saying it is sexist. It perpetuates the notion that testicles equal courage or fortitude. It makes me cringe to hear it.

If you're put off by "ball-less" then I'm afraid politics sure isn't for you, and I mean that in the most respectful way.

If you don't see why that term is offensive to women, maybe the whole liberal thing isn't for you.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 10:39 PM

(12-26-2011 10:37 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: If you don't see why that term is offensive to women, maybe the whole liberal thing isn't for you.

Since many liberal women also use the term, maybe the whole modern day thing isn't for you.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 10:42 PM

(12-26-2011 10:39 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 10:37 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: If you don't see why that term is offensive to women, maybe the whole liberal thing isn't for you.

Since many liberal women also use the term, maybe the whole modern day thing isn't for you.

Yeah, my cousin and I also call each other beaners and wetbacks. Sometimes it does indeed make a difference who says it and in what context.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 10:31 PM

So in other words, tomorrow you may remember again that Damon is a human being who has done and continues to do good things in the name of many of the Democratic virtues we hold dear?

Uhm....OK.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 10:35 PM

(12-26-2011 10:31 PM)KonaKane Wrote: So in other words, tomorrow you may remember again that Damon is a human being who has done and continues to do good things in the name of many of the Democratic virtues we hold dear?

Uhm....OK.

If you have never said something out of anger, or let anger cloud your words or views, you would be the first person that is true of.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 10:38 PM

(12-26-2011 10:35 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: If you have never said something out of anger, or let anger cloud your words or views, you would be the first person that is true of.

I certainly have. The difference is, I don't insist on cleaving to those remarks out of stubbornness.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 10:41 PM

(12-26-2011 10:38 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 10:35 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: If you have never said something out of anger, or let anger cloud your words or views, you would be the first person that is true of.

I certainly have. The difference is, I don't insist on cleaving to those remarks out of stubbornness.

As I said, if people felt the same way with time and good works, Id be surprised. As he just said them, I'm not shocked people are still angry.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 10:42 PM

(12-26-2011 10:41 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: As I said, if people felt the same way with time and good works, Id be surprised. As he just said them, I'm not shocked people are still angry.

It's interesting, you want to give a wide berth for peoples' anger..... well, for everyone but Matt Damon.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 10:46 PM

(12-26-2011 10:42 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 10:41 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: As I said, if people felt the same way with time and good works, Id be surprised. As he just said them, I'm not shocked people are still angry.

It's interesting, you want to give a wide berth for peoples' anger..... well, for everyone but Matt Damon.

I could say the same about you. Matt Damon has democratic beliefs, so let's give him a pass on his Obama remarks and remember the other stuff. Well everyone here shares democratic beliefs...where's the consideration for their views on Matt Damen?

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 10:50 PM

(12-26-2011 10:46 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: I could say the same about you. Matt Damon has democratic beliefs, so let's give him a pass on his Obama remarks and remember the other stuff. Well everyone here shares democratic beliefs...where's the consideration for their views on Matt Damen?

I never suggested to give Mr. Damon a "pass" on his criticism of Obama. I bridled at the suggestions that he is no longer a human who deserves consideration on planet earth (go back and read the comments) based on that criticism. It was off the charts, in any thinking person's estimation.

It's about common sense and reasonable measure. If Matt Damon and Newt Gingrich said the exact same thing about Obama, who would you give some deference to? And why, if not either one?

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 10:54 PM

(12-26-2011 10:50 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 10:46 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: I could say the same about you. Matt Damon has democratic beliefs, so let's give him a pass on his Obama remarks and remember the other stuff. Well everyone here shares democratic beliefs...where's the consideration for their views on Matt Damen?

I never suggested to give Mr. Damon a "pass" on his criticism of Obama. I bridled at the suggestions that he is no longer a human who deserves consideration on planet earth (go back and read the comments) based on that criticism. It was off the charts, in any thinking person's estimation.

It's about common sense and reasonable measure. If Matt Damon and Newt Gingrich said the exact same thing about Obama, who would you give some deference to? And why, if not either one?

Ahh, now here is a good question.

On the one hand, some would say Newt is worse because he has no redeeming qualities. On the other, some would say Damen is worse because you expect vile shit from Newt but generally expect your side to stick together.

Personally, I believe the former is true, but the anger is greater when directed at Damen because it is a perceived betrayal.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 10:58 PM

(12-26-2011 10:54 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: Ahh, now here is a good question.

On the one hand, some would say Newt is worse because he has no redeeming qualities. On the other, some would say Damen is worse because you expect vile shit from Newt but generally expect your side to stick together.

Stick together as in unthinking lockstep? Isn't that what George W Bush's GOP Congress did for him, much to the (deserved) criticism from us?

Is unthinking lockstep suddenly attractive to you?

Quote:Personally, I believe the former is true, but the anger is greater when directed at Damen because it is a perceived betrayal.

Betrayal! Fascinating, considering all of the time and money he has spent on Democratic causes. What is the betrayal here - Democratic principles, or a cultish personality adoration?

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 11:03 PM

(12-26-2011 10:58 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 10:54 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: Ahh, now here is a good question.

On the one hand, some would say Newt is worse because he has no redeeming qualities. On the other, some would say Damen is worse because you expect vile shit from Newt but generally expect your side to stick together.

Stick together as in unthinking lockstep? Isn't that what George W Bush's GOP Congress did for him, much to the (deserved) criticism from us?

Is unthinking lockstep suddenly attractive to you?

Quote:Personally, I believe the former is true, but the anger is greater when directed at Damen because it is a perceived betrayal.

Betrayal! Fascinating, considering all of the time and money he has spent on Democratic causes. What is the betrayal here - Democratic principles, or a cultish personality adoration?

Complaining about lack of balls isn't a thinking criticism. It is intended to be a quick slap and personal insult. Levying that kind of criticism has little to do with democratic principles. It's about getting headlines. That is the betrayal.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 11:05 PM

(12-26-2011 11:03 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: Complaining about lack of balls isn't a thinking criticism. It is intended to be a quick slap and personal insult. Levying that kind of criticism has little to do with democratic principles. It's about getting headlines. That is the betrayal.

There have been MANY good Democrats who criticized Obama for lack of taking on the GOP when he had the chance. Am I to understand your problem here is simply with the terminology (ball-less)??

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 11:09 PM

(12-26-2011 11:05 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 11:03 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: Complaining about lack of balls isn't a thinking criticism. It is intended to be a quick slap and personal insult. Levying that kind of criticism has little to do with democratic principles. It's about getting headlines. That is the betrayal.

There have been MANY good Democrats who criticized Obama for lack of taking on the GOP when he had the chance. Am I to understand your problem here is simply with the terminology (ball-less)??

We have already estblished my problem is not with his beliefs, but that he dealt with them as obnoxiously as possible.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 11:12 PM

(12-26-2011 11:09 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: We have already estblished my problem is not with his beliefs, but that he dealt with them as obnoxiously as possible.

This is what's coming clear, which means it's worse than I thought. You don't have a huge problem with Damon's views, you don't like the terminology. I'm sorry but that is extremely shallow.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 11:15 PM

(12-26-2011 11:12 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 11:09 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: We have already estblished my problem is not with his beliefs, but that he dealt with them as obnoxiously as possible.

This is what's coming clear, which means it's worse than I thought. You don't have a huge problem with Damon's views, you don't like the terminology. I'm sorry but that is extremely shallow.

Again, you resort to personal attacks.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 11:16 PM

(12-26-2011 11:15 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: Again, you resort to personal attacks.

Nothing personal about it. It's a shallow understanding! That doesn't mean you are, anyone can have a shallow understanding of something without being shallow themselves.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 12-26-2011, 11:19 PM

(12-26-2011 11:16 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 11:15 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: Again, you resort to personal attacks.

Nothing personal about it. It's a shallow understanding! That doesn't mean you are, anyone can have a shallow understanding of something without being shallow themselves.

It's still walking a fine line in context - I'd prefer less loaded/heavy terms.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 11:24 PM

(12-26-2011 11:16 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 11:15 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: Again, you resort to personal attacks.

Nothing personal about it. It's a shallow understanding! That doesn't mean you are, anyone can have a shallow understanding of something without being shallow themselves.

You argue that Matt Damen is a smart, educated man. I agree. This means he understands how the world works, right? Now. He has criticized Obama before and it got a smattering of headlines. Why? Because the criticism was ideas based...he criticized Obamas education policy.

So here comes another interview. What does he do? He makes an extremely inflammatory statement that bolsters RW memes. It makes a much bigger impact. Does anyone care about education policy? Healthcare policy? Any of the points Damen made the last time? No. The only thing it does is act as a RW advertisement on a national platform.

Now why would he do that knowing how our media works? Anger probably. But unlike the anger directed at him here, which has zero consequences, his gets front page on Yahoo.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 11:33 PM

(12-26-2011 11:24 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: You argue that Matt Damen is a smart, educated man. I agree. This means he understands how the world works, right? Now. He has criticized Obama before and it got a smattering of headlines. Why? Because the criticism was ideas based...he criticized Obamas education policy.

So here comes another interview. What does he do? He makes an extremely inflammatory statement that bolsters RW memes. It makes a much bigger impact. Does anyone care about education policy? Healthcare policy? Any of the points Damen made the last time? No. The only thing it does is act as a RW advertisement on a national platform.

Now why would he do that knowing how our media works? Anger probably. But unlike the anger directed at him here, which has zero consequences, his gets front page on Yahoo.

Your suggestion that he is suddenly a RW shill, is taking a vacation from reality. He, like you, is human. He gets angry, he gets frustrated. We all do. We may not always do so at the same times and under the same circumstances, but we do nonetheless. Someone like him, who has done such good for the principles I hold dear, I am willing to cut him some slack even if i don't agree with his assessment of this president...and not consign him to nonexistence ("could fall off the planet") simply because he has nicked the Sacred Cow.

What the media chooses to do with his expressions is not up to him. It's up to the media. Maybe you should take a step back and look at the character of a person, their motivations, and the circumstances of the time before relagating them to non existence or emnity because they didn't say something you agreed with at the moment.

I would bet Mr. Damon MIGHT even do the same for you. Just a guess.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 11:42 PM

(12-26-2011 11:33 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 11:24 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: You argue that Matt Damen is a smart, educated man. I agree. This means he understands how the world works, right? Now. He has criticized Obama before and it got a smattering of headlines. Why? Because the criticism was ideas based...he criticized Obamas education policy.

So here comes another interview. What does he do? He makes an extremely inflammatory statement that bolsters RW memes. It makes a much bigger impact. Does anyone care about education policy? Healthcare policy? Any of the points Damen made the last time? No. The only thing it does is act as a RW advertisement on a national platform.

Now why would he do that knowing how our media works? Anger probably. But unlike the anger directed at him here, which has zero consequences, his gets front page on Yahoo.

Your suggestion that he is suddenly a RW shill, is taking a vacation from reality. He, like you, is human. He gets angry, he gets frustrated. We all do. We may not always do so at the same times and under the same circumstances, but we do nonetheless. Someone like him, who has done such good for the principles I hold dear, I am willing to cut him some slack even if i don't agree with his assessment of this president...and not consign him to nonexistence ("could fall off the planet") simply because he has nicked the Sacred Cow.

What the media chooses to do with his expressions is not up to him. It's up to the media. Maybe you should take a step back and look at the character of a person, their motivations, and the circumstances of the time before relagating them to non existence or emnity because they didn't say something you agreed with at the moment.

I would bet Mr. Damon MIGHT even do the same for you. Just a guess.

I didn't say he was RW, I said the RW would use him.

Part of being an aware individual is understanding the world in which we live. Again, look at the Weiner situation. I don't care what he does with his personal life but I was mad as hell at that affair because I knew (as everyone did) what would happen if he got caught. It doesn't matter that RWers get away with it. We don't have fairness, we have reality.

Likewise, this wasn't Damen getting surprised at the airport, it was a formal interview. And he hasn't walked back the comment.

Finally, regarding my comment...

My point is that Damen's responsibilities and impacts are miniscule compared to the impact a president has.

**jaxx** · 12-26-2011, 10:31 PM

When the wingers trash the President it's ok, and when a supposed Dem does it it's ok too. Very convoluted evaluation there. LOL better teachers!! OMG I can't stop laughing. Is this for real?

The threat of your "logs". Post them. It's not as if anyone can't read everything that has ever been posted here.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 10:36 PM

(12-26-2011 10:31 PM)jaxx Wrote: When the wingers trash the President it's ok, and when a supposed Dem does it it's ok too. Very convoluted evaluation there. LOL better teachers!! OMG I can't stop laughing. Is this for real?

What's for real is that you have no problem dehumanizing people (politics of personal destruction) just like the wingnuts do. You said it yourself, right there in black and white.

What's wrong...buyer's remorse?

Quote:The threat of your "logs". Post them. It's not as if anyone can't read everything that has ever been posted here.

You were correct, all they have to do is go back to the Rocky Anderson thread to see who you trashmouth anyone here who didn't like the way you handled him. One post you said you didn't know a thing about him, three posts later you were attacking him like he was the devil incarnate, and didn't treat those of us who didn't agree with you much better.

How's that?

**jaxx** · 12-26-2011, 10:46 PM

(12-26-2011 10:36 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 10:31 PM)jaxx Wrote: When the wingers trash the President it's ok, and when a supposed Dem does it it's ok too. Very convoluted evaluation there. LOL better teachers!! OMG I can't stop laughing. Is this for real?

What's for real is that you have no problem dehumanizing people (politics of personal destruction) just like the wingnuts do. You said it yourself, right there in black and white.

What's wrong...buyer's remorse?

Quote:The threat of your "logs". Post them. It's not as if anyone can't read everything that has ever been posted here.

You were correct, all they have to do is go back to the Rocky Anderson thread to see who you trashmouth anyone here who didn't like the way you handled him. One post you said you didn't know a thing about him, three posts later you were attacking him like he was the devil incarnate, and didn't treat those of us who didn't agree with you much better.

How's that?

That's great. Third parties will not help the Democratic Party. No buyers remorse from me about the President.

I find it very telling that the speakers who bash PBO are protected. Who are they speaking for?

One more thing, dehumanizing is your word, I quoted it because it's surreal.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 10:55 PM

(12-26-2011 10:46 PM)jaxx Wrote: That's great. Third parties will not help the Democratic Party. No buyers remorse from me about the President.

Actually third "parties" who cross endorse for Democratic principles could do great things for the Democratic Party for that reason.

Quote:I find it very telling that the speakers who bash PBO are protected. Who are they speaking for?

You lost me here....who are you referring to?

Quote:One more thing, dehumanizing is your word, I quoted it because it's surreal.

Is it? "He [Damon] could fall off the planet tomorrow and no one would notice". That was from this thread, go check it out. You don't find that dehumanizing?

How surreal do you want to get?

***There Is No Spoon*** · 12-26-2011, 10:33 PM

Let's keep the punches above the belt Wink

***There Is No Spoon*** · 12-26-2011, 10:41 PM

Time out! I will have to temporarily lock this thread if the discussion continues down the path it's going!

(and I don't want to do that)

**jaxx** · 12-26-2011, 10:48 PM

(12-26-2011 10:41 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote: Time out! I will have to temporarily lock this thread if the discussion continues down the path it's going!

(and I don't want to do that)

It should have been locked a long time ago.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 10:45 PM

So....you can't handle "ball-less", but have no problem with "beaner" or "wetback".

Oy. This place gets more intriguing by the minute.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · (This post was last modified: 12-26-2011 10:48 PM by SemiCharmedQuark.)

(12-26-2011 10:45 PM)KonaKane Wrote: So....you can't handle "ball-less", but have no problem with "beaner" or "wetback".

Oy. This place gets more intriguing by the minute.

Find where I call someone that in a magazine or a formal interview. I keep it between my Mexican self and my Mexican cousin. And if I ever called someone that in an interview I would fully expect to have every liberal kick my ass.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 10:51 PM

(12-26-2011 10:47 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: Find where I call someone that in a magazine or a formal interview. I keep it between my Mexican self and my Mexican cousin. And if I ever called someone that in an interview I would fully expect to have every liberal kick my ass.

Surely you're not equating an ethnicity with a political proclivity, right?

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 10:59 PM

(12-26-2011 10:51 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 10:47 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: Find where I call someone that in a magazine or a formal interview. I keep it between my Mexican self and my Mexican cousin. And if I ever called someone that in an interview I would fully expect to have every liberal kick my ass.

Surely you're not equating an ethnicity with a political proclivity, right?

No, I am saying women using a sexist term between each other is akin to ethnicities using racist terms within their race. It has no power when used between the people said term was designed to denigrate.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 11:01 PM

(12-26-2011 10:59 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: No, I am saying women using a sexist term between each other is akin to ethnicities using racist terms within their race. It has no power when used between the people said term was designed to denigrate.

Sooooo, you're OK with women calling each other ball-less, but not with Damon calling another man ball-less?

This is very confusing.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 11:05 PM

(12-26-2011 11:01 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 10:59 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: No, I am saying women using a sexist term between each other is akin to ethnicities using racist terms within their race. It has no power when used between the people said term was designed to denigrate.

Sooooo, you're OK with women calling each other ball-less, but not with Damon calling another man ball-less?

This is very confusing.

Not really. The term was originated as an insult to suggest men were "womanlike". Therefore, it is a slap at women when used. As a woman using it against a woman clearly cannot be trashing her for being...womanly...no insult exists. If a man uses it against a man, he is using it as originally intended.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 11:11 PM

(12-26-2011 11:05 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: Not really. The term was originated as an insult to suggest men were "womanlike". Therefore, it is a slap at women when used. As a woman using it against a woman clearly cannot be trashing her for being...womanly...no insult exists. If a man uses it against a man, he is using it as originally intended.

Wow, you're making all this up, ignorant of the modern connotation of the term. Women use it on other WOMEN. It's lost it's sex-based original meaning. The modern meaning of the term is that it suggests lack of spine and courage. In a strange turn, another term "she's got 'ov's (ovaries)" has also popped up.

You can't take this stuff so literally. Colloquialisms are anything but that.

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 11:13 PM

(12-26-2011 11:11 PM)KonaKane Wrote:
(12-26-2011 11:05 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: Not really. The term was originated as an insult to suggest men were "womanlike". Therefore, it is a slap at women when used. As a woman using it against a woman clearly cannot be trashing her for being...womanly...no insult exists. If a man uses it against a man, he is using it as originally intended.

Wow, you're making all this up, ignorant of the modern connotation of the term. Women use it on other WOMEN. It's lost it's sex-based original meaning. The modern meaning of the term is that it suggests lack of spine and courage. In a strange turn, another term "she's got 'ov's (ovaries)" has also popped up.

You can't take this stuff so literally. Colloquialisms are anything but that.

We will have to disagree.

**KonaKane** · 12-26-2011, 11:15 PM

(12-26-2011 11:13 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote: We will have to disagree.

Fair enough.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 12-26-2011, 10:51 PM

I can't stand when that Carlos Mencina character says that stuff. nonono

**SemiCharmedQuark** · 12-26-2011, 11:07 PM

(12-26-2011 10:51 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote: I can't stand when that Carlos Mencina character says that stuff.

Mencia is NOT Mexican. He is Honduran and German. His real name is Ned Holness. As someone said, he wears Mexican like Al Jolson wore blackface.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 12-26-2011, 11:12 PM

(12-26-2011 11:07 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote:
(12-26-2011 10:51 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote: I can't stand when that Carlos Mencina character says that stuff.

Mencia is NOT Mexican. He is Honduran and German. His real name is Ned Holness. As someone said, he wears Mexican like Al Jolson wore blackface.

Yep, that just makes it all the worse. I really don't like that guy's act at all! nonono

***NJMaverick*** · 12-27-2011, 07:55 AM

never known hardship or struggle his entire life. It's no small surprise that he is acting like a spoiled child.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 12-27-2011, 09:23 AM

(12-27-2011 07:55 AM)NJMaverick Wrote: never known hardship or struggle his entire life. It's no small surprise that he is acting like a spoiled child.

That's just not true - and how does dropping out of college indicate a spoiled child anyway? Spend a little time reading about his childhood before condemning the man.

***azmouse*** · 12-27-2011, 09:04 AM

Thank you all for the debate and conversation.

I would appreciate it if you do not allow any hard feelings from anything said here to spill over onto other threads.