[Thursday night’s] Message? (by Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft)
Um, so the message [Thursday night] is that Democrats like to go to concerts? And the "Yes, We Can" song? With Obama speaking cuts in the middle and big pictures of Obama? Not a good idea. In my opinion of course. I'm not following what this is supposed to be achieving tonight.
Good News and Bad News (by Susie at Suburban Guerrilla)
Pat Buchanan calls Obama’s speech the finest he’s ever heard. The bad news is, he liked it because “it isn’t a liberal speech.
Surface and Depth (by Anglachel)
Bill [Clinton] knows that trying to tie McCain to Bush won't work. Gore and Kerry both lost running campaigns about being better than the other guy, because the other guy can and will (with the full complicity of the MSM, as the Incomparable Bob Somerby reminds us) trample our goodness into the ground. What the Big Dog did, what Hillary did, was tie both McCain and Bush to the fucked up political philosophy of the Right. They made the argument about more than a single administration - it is against the Republicans as such, from Reagan forward…
Listening to the current Democratic leadership, reading the triumphalism on the fauxgressive blogs, and particularly hearing the drumbeat for "bipartisanship", I want to shake these fools out of their inability to recognize what has happened to the country over the last quarter century (actually longer, since Nixon forward)… They have eagerly taken on the superficial trappings of the Right - pandering to religious kooks, backing down on civil rights, abandoning even the pretense of social and economic equity, flatly saying they will not entertain an ambitious health care reform plan - and have no sense of the depth of change they could accomplish if they would trust to their own party's philosophy.
Click here for more political and media news headlines.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
- Caro's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
No Quarter material deleted
Bad for the post's credibility; bad for the blog's brand.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I don't understand you, Lam-BEAR.
You say you want discussion, and then you limit discussion.
No games
Can't have NQ's truthiness here; I won't support it. If you follow comments on the blog at all, you know that discussion.
You're not making a distinction between content and sourcing. Limiting content would limit discussion*; limiting sourcing does not (unless the source has unique and uniquely valuable content, obviously not the case at NQ).
NOTE * Modulo Jeralyn's notion of "chatter." Truthiness chatter gets "limited" too, for the same reason: Bad for the blog, bad for the brand.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Yes, and I have a beef with Jeralyn, too.
She says she wants discussion on how to hold Obama and the Democrats accountable, but then she says no one can talk about not voting for Obama! Our votes, our volunteer time, and our donations are the only leverage we have. If we give them up before the discussion even starts, there's no discussion to be had.
And as to the objection to posting a cartoon from a site you don't like, PB2.0 is going to be a mighty desolate place.
Caro, could you please link to...
The Jeralyn post in question?
Thanks.
Here's Jeralyn ...
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/8/28/...
And here's Armando.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/8/28/...
DU wouldn't let me post valid polls that showed Obama was losing ground.
This is starting to feel just like the doors closing at Daily Kos, MyDD, and others.
In short, is there any hope at all for the blogsphere?
All we're asking for is...
The barest modicum of good taste (a drawing of a candidate masturbating on the toilet fell on the bad side of that in our highly restrictive opinions)
Avoiding truthy sources and poorly sourced memes, regardless of the site from which they come.
I don't think that's too much to ask.
But if YOU believe a site is truthy ...
... and I don't, how am I supposed to know that? Can I never post anything from the National Review, even if it's spot on? Or the American Thinker? Or Time Magazine?
How far does it go?
What are the boundaries?
Who gets to decide?
Why can't I post what I see that makes sense, and take my lumps in the comments?
I guess we'll just have to find out, eh?
Come on. Aware readers know the differences. And if you pay attention to this site in detail, you'll see who gets linked to, who gets quoted, who doesn't, and why.
Who gets to decide? The site owner(s)*. Who gets to decide who posts on your site? Me?
NOTE * Dunno if there's a PB 2.0 issue here. Maybe so.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I’m going to side with
I'm going to side with Caro on this one. You have linked to "the post that almost got Corrente sued" more than once in the past few days. That post came out of people here linking to and recommending a post from another blog that I'm guessing you would now classify as truthy or at least not very good.
Anyway, it resulted in what I thought was a brilliant post refuting those recommendations and the post they were based on. Would we have had that post if the subject it was based on had been banned in the first place?
As you're always saying, in my interpretation, it's up to the members of the blog to impose standards by engaging one another. I know you've posted to others here that if they don't like what's being said here, post, take the other people on. Do your own posts and then defend them if need be. Unless the link was on the level of a cartoon of Obama jerking off, why not let the community way in?
It's a thread cleanup
Diamond is an isolated oddball, at least so far as I can tell from here. No impact. NQ, so far as I can tell, is at least partly in the zombie meme business, and that hasn't been cleaned up -- and the lack of that has caused concern from some Fellows. That's high impact. So I'm dealing with it.
Wouldn't you be better occupied taking on the hate?
UPDATE Now, another option would be to do the equivalent of bringiton's Diamond takedown for NQ.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
ok, here's a lumpy comment re: no quarter
and the kurtz invite / un-invite / re-invite brouhaha [and i saw it in more places than just this one] read what commenter kevin t keith has to say on this post:
and i know anecdotes aren't considered valuable, but what ktk says pretty much parallels what i've run into with special collections at university libraries.
so, nq still appears to be posting truthy, not-very-well-fact-checked stuff.
Caro, thanks for the TL links n/t
.
Please do not distort what I wrote
It's right there in the thread for all to see. This is not a replay of the cartoon of Obama masturbating that we had to remove; this is a separate issue.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
The cartoon I posted ...
... had no truthiness in it.
When the few are allowed to join PB2.0, will all have to abide by the rules restricting the use of any material at all from certain websites?
Will their be an Index listing such sites, so as the members might be spared the frustration of suddenly being kicked out of the group with no explanation, no ability to protest or even discuss?
Please stop distorting what I said.
The distinction between content and sourcing is quite clear.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"two speeches crushed somewhat jarringly together."
-- http://www.politico.com/news/stories/080...
& stop using "truthiness" as your all-purpose insult, lambert--it's beyond tired--and also inaccurate.
Oh for pity's sake
If you can't deal with a thread cleanup, you're perfectly free to go elsewhere.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi