F-You MyDD, You just lost my F-ing ass!

Who ever the F censored my diary, F-you and the F-ing horse you rode in.

In what F-ing universe, on a Blog that let stand REAMS of blatant racism against the first black president, that lets incredibly stupid SPAM diaries by concern trolls highlight the rec list, has some dumb-ass front pager seen fit to enforce political correctness by editing out a word they found offensive..get with the program, children, this is 2009. B-slapped is an idiom used without any need to check with the policial correctness police;, but it figures on a site that had HUNDREDS of diaries about "Did OBAMA FLIP OFF HILLARY" would some too cool for school chowderhead decide to wash my mouth out with soap, thanks for correcting an obvious male chauvinist pig like me!

Way to focus on keeping it real!!!

On MyDD? Have you stopped and read some of the piles of steaming content free dung that resides on this site?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/9/27/3482 1/2310#commenttop

What, did you read the dairy of the F-ing IDIOT farright democrat over at the palace of racial slime Alegre's Corner and worry your blog was getting a bad name!

Hey, you still have time to write an apology diary to the entire Alegre crew, let them know you are so sorry that one of your bad boy posters offended their delicate sensibilities.

Well that's it, that's the fricking final straw for me.

What a joke.  This of all places choosing THAT to censor.

Maybe if you drive out the rest of the intelligent posters, the folks at Alegre's will forgive you all and come back en masse.

Tags: Goodbye Dumb-ASS World! (all tags)

Comments

53 Comments

Re: F-You MyDD, You just lost my F-ing ass!

Now you went and made me curious.

by Steve M 2009-09-27 08:21AM | 0 recs
What happened?

by louisprandtl 2009-09-27 08:29AM | 0 recs
Original title of his Stabenow-Kyl diary

contained the word "bitchslaps" but was turned to "slaps" by a mod apparently.

by JJE 2009-09-27 09:24AM | 0 recs
What is your problem with being civil?

I agree that foul language has no place on blogs, or anywhere for that matter. Keeping it civil and clean is ultimately a better way to live.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-09-27 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: What is your problem with being civil?

I'm not sure how to read a call for civility for this source...

Doesn't make sense.

by Strummerson 2009-09-27 08:59AM | 0 recs
There you go again.

You're proving my point, once again. The recurring theme here is that while centrists generally critique national topics and figures, radicals on the left attack other diarists---often in personal terms and using vulgar language. There's no place for that in America; and if we can begin cleaning it up here at MyDD, so much the better. It will make for a better and more civil discourse.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-09-27 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: There you go again.

Am I a radical on the left?  Did I employ vulgar language.  I just don't think you have much credibility on this issue based on the way I have seen you respond to other posters.  And there is plenty of vulgarity and incivility from centrists around here as well.  But given that your subject is a quote from Reagan, I question your self-designation as a centrist.  

by Strummerson 2009-09-27 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: There you go again.

Reagan was successful primarily because he WAS a centrist---probably the most pragmatic President in history. The idea that he was a genuine red-meat conservative is pop history, and a myth treasured by his followers on the right.

Lou Cannon's biographies, which cover Reagan's years as Governor as well as his Presidency are excellent. Beyond that, haven't you ever heard the term, "Reagan Democrat"?

by BJJ Fighter 2009-09-27 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: There you go again.

I'm sorry.  But the idea that Reagan represented the main stream is primarily a Republican myth.  His militarism and slashing of social programs endears him to neo-cons to this day.  Thinking ones as well.  Holding Reagan up as a centrist tells me how to read you.  Reagan's political genius resided in getting democratic voters to support him despite his conservatism, not because of it.  And all presidents are pragmatists.  If you think that slashing taxes while increasing military spending and gutting infrastructure commitments and deregulating the markets to the extreme adds up to centrism, we have very different conceptions of the political spectrum.  In mine, you do not occupy anything approaching the center.  

by Strummerson 2009-09-27 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: There you go again.

Slashing taxes when facing one of the worst recessions in history is just sound economic policy, not an ideological statement. And we'll soon see whether tax-cutting or an $800 billion stimulus plan is more effective as fiscal policy. The Japanese tried big spending bills 4 times during their "lost decade", and they're just now recovering.

As to increasing military spending, it didn't look too bad eight years later when the Berlin Wall came crashing down. And Democrats of all stripes have traditionally strived to keep America strong. One of the major themes in 1960 for JFK was his accusation (ultimately proved false) that Ike had allowed a missile gap to occur, in which we were dangerously behind the Soviet Union.

Bill Clinton's greatest successes came when he embraced "the sensible center": welfare reform, cutting capital gains taxes, and passing NAFTA. With the GOP increasingly under the control of right wing loons, my hope is that the Democratic Party won't miss the opportunity to re-claim the center, which is where most voters are.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-09-27 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: There you go again.

The matter of cutting taxes to stimulate the economy is not some uncontested point.  Not all economists agree on this.  There is indeed a consensus among conservatives on this issue.  Conservatives always suggest that their position is in the center.  Polls frequently call this into question.  But cutting taxes while increasing spending and then accusing your opponents of creating deficits is base partisan hypocrisy.

I'm not going to debate you point by point on Reagan's legacy.  I consider his policies to the right of the center.  I think your arguments and the biographies you cite are apologetics.

You are pretty far from home.  I welcome debates with conservatives.  However, I prefer to engage honest conservatives.

by Strummerson 2009-09-27 10:42AM | 0 recs
Traditional Democrats will be heard

Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Mark Warner and others are good centrists who aren't buying everything that the administration is putting out. Bayh was on "Hannity" a few weeks ago, and said flat out that the current path (budget deficit) is unsustainable. I don't think that makes him or the other Senate centrists either disloyal or "conservative". And Mary Landrieu was recently on "The Kudlow Report", bemoaning an energy policy that's based on "the sharing of scarcity". She doesn't buy into the notion that we should all paint our roofs white.

As to the Reagan record and biographies about his Presidency, I wouldn't consider Lou Cannon, who had a long and prestigious career at the Washington Post, to be an apologist. I'd also recommend Richard Reeves--whose PBS films have won Peabody and Emmy awards--who wrote "President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination".

by BJJ Fighter 2009-09-27 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Traditional Democrats will be heard

Stop the bait and switch.  You started with an accusation against me and an enshrining of yourself and those you claim to belong to as somehow bastions of civility.  I don't think that is the general tone you have struck on this site.  Then you pivot to Reagan and now to Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Mark Warner.  I'm not arguing about them and I am not calling to purge centrists from the party.  I just don't think you are a centrist.  As for Bayh going on Hannity, any democratic representative who goes on his show and doesn't call him out for his lies and his slanders and his incitement loses credibility with me.  As do those who use Reagan to mark what they think the "center" is or should be.  We have a fundamental disagreement about that.  Thank you for discussing this in an uncharacteristically civil manner, despite your obfuscations.  

Perhaps you should compose a diary recommending that the democratic party adopt Reagan as a model of the political center.  Quote Cannon all you like and Hannity if you choose.  It should be an interesting discussion.  I pledge my civil participation.

by Strummerson 2009-09-27 02:02PM | 0 recs
Those right-wing loons

Advocate all the positions you do and also worship St. Reagans.  You should be friends.

by JJE 2009-09-27 03:08PM | 0 recs
Ignorance is an ugly thing

the increase in military spending had nothing to do with the fall of the Berlin Wall. To say that completely ignores and insults what was going on in Eastern Europe for most of the 1980's.

and those "sensible center" policies you speak of, NAFTA, welfore reform, capital gains cuts, have been disastrous for the country.

Centrist for the sake of being centrist isn't always good for the country. My hope is that the Democratic Party reclaims the center (btw they already have) when centrism is GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY.

by DTOzone 2009-09-27 03:37PM | 0 recs
A Closed Mind is also an ugly thing

Welfare reform cut the poverty rolls by one half, and child poverty by a third. Maybe it doesn't fit with your idea of what a Democratic President should be promoting, but the results of Clinton's actions are a good thing for the country.

The expansion of the economy during the 90's didn't happen by accident. If you don't think it was a result of Clinton's economic policies, then you must believe it was Reagan's. Together, they governed for 16 of the 20 years between 1980 and 2000.

Facts are stubborn things.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-09-27 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: A Closed Mind is also an ugly thing

get your facts straight.  Welfare reform didn't cut the poverty rolls, it just cut the welfare rolls.  Most families in poverty were worse off after the 96 reform (see any number of papers in the American Sociological Review starting in 2000).  And, a decade later, we have more poverty than we had prior to 1980.

coming with the expansion of the economy in the 90s was a rapid increase in inequality.  Both Reagan's and Clinton's economic policies played a role, and neither were good.  And certainly, neither were centrist.  Reagan's were far right, and Clinton only barely pulled policy back to the left. Neither have been good for the long-run of the country.

by slynch 2009-09-27 07:22PM | 0 recs
Maybe YOU need to work on facts

You say that neither Reagan's nor Clinton's economic policies were good.

Which do you dislike more: the 18 million jobs created under Reagan, or the 22 million jobs created under Bill Clinton? Inquiring minds want to know.

Given that we've now lost 2.1 million jobs since January, you're probably going to tell me in the next breath that the current economic policies are just great.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-09-27 08:11PM | 0 recs
Actual they are

how many jobs were created nine months into Reagan's term.

oh right, none. The economy lost 2.7 million jobs in the first two years of Reagan's Presidency.

Facts are stubborn things.

by DTOzone 2009-09-27 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Actual they are

Yeah, when you inherit 21% interest rates and 14% inflation, not to mention 7% unemployment, it takes a couple of years to get some traction. And try expanding the economy when the Fed (correctly, imo) is implementing a tight monetary policy to combat inflation. Pretty tough to execute, Einstein....but Reagan did it.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-09-28 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Actual they are

Yeah "Einstein". That "tight" monetary policy with which you mention was institued by Paul Volker, the fed chief nominated by Jimmy Carter. Must have been doing something right, as reagan re-nominated him in 83', in addition to his implementation of the LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY in that same year.

by onlinesavant 2009-09-28 07:24PM | 0 recs
Oh I see

2.7 million jobs lost in the first two years of a presidency, it's the previous guy's fault.

2.6 million jobs lost in the first nine months of a presidency, it's the current guy's fault.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Maybe if you stop jerking off to Ronald Reagan's ghost, you'd notice the stupid things you say.

by DTOzone 2009-09-29 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe YOU need to work on facts

Show me anectodal evidence of reagan's "18 million jobs". This is a lie.According to CBO figures, 6 million jobs were created under reagan's 2 terms (Not all that impressive ), and that was after his massive tax INCREASE (He instituted the largest tax INCREASE in history. Which actually was not a bad thing.).

by onlinesavant 2009-09-27 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe YOU need to work on facts

I was wrong. After a further examination of statistics, under reagan's 2 terms 16 million jobs were created. However, in Carter's one term 10.5 million jobs were created. Additionally the percentage of job growth is higher for EVERY Democratic administration, than that for EVERY regressive administration since Roosevelt. As a matter of fact, Nixon's (Being the highest % of job growth for all regressives.)is STILL higher than the sainted reagan, even though Nixon's job growth % percentage for his entire adm. is lower than any Democratic president also. Just wanted to be correct on the facts.

by onlinesavant 2009-09-28 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe YOU need to work on facts

job creation, frankly, is a bogus metric.  First, the population increases continuously, so a reference to jobs created without a denominator to scale it is meaningless.  

Second, the quality of the jobs created also matters.  Reaganomics ushered in the wholesale destruction of our manufacturing sector.  Most "new" jobs that have been created since have been lower paying, service sector jobs (and with fewer benefits).  A better economic metric is to see how real median wages have done.  Under Reagan, they fell.  Under Clinton, they were stagnant.  So, it doesn't matter what the job figure is.  Of course, you're apparently wrong on that as well, as others have pointed out.

by slynch 2009-09-27 09:52PM | 0 recs
Cut the poverty rate n half?!?!

is that way we have more poverty now than before Reagan or Clinton?

Facts are stubborn things, too bad you don't seem to like them.

by DTOzone 2009-09-27 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: There you go again.

Cutting portions of the tax rate/code during recession(s) is sound economic policy if you're going toward a long-term economic equilibrium point.

Slashing taxes while increasing spending IS an ideological exercise that has indeed shown again and again to fail to produce any substantive gains or long-term economic prosperity.

The Berlin Wall falling (fall of communism) and increasing of military spending during the Regean administration WERE NOT events correlated directly to each other.

As far as "embracing" the "sensible center"...take a look at each piece of legislation you mentioned.  And then learn what Clinton had to give up in order to get 2 of those 3 things.

by TxDem08 2009-09-29 11:34AM | 0 recs
Reagan is a "Centrist"?

In which World, which Century?

by louisprandtl 2009-09-27 10:48AM | 0 recs
Maybe these reads would help

A recent book by Will Bunch

Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future

http://www.amazon.com/Tear-Down-This-Myt h-Distorted/dp/141659762X

A column by Paul Krugman..

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinio n/21krugman.html

by louisprandtl 2009-09-27 10:53AM | 0 recs
Reagan, a CENTRIST?!?!?

I have never heard anyone, Republican or Democrat, refer to Ronald Reagan as a centrist.

by DTOzone 2009-09-27 03:05PM | 0 recs
Apparently you've never heard

A right-winger whose primary leisure activity is concern trolling a progressive site.

by JJE 2009-09-27 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: There you go again.

If you ask Republicans they'll tell you that cursing is "plain talking."  So right and left like to swear.  Are all centrists prudes?

by Drummond 2009-09-28 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: F-You MyDD, You just lost my F-ing ass!

Well, the blog will suffer terribly from your loss.  I am sorry to see you go.  

by Strummerson 2009-09-27 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: F-You MyDD, You just lost my F-ing ass!

Yes.  Because the internet definitely needs more inarticulate posters whose only recourse is anger and profanity.

by FilbertSF 2009-09-27 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: F-You MyDD, You just lost my F-ing ass!

Are you suggesting that is what I am calling for?  I do not see how.  

by Strummerson 2009-09-27 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: F-You MyDD, You just lost my F-ing ass!

Amen, friend.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-09-27 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: F-You MyDD, You just lost my F-ing ass!

Two words: Anger Management

by FilbertSF 2009-09-27 09:28AM | 0 recs
Wash, no need to say GBCW,,,or GBDAW

as you put it. Please come back and post here or at MotleyMoose.

by louisprandtl 2009-09-27 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: F-You MyDD, You just lost my F-ing ass!

by louisprandtl 2009-09-27 10:55AM | 0 recs
did you...

email them. perhaps it was done in regret?

by canadian gal 2009-09-27 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: F-You MyDD, You just lost my F-ing ass!

I think I understand where you are coming from. However, at the end of the day, you can not change other people's behavior. The best you can do is to ask them to stop and to keep posting what you believe in.

by bruh3 2009-09-27 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: F-You MyDD, You just lost my F-ing ass!

by the way- if you stop posting what you believe in, then they win by having accomplished their true goal of shutting down those who they don't like.

by bruh3 2009-09-27 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: F-You MyDD, You just lost my F-ing ass!

I don't know who would have edited your title. Sorry to hear about this.

Anyone is always welcomed to contact me directly by email about any issue. The only diaries which I touch are those by Chinese spammers marketing products or services. Those are deleted as soon as I see them.

Charles Lemos

by Charles Lemos 2009-09-27 03:25PM | 0 recs
This is hardly a reason to start freaking out

Someone---presumably the site's moderators---felt that the language in your title was inappropriate. And so they changed it; that occasionally happnens on blogs; whatever. But it's no reason to go off and start freaking out....to pick up your marbles and go home.

But I'm not surprised at your reaction. It's analagous to screaming at someone because they take issue with certain Obama policies, or because they prefer centrist positions to those on the left. I find that many liberals don't tolerate dissent and/or differences of opinion all that well.

Don't sweat the small stuff.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-09-27 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: This is hardly a reason to start freaking out

I think you overreact to disagreements.  Most exchanges I've seen with you have had you stating a thesis, someone challenging the thesis, and you getting upset.

Disagreement isn't a sign that someone isn't tolerating a different view point.  However, oversensitivity to being challenged may be.

by Jess81 2009-09-28 01:01AM | 0 recs
Not really....just follow the thread

I can honestly say that I've never been "upset" by anything written/said on MyDD, trust me. But what I do object to is people taking things to a personal level; e.g., I may criticize a public figure, and then someone attacks me---or any other blogger personally.

Just last week, I was fairly critical of John Edwards--whom most would agree at this point is a fairly loathsome character. One really strange comment came back immediately: "your ugliness will ultimately consume you". Wow....kind of harsh, don't ya think? I mean, all we're doing in such a case is letting off steam about some creepy politician...whatever. Another example is that people occasionally ridicule something as trivial as my screen name. I mean, who cares?

Most centrists tend to be policy wonks,and don't care to get personal; life's too short. On the other hand, we don't believe in unilateral disarmament, either, when someone starts throwing mud.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-09-28 07:00PM | 0 recs
I didn't edit your title

I frankly didn't care for the title, though, and I find it a little strange that you would be so committed to using the word "bitchslap" in a title that you would quit posting here because of that edit.

I hope that you will come back.

by desmoinesdem 2009-09-27 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: F-You MyDD, You just lost my F-ing ass!

WSB, I wish you wouldn't leave.

Did you ever find out who DID edit it?

by Jess81 2009-09-28 01:01AM | 0 recs
Re: F-You MyDD, You just lost my F-ing ass!

I've always enjoyed your contributions; hope you'll return.

by dvk 2009-09-28 04:34AM | 0 recs
How would you feel about a diary title

that referred to Obama's SOTU speech as "shucking and jiving"? Women don't want to hear men tossing around the word "bitch" anymore than African Americans want to listen white people complain about niggers.

This is how Obama failed Democrats horribly. He engaged in misogynist rhetoric himself and tolerated it deployed on his behalf during the campaign. So people who have never thought about sexist rhetoric now believe genuinely appalling rhetoric is acceptable.

By your standards, the fact that the N word is commonly used, should make it acceptable for use in a diary title. This is, after all, the 21st century. Half the rap songs recorded use the word.

Intelligent people understand why the word "bitch" is an appropriate. And further, I have never read anything that anyone could classify as racist over at Alegre's Corner. The posters there may not find Obama impressive, but one does not have to be a racist to find him pusillanimous, uninspiring and entirely too conservative for the times.

If you don't use the N word, then don't use the B word. They are identical in terms of their legitimacy.

by glitterannebegay 2009-09-28 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: How would you feel about a diary title

That should say, "intelligent people understand why "bitch is an inappropriate word".

by glitterannebegay 2009-09-28 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: And the Number One Sign

your blog has jumped the shark?

by QTG 2009-09-29 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: F-You MyDD, You just lost my F-ing ass!

I didn't edit your diary title, but I can respect the reason someone would have chosen to do so.  While some of us might not be offended by it, there are many who would find the use of the word distasteful.

That said, and speaking as someone who enjoys reading your diaries and even including them in the rescue from time to time, I'd argue you have too much to contribute to let the loss of one word serve as reason to extract yourself from the discussion.  I hope you reconsider.

by Jason Williams 2009-09-30 08:22AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads