Calling Out All PUMAs and Their Sympathizers

I'm not as interested in Obama the politician, as I am interested in the movement that is forming around him. He's a politician who has astutely tapped into a tremendous amount of political discontent. He's done a lot of things that I'm not happy about. But, I see his candidacy as just another stepping stone towards a resurgent 50 state Democratic Party. That renaissance is bigger than any one candidate.

The people who are bitter about Hillary's loss and talk about "Obamabots"....these people who are still withholding their support from a national Democratic movement, well they're just shortsighted idiots who can't see beyond the candidates they love or hate. Anybody who claims that they are supporting Hillary, by resisting "the Obamabots": they're simply projecting their own enmeshment in a cult of personality.

This election and what it means for the Democratic Party, what it means for the American people and the world at large, is much more important than any single candidate or their proposed policies. If you can't see that, then I don't see any point in "reaching out to you".

I don't care about "being nice" to you.

I'm not here to court you.

I'm not here to woo you.

I shouldn't have to do any of that. You're supposed to be an adult. You're supposed to be someone who is capable of putting more important considerations ahead of your own feelings.

If you can't, or if you won't, put the welfare of the nation ahead of your hurt feelings, then you deserve nothing more than my scorn and derision. Dressing up your pettiness in "sincere doubts" about Obama is nothing more than self-serving bullshit. If you've ever wondered how people could delude themselves into believing that George W Bush is a good President, then you need look no further than your own "justifications" for helping McCain win. No matter how bad Obama might be, McCain will be worse. If the decades long history of Republican misgovernance hasn't taught you that, then you're no better than a Bush supporter.

I don't care if you don't love Obama. I don't care if you don't like Obama. Hell, right now, I'm not too crazy about him myself. But if you aren't dedicated to putting an end to Republican misgovernance, then fuck off and don't let the door hit you in the ass.

Tags: Barack Obama, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, PUMA, PUMAS (all tags)

Comments

199 Comments

I'm sick of the whining and the bullshit.

There will be plenty of time to rip on Obama after November 4th. Doing it now only helps McCain.

by xynz 2008-07-02 04:07AM | 0 recs
I'm not whining. I'm just organizing...

against Obama.  And that's no bullshit.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-07-02 04:55AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not whining. I'm just organizing...

Ah, so you're taking an active stand against women's rights, against the working class, and for the war.

Make no mistake, that's what organizing against Obama is.  By organizing against Obama, you are saying to the world that you are willing to stand up and be counted as being in favor of overturning Roe v Wade, in favor of perpetual war, and in favor of the Bush economy.

I remember when you supported Hillary Clinton... what happened to that?  What caused you to betray everything she stands for?

by mistersite 2008-07-02 05:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not whining. I'm just organizing...

yeah coyote that sounds like you are whiny brat to me

by wellinformed 2008-07-02 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not whining. I'm just organizing...

Oh look, it's CoyoteCreek, or Shainzona.  Where are your other sockpuppets today?

by fogiv 2008-07-02 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not whining. I'm just organizing...

Haha the Queen Mother Alegre graced us with her presence to mojo the PUMA.  I remember when the movement used to all be about Hillary Clinton (Hillary's Voice, Hillary's Bloggers, etc).  Now it's all about Alegre and her dusty corner.

While you're here, alegre, may I suggest a new title?  I think the name "Alegre's Unreachables" is cute.  It still makes the main focus on you (which is your main objective anyway), while also making the point known that the people on your site are completely unwilling to come to the table and discuss things like rational adults.  It's genius, actually.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-07-02 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not whining. I'm just organizing...

Alegre's new blog is hilarious - she's slaving away producing three diaries a day that get an average 4 comments.  

by interestedbystander 2008-07-02 11:57AM | 0 recs
most of them are her own comments...
I usually read it for the entertainment factor, but this entry I just read made me feel a little ill:
http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDi ary.do?diaryId=134
by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-02 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: most of them are her own comments...

Did that really surprise you, though?  The driving force behind that movement is one big collective victim complex, so of course they're going to imagine themselves being attacked by vicious hordes.  Obama supporters are mindless zealots who will literally kill people like them because they are the only rational thinkers left, or so it goes.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-07-02 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: most of them are her own comments...

I gave them too much credit.  I didn't think our own ex members would stoop so low.  It's awful, insensitive and worse: without purpose.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-02 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: most of them are her own comments...

My boyfriend (who happens to be jewish, and was appalled) made a comment in the post.  I asked him to leave them alone because he was only supporting their paranoiac worldview. He did it regardless so I'll post it here because it was a good, measured response and it will only get deleted there anyway.

Your delusions of grandeur are getting the better of you. (0.00 / 0)
This I promise, as a Democrat:  No matter who is elected in the fall (even McCain), you aren't going to be rounded up and persecuted.  The amount of hubris that goes into such a fantasy is astonishing.  Trust me: you're not that politically important to anybody.
It makes me sad for you that in two years, wherever we may be as a country, you'll be just fine and look back on this ill-informed rant as extremely embarrassing and self-centered.

To compare yourself to murdered Jews? Lynched by a black man?  This really is tasteless.

I say this before I am deleted for not buying in to the mindset which makes your diary seem acceptable:  Good luck to you, and I'm very, very sorry if my comment has contributed to your paranoia.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-02 01:05PM | 0 recs
I'm sick of YOUR whining and bullshit

TR'd for slandering fellow progressive Democrats.

by Xov Wonk 2008-07-02 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm sick of YOUR whining and bullshit

!starcomeD evissrgorP ton era s'AMUP
by fogiv 2008-07-02 09:22AM | 0 recs
TR'd for TR abuse

Teppup kcos.

by Poor Yorick 2008-07-02 10:11AM | 0 recs
one long question...

So my question to you and your friends who don't want to participate in this community but still find in their hearts to inundate us with their concern...Why bother?  

You've gotten your own site where there is absolutely no dissent allowed.  You can frolic there all day, wallowing in your fractured make-believe world without fear of that ever-intrusive reality.  You can dig around for days on end looking for that one article out 1,000's that mentions your movement or substantiates your worldview.

Is it that your island of unilateralism isn't all you hoped it would be, so now you have to troll other people's sites?

Oh, and it's really odd that Alegre took all that time to step down from her pedastle to give you a 0 KnowVox.  What's up with that?

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-02 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: one long question...

But if you aren't dedicated to putting an end to Republican misgovernance, then fuck off and don't let the door hit you in the ass.

As this is a progressive blog, I think you should think about who you're ordering to leave it.  

by William Cooper 2008-07-02 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: one long question...

careful with your respond button there.  But I can see that as a PUMA troll or a sock puppet your relatively new here.  No worries, you'll get the hang of it ;)

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-02 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: one long question...

If you aren't dedicated to upholding progressive ideals, then f*ck off and don't let the door hit you in the a$$.

by William Cooper 2008-07-03 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: one long question...

then start your own and then purge as many people from it as bother to deal with you. You really need to work on your social skills someday or you will be alone the rest of your life...

by zerosumgame 2008-07-02 03:47PM | 0 recs
Don't worry about giving me etiquette lessons...

If your incapable of actually responding, maybe you just shouldn't bother.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-02 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't worry about giving me etiquette lessons.

you get what you give, think about it

by zerosumgame 2008-07-02 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't worry about giving me etiquette lessons.

your HR abuse has been reported

by zerosumgame 2008-07-02 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't worry about giving me etiquette lessons.

Maybe if you could phrase things without the use of insults, you wouldn't have to make so many appeals to the admins.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-02 09:25PM | 0 recs
surrender or die? screw you!!

Baloney!!

How many times do we have to go through this before this nonsense stops? But then again since ths is infested with bots, I guess the nonsense will never stop. It doesnt matter. No one cares what you think and you dont care what I think. Its better that way than your "surrender or die" garbage. you are in no position to tell anyone what to do, just as Im in no position to tell you what to do with your vote in the GE

For most people who have doubts about Obama the last thing it has to with is the clintons or the primaries in fact. What it has to do with is this:

1) what leadership has obama shown in his stay at IL or US senate so far? (dont quote nonsense like co-sponsoring myriad legislation in the US senate or getting tons of favors from Emil jones just so obama could run for the US senate, after jones became the majority leader in IL senate)

he could have shown leadership and conviction through his commitment to progressive principles even at political risk in the past week by not switching his positions on NAFTA, campaign finance or FISA or other issues. Did he do that?

McCain has risked his political neck with his party and the party leadership at least in a few instances in his political career and shown his gumption and demonstrating leadership.

What we need in a president, is a leader, not somebody who lists policy position pablum on his website without any commitment to most of them and acting like a chameleon who changes his position based on the audience he is courting today. I will take a politician who displays leadership, commitment to principles once a while at least than one who has never shown any guts to stand up for something

2) Since he hasnt shown much leadership and no record of any worthwhile achievements anywhere including legislative achievements, has Obama at least advocated for some major cause (progressive or otherwise) like UHC, workers rights, civil liberties, poverty, income inequality or anything at all throughout his public life, even if he wasnt very successful in achieving the end goals? Just like edwards or Hillary or nader or kennedy or feingold or anyone else? Pls show us what he has done that makes him a leader that we can hand over this country to?

3) On the dem policy position blackmail, dont bother with this one. Because as I said earlier, the progressive policy position papers on his website dont indicate that he believes in them, as clearly shown by his own flip flop on many of them in the last week alone. The policies are not worth the papers they are written on, unless the candidate has consistenly shown that he has hte cajones to stand up for them no matter what political cost and no matter what office he is running for. Look at his new found faith in faith based initiatives, after the primaries, right before the GE. Had he really believed in this, he could have advocated or explained to progressives how this was alright. We scorched Bush for faith based initiatives for years. Now that obama says its ok just so he can appeal to the fundies, this becomes OK? I guess even the most vile policy positions now become progressive holy grail just because Obama says so. Thats not a movement. Thats a cult. and a dangerous one for real progressives, not the psuedo Obama cultists who call themselves progressives.

Heck I would have a leader who I dont agree with much in terms of policy positions as president and have him in check by having a congress that is progressive, rather than somebody who has shown no leadership and no commitment to anything other than his own electoral fortune and risked nothing for political ambitions. Although the dem congress has been even worse than Obama in flip flops. So good luck on achieving anything progressive with this kind of dem congress, even if Obama wins by 538 to 0.

I dont care if he has done everything that I indicate below to demonstrate he is a leader, but he should have done something to show he is a leader and will fight for at least some principles. He has failed to do that thus far. And thats why many have difficulty handing him over the keys to WH, not just the strawman nonsense you and your fellow bots construct

by pdxarch 2008-07-02 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: surrender or die? screw you!!

bomb bomb bomb

bomb bomb I ran

Thanks to you & yours

by wrb 2008-07-02 02:23PM | 0 recs
mature argument isnt a city in englang you know

I guess McCain pandering to the right is so unusual and so unbelievable, nothing that Obama would do in the primary!! and not to mention obama would do no tough talk when he has to show he passes the commander_in_chief test, like this for example

"Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region"

Have you heard of the term hypocrisy before? try the dictionary.

Thats all you got? OOh McCain the boogeyman is all you have to vote for the man who is a transformational change agent? I guess all that criticism of the republican fearmongering is only reserved for republicans. As soon as bots do it, now it is the new holy grail of progressivism and it is the hope of the century. Come on try arguing a little more maturely instead of this shitty bomb iran scare.

Start giving reasons for me to vote FOR obama not AGAINST McCain. Im already not likely to vote for McCain. I dont need the savior and revolutionary change agent to tell me the reason to vote for him is to NOT let McCain become the president. sorry no sale on that one.

At some point in this campaign one has to hope Obama will give a reason or two as to why he deserves to be trusted with an enormous responsibility like the White house.

by pdxarch 2008-07-02 03:59PM | 0 recs
Emphasized for the reading impaired:

Dressing up your pettiness in "sincere doubts" about Obama is nothing more than self-serving bullshit. If you've ever wondered how people could delude themselves into believing that George W Bush is a good President, then you need look no further than your own "justifications" for helping McCain win. No matter how bad Obama might be, McCain will be worse. IF THE DECADES LONG HISTORY OF REPUBLICAN MISGOVERNANCE HASN'T TAUGHT YOU THAT, THEN YOU'RE NO BETTER THAN A BUSH SUPPORTER.

by xynz 2008-07-03 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Emphasized for the reading impaired:

I guess comprehension isnt your forte! ITs not like you quoted any worthwhile text, but yet another bot bogeyman, blackmail nonsense. Isnt a dem congress in power, unless it changed in the last few days since you wrote your drivel down. So, if obama and the rest of those who enable him claim that we will get a veto proof dem majority, then wont the dems be the governing majority? Well, they can govern if they want to and have the spine to, not withstanding a republican adminstration or impeach the govt and bring about the govt that works

But before we get to any of this, its not a principles be damned, no skills demonstrated, empty suit with a (D) next to his name that can suddenly govern because it is a democratic govt. If you didnt learn anything from the 2006 euphoric election of our very own dem congress then you have learnt nothing.

But then it is clear from your bot quotation, you have learnt nothing worthwhile except the bot manual. dont waste my time with these childish bogeyman garbage

by pdxarch 2008-07-07 11:07AM | 0 recs
Great message!

Surrender or die!

I like it.  Should be very effective.

by psychodrew 2008-07-02 04:23AM | 0 recs
Welcome to the real world Neo

If the PUMA's want to get in our way then they are going to get run over.   You keep making the mistake of thinking these people are acting rationally.  They aren't.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-07-02 04:47AM | 0 recs
Funny - I've never felt more rational

in my life as right now.

You're wrong.  Get over it.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-07-02 04:56AM | 0 recs
Catch 22

If you were to admit how irrational you were being you would stop acting irrationally.  It is sad actually.  I pity you.

by Blue Neponset 2008-07-02 05:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Catch 22

CC rocks

Obushlite will never get my vote.

by William Cooper 2008-07-02 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Catch 22

What have I said that leads you to believe a give a shit who you vote for?  

by Blue Neponset 2008-07-02 02:54PM | 0 recs
Rational how exactly?

What's rational about four more years of Bushism?  By organizing against Obama, that is what you're standing for.  You are saying "four more years of a wrecked economy, four more years of the erosion of women's rights, four more years of war, are things I am for."

If you think that's rational, then you probably shouldn't be hanging around a Democratic site.

by mistersite 2008-07-02 05:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Funny - I've never felt more rational

Funny - I've never felt more rational

I don't find that funny.
I find it quite sad.
Have you sought help?

by Kysen 2008-07-02 12:43PM | 0 recs
Welcome to reality.

Not everybody thinks the way you do.

I don't agree with the PUMAs, but some of my friends in the netroots are PUMAs.  They are not crazy, irrational, or emotional.  They are acting in what they believe is their own best interest.  If all you're going to do is dismiss them, you might as well ignore them.

by psychodrew 2008-07-02 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to reality.

"They are acting in what they believe is their own best interest."

Ok, then I have to ask you this question?

To me, IF these people CLAIM to be progressives and they believe in what Senator Clinton stood for AND are so angry at the party for betraying their principles....

Why vote and CAMPAIGN for McCain?

Why not Nader?  Or Cynthia Mckinney?

At least THEY are espousing a progressive platform?

Voting and WORKING for McCain means one thing and I saw a very Truthful PUMA on Larry King say it:

"This is because of how Hillary was treated and we NEED to punish the Democratic party!"

THAT'S THE TRUTH!

This is Hillary rage, pure and simple.

They want to hurt Obama, hurt the Democratic party, because THEY are hurt.

They want Hillary as VP or the are going to vote for McCain?

They want Obama to lose, so Hillary can win in 2012.

To me, it's solopcism and narrcisim exemplified.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-02 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to reality.

one answer for you would be to look at the reply by Blue Neproset. Perhaps if they saw something other then gloating and poor attitudes they might feel more like a reapproachmnet. McLames folks ARE courting them and just throwing them away is stupid on YOUR part (not BHO's, YOUR's) and possibly self-defeating, depending on how many you and your type try to purge from the party. you may be succesful beyond your wildest dreams, and help select McLame as the next prez...

by zerosumgame 2008-07-02 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to reality.

No.  Fuck that.  Everytime someone reaches out an olive branch, it's smacked back.  Obama can do no right, and neither can his supporters.  And then, when Obama supporters have enough, you say "you're not being as nice as McCain's folks"?  NO.

If Bush "courted" your vote, would you vote for him?  Or would you be smart enough to look at the issues, look at the records, and see that you have a choice between electing 4 more years of Bush or the most progressive president this country has ever had.

I think, for most of these so called PUMAs, the answer it clear.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-07-02 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to reality.

Actually if you watch the action on the Puma sites there are some very professional McCain supporters who swarm whenever anyone questions the group think, even by contemplating voting for a 3rd party. No! they scream, the strongest way to punish the Democrats is to vote for the Hero John McCain!

There is also a well organized effort to "punish" down ticket democrats who supported Obama.

Rupublicans may not have started it, but they are pouring a lot of resources into using it to keep the presidency & and take back congress. And they are doing very skillfully.

This is a high-quality, well organized rat-fuck, this years swiftboat.

by wrb 2008-07-02 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to reality.

Yup, dirty tricks, and the gullible and angry Pumas are bieng lead by the nose.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-02 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to reality.

funny how they are supporting every negative stereotype about hysterical, petty, irrational women being unfit to lead.

Maybe next they cry to get their way.

Not feminism's greatest hour.

by wrb 2008-07-02 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to reality.

That is the saddest part of it all.

by interestedbystander 2008-07-02 11:59AM | 0 recs
Care to cite a specific instance?

by RonK Seattle 2008-07-02 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Care to cite a specific instance?

only took a glance at PUMApac.org to turn up this

Brooklynny:

"There was an article on yahoo news today about Kerry being challenged for the first time in years by Ed O'Reilly and a nice write-up regarding O'Reilly. I think this should be one of our main functions as PUMAs: to actively support, financially and otherwise, challengers to the Democratic traitors who sold us down the river. John Kerry is in the top ten in my book, along with Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd (CT - now implicated in Countrywide mortgage sweetheart deals, etc).

However, I am looking past "party" affiliation and judging future candidates based on their policies, integrity and commitment to democratic principles (small "d"). If some of them are labeled Republicans that no longer is a hindrance to me. Some moderate Republicans may in fact be more in line with my views than extreme conservative Democrats or, for that matter, extreme left-wing Democrats. The bottom line in my decisions is no longer "party." I have learned in this primary that I can no longer expect the D party to be different than the Republican party of the past 2 decades. I want no part of either. I think it's time to reevaluate our prior assumptions in terms of policy, position, etc. The world has changed dramatically in the last decade or so and I feel it's really necessary to take nothing for granted. New creative solutions to our present state of affairs, domestically and internationally, and this can't be done if we just continue with the present simply being an extension of the past Democratic mantra."

Experiment- post something suggesting that you are wavering and might vote for Obama for policy reasons. I've seen the swarm reaction dozens of times

by wrb 2008-07-02 10:20AM | 0 recs
This supports your claim? How's that?

by RonK Seattle 2008-07-02 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: This supports your claim? How's that?

He claimed that some PUMA members want to punish down ticket Democrats who supported Obama.

You asked him to back his claim up.

He provided a quote from a PUMA talking about punishing Democrats who supported Obama.

What's so hard to understand?

by PSUdan 2008-07-02 10:47AM | 0 recs
wrb claimed this:

... there are some very professional McCain supporters who swarm whenever anyone questions the group think, even by contemplating voting for a 3rd party. No! they scream, the strongest way to punish the Democrats is to vote for the Hero John McCain!

And this:

Rupublicans ... are pouring a lot of resources into using it to keep the presidency & and take back congress. And they are doing very skillfully.

"Take back Congess"??? I think I'm going to have  a case of the vapours! And this:

This is a high-quality, well organized rat-fuck, this years swiftboat.

(I don't think the writer is familiar with the conventional meanings of "ratfuck" and "swiftboat", either.)

Of course, some PUMAs will take reprisals on down-ticket Dems. Some will take the opposite tack. Some will mix and match. Nothing that would raise eyebrows there, to anyone who understands the nature of the grievance.

by RonK Seattle 2008-07-02 11:03AM | 0 recs
by Angry White Democrat 2008-07-02 11:05AM | 0 recs
OK, I'm a racist ... AND a back-alley abortionist

... and a Republican mole ... and a warmonger .... and what else? A cheese-eating surrender monkey?

After enough decades, name-calling has a limited effect on progressive activists. You're late to the game.

by RonK Seattle 2008-07-02 12:00PM | 0 recs
Hycporite much?

Didn't you compare people on this thread as "brown shirts" downthread?

The major drama of the 20th century was the rise and fall of regimes that thought they could eliminate dissent by eliminating the expression of dissent.

Some of their ideological heirs are still here.

Obama would be Hitler then, huh?

Cute.

Oh, and is this your quote?

"Fight" doesn't mean "hide".

Chickenshits.

¡Si, soy PUMA!
by RonK Seattle on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:15:25 PM EST

2 hours earlier you wrote this rant.

Spare me the drama and stop playing victim please.

It's not working and your full of shit pal.

by spacemanspiff 2008-07-02 12:25PM | 0 recs
My reference was to totalitarianism ...

... not brownshirts (but I have referred elsewhere to the brownshirt mentality of Obama fanatics).

BTW, is the comment you cite (and the comments it refers to) still hidden?

by RonK Seattle 2008-07-02 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re:

It's not surprising to see you deny the obvious racism the PUMA movement is top-heavy with. It's sad, but it's not surprising.

Your hate is a sickness that blinds you to the truth.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-07-02 12:31PM | 0 recs
You've made 'racism' into a laughingstock!

That's progress, I suppose, in a post-racial, post-partisan kind of way.

Have you heard the news? Obama's "movement" has already gone post-movement ... while the "defining moment" has been downsized to just a "moment"!

by RonK Seattle 2008-07-02 01:37PM | 0 recs
Racism is never funny

And that includes the racism behind the PUMA movement. Deny it all you like; we can all see that it's there.

The fact that you're okay with it speaks volumes about your character.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-07-02 01:43PM | 0 recs
OK with it? Who's OK with it?

For me, BO08's decision to make a mockery of racism for political advantage was the straw that broke the camel's back. It's what convinced me he's unfit to hold office. ANY office. Ever.

But it's water over the dam now. From Obama's day forward, accusations like yours -- true OR false -- are laughing stock.

by RonK Seattle 2008-07-02 03:52PM | 0 recs
More evasions

You continue to throw out non-sequiturs, trying your best to avoid the subject. It's really getting pathetic.

The topic at hand is the racism at the heart of the PUMA movement. Either address the topic at hand or crawl back under your bridge.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-07-02 03:59PM | 0 recs
Ha Ha!

Check out the irrational PUMA trying to pretend they have a real grievance.  You sound like the spokesman for the People's front of Judea.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-07-02 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: wrb claimed this:

resourses

"Dems4McCain.info is also registered in a RED State, a very funky red state..... Arizona! McCain's home state! Ans what's even more astounding is:

clintondems.com,

hireheels.com,

gopumaparty.com

chicagoagainstobama.com

stop-obama.org

hillaryclintonforum.net- are all as well! They are all registered and launched in ARIZONA."

http://yestodemocracy.org/page/2/

by wrb 2008-07-02 11:10AM | 0 recs
Your source seems unfamiliar with the internet

... but willing to believe almost anything.

by RonK Seattle 2008-07-02 11:54AM | 0 recs
PS - 'at a glance', I don't find this comment ...

... in the past couple days postings.

And if I understand you correctly, you have been trolling the site and impersonating a PUMA supporter?

by RonK Seattle 2008-07-02 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: PS - 'at a glance', I don't find this comment

Reading

I find the workings of insanity, group think, and rovian manipulation fascinating.

I'm trying to spot which cutsie PUMA name is Karl himself.  It is fun.

by wrb 2008-07-02 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: PS - 'at a glance', I don't find this comment

It's difficult for PUMA trolls to understand that we aren't doing the same thing.  They want to believe that to justify their own trolling.

Personally, I like knowing what my enemies are up to.  So long as I know it's not too effective, I'm not bothered.  But I do get upset about the casual associations of Obama (and supporters) to:
the holocaust
ethnic cleansing
Anne Frank
The Gestapo
Nazis and their ovens

They must be pretty unbalanced people if they really believe that's true.  And if they don't then they're merely completely insensitive and callous.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-02 12:12PM | 0 recs
PUMA's work against the party as a whole

At this point I don't really see how they can still be called progressive Democrats and PUMA's at the same time.  PUMA isn't just about not voting for Obama, it's about voting against anyone within the Democratic party who backed Obama initially or even chose to back him later.  

Do you realize how many good, progressive Democrats they would like to banish with their mad, self-aggrandizing scheme?  They are working against the party as a whole not just Obama.

It's an excessive, futile waste of energy that could be put to use for the good of all, rather than the vanity of a few.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-02 11:56AM | 0 recs
oh please

they aren't interested in rapproachment.  They're just trying to avenge a white woman who was dishonored by a black man.  No noose this time around but the motivation is the same.

by JJE 2008-07-02 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: oh please

Oh goody! Racism and sexism all rolled up into one! An equal opportunity offender.

by LakersFan 2008-07-02 11:04AM | 0 recs
Dopey comment

pointing out the PUMA crowd's mob mentality and racial resentment is neither racist nor sexist.

And Kobe still sucks.

by JJE 2008-07-02 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Dopey comment

mojo for basketball wisdom

by wrb 2008-07-02 11:37AM | 0 recs
Kobe = MVP = USA Gold

You'll all be loving Kobe when he wins us the gold medal in Beijing.

And you know I love Laker-Haters! Every word of disdain just proves how good my team is.

by LakersFan 2008-07-02 12:12PM | 0 recs
Not a Laker hater

a Kobe hater.

by JJE 2008-07-02 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a Laker hater

Kobe is a Laker for life. Sounds like you'll be a Lakers-hater for another decade or so.

by LakersFan 2008-07-02 01:43PM | 0 recs
Maybe

Unless he throws another hissy fit and Buss and Kupchak finally tire of his diva antics.

by JJE 2008-07-02 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe

His "hissy fit" was the best thing for my team. It got Kupcheck worried and working hard, and got Buss to cut loose with the $$ . I am very pleased with Kobe's GM prowess. There were actually only one or two days last summer when he said anything negative about the Lakers to the media. But the sportswriters wrote stories about it for over a month. I found it hilarious that they had so little to write about that they kept rehashing the same story for so long.

by LakersFan 2008-07-02 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Dopey comment

Pointing out their mentality may not be racist or sexist, but your choice of words certainly was.

by LakersFan 2008-07-02 12:14PM | 0 recs
You'll have to do better

and explain precisely what was racist/sexist.

by JJE 2008-07-02 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: You'll have to do better

Your choice of words.

by LakersFan 2008-07-02 12:34PM | 0 recs
repetition

not persuasive.

by JJE 2008-07-02 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: repetition

How could anyone who lived through the Democratic primaries really believe that your choice of words wasn't sexist and racist?

You can always use the "primary test" (like the "grandma test" for profanity, but this one is for racist and sexist language): If Geraldine Ferraro, Rev. Wright, Bill Clinton, or Michelle Obama said it, would it be considered racist or sexist? If so, then it doesn't pass the test and probably shouldn't be said in public.

by LakersFan 2008-07-02 12:58PM | 0 recs
Dumb

if it's obviously racist and sexist, you should be able to explain why without resorting to bizarre counterfactuals about how it "would be considered" (by whom?) if someone else had said it.  And yet several comments later you still can't explain what exactly it is that offends you.

by JJE 2008-07-02 01:22PM | 0 recs
Name-Caller

You've responded to me with both "Dumb" and "Dopey comment". You're being uncivil and I will troll rate you if you continue this.

And stop pretending to be so dense. You chose inflammatory language for a purpose, and got the response you asked for. Congratulations!

by LakersFan 2008-07-02 01:50PM | 0 recs
Your comments were not good

I wasn't calling you a name.  I was describing your comments.  You may be a genius, but your comments were terrible.

I never said my word choice wasn't inflammatory.  It just wasn't racist or sexist.

Troll-rate away.  I don't really care about troll ratings.

by JJE 2008-07-02 02:41PM | 0 recs
Assinine

Is that a staement about you, or your comment?

If you really think there's a big difference between making racist/sexist comments and intentionally making inflammatory comments based on race and gender, then you have a lot to learn about prejudice and discrimination. Making comments like that only furthers racial/gender stereotypes, which feed into people's prejudices, which then give them an "excuse" for racist/sexist/whatever-ist attitudes and behavior.

It was an assinine statement designed to fan the sexist/racist flames. You could have just admitted that you were being an ass instead of feigning innocence. You may think you're clever, but you're not fooling me.

by LakersFan 2008-07-02 05:24PM | 0 recs
Presumably my comment

though judging by the rest I'm guessing you think I'm asinine personally as well.

So comments about race and gender that are "inflammatory" are bad irrespective of whether they are true, simply because people who are already racist/sexist may use them as a reason to continue to be racist/sexist?  How PC of you.  

I find the notion that prejudiced people need inflammtory blog comments to fuel their prejudices is rather asinine, myself, as is the idea that we should modify our speech so as not to offend people who are already prejudiced.

by JJE 2008-07-02 09:34PM | 0 recs
awesome

a hide rate from the leader of the lynch mob.

by JJE 2008-07-02 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to reality.

Gloating and poor attitudes?

They are seeing what they WANT to see?

Did you REALLY see all that much gloating here?

And, what is with this "you and your type try to purge from the party."

WE are PURGING THEM FROM THE PARTY?

Look, they left voluntarily. Or they set up these demands (Hillary is VP or I vote for McCain) that may or may not be accomplished.

You have seen TONS of folks stating "Hillary SHOULD be put in charge of the Health Care bill" or have a leading role in the Obama admin on this website.

Hell, I don't mind her as VP, but after seeing him perform, Wes Clark is now my first choice.

So, this "We purged them from the party" is again this Victimhood they have wrapped themselves in IMHO.

And, what can we REALLY do to reach out to them?

I feel, if Obama did a week long:

"OH MY GOD, IT WAS SO FRICKING SEXIST, I DIDN'T DESERVE TO WIN" world tour, the Harriets, Texas Darlin's and Alegres of the world would STILL say not enough.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-02 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to reality.

Even if Obama stepped aside and handed Hillary the nomination it wouldn't be enough for them. They would still complain. They are filled with bile and it has soured their whole outlook.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-02 08:46AM | 0 recs
Hate is the center of their whole movement

And hence, their whole movement rots from the core.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-07-02 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome to reality.

You need to take a deep breath, son.

by William Cooper 2008-07-02 01:06PM | 0 recs
PUMAs are slanderous bigots

that are profane and crude in their  in gleeful derision of the Democratic Nominee. Most appear to be repugs who after the primary had no intention EVER for voting for Obama.  The filth that exudes from those sites needs to go to GWB's sewage treatment plant.

by Mae Scott 2008-07-02 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs are slanderous bigots

Speaking of slanderous bigots, check your mirror.  Many longtime Democratic Party activists have aligned in the PUMA for good reasons.  Reasons that have as much to do with the party's primary process and arbitrary enforcement of questionable rules as with Obama.  There are profane and crude people all over the internet, even here.  If one uses a broad bush, even you could be painted with that description.

by Tolstoy 2008-07-02 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs are slanderous bigots

Trollrated. PUMAs do not have good reasons.

by Lance Bryce 2008-07-02 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs are slanderous bigots

TRd for TR abuse.

by William Cooper 2008-07-02 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs are slanderous bigots

how is one to have an impact on our process, on the behavior of our representatives. We have a congress headed by Nancy that refused to consider impeachment, how should we respond. We had only one candidate who pledged to reverse the Bush policies, and get legislation in place to prevent a future president from power grabbing. Hillary was clear about all of her policies and detailed, and she had the largest group of experts and professionals ever amassed backing her candidacy to bring professionalism back to government agencies. Even the military experts supported her, with her clear exit Iraq plan. So, how can we influence our nominee to take over her plans and staffing recommendations, how can we convince him we backed her experience and her clear plans.  She stands on the issues where I stand, a domestic policy that helped all of us reach our dreams, and a foreign policy that takes responsibility for leadership, in nuclear non-proliferation, global warming, ending hunger, helping poor nations develop their economies in a way that is sustainable and helps ordinary people have lives and keeps the leaders from obscene profiteering at the expense of the health and safety of citizens.  

Right now it's still about personalities, Barack thinks he can make a few statements about equal pay for women, as if all we are about is ourselves.  

IF Barack wants to unify the party he can work with Hillary and adopt her measures, we voted for her on issues, not on personality.  And what do we do if he refuses to listen, even though he campaigned on a bottom up style of leadership.  How does one get the attention of party leaders? So far nothing has worked, what do you suggest?  

by anna shane 2008-07-03 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs are slanderous bigots

Uprated. PUMA is a collection of morons, racists, and the mentally ill.

by Lance Bryce 2008-07-02 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs are slanderous bigots

I see why this is trollrated. I left out lifelong Republicans.

by Lance Bryce 2008-07-02 10:44AM | 0 recs
I abhor

slanderous generalisations.  They tell us more about the people making them than they do about the ones who are targeted.  

by izarradar 2008-07-02 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs are slanderous bigots

And the spreaders of filth swarm to troll rate your comment. Hi, Alegre. Is this what you been reduced to - posting on hate sites like no25cents and drive-by troll rating? What a sad outcome for a once proud Hillary supporter.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-02 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs are slanderous bigots

This jealousy of alegre is funny.  She's more of a force in democratic politics than you will ever be.

by William Cooper 2008-07-02 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs are slanderous bigots

Alegre used to be a force in the democratic process. She's decided to marginalize herself. I'm not jealous of her. I do feel kind of sorry for her, though.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-02 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs are slanderous bigots

lol

I feel sorry for you.

by William Cooper 2008-07-02 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: PUMAs are slanderous bigots

You don't think she has marginalized herself? She used to post on dailykos and left there in protest. She came to this site, which has a much smaller audience and then left here to go to sites with a fringe audience. That's a steady pattern of marginalizing herself. It's been her choice. She could have stayed on dailykos or here. All she had to do was moderate her tone a little and not let everything be colored by hate. She was unwilling to do that. I'm willing to bet that she would be welcomed with open arms on this site and even on kos, if she were to come back and start posting without letting anger distort all of her posts. Perhaps she will someday. We'll have to wait and see.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-03 08:03AM | 0 recs
Get used to it.

Anyone who tries to tear down the leader of my party is my enemy, and that includes bloviating fat-asses on the radio, history-challenged shrill talk show hosts, 527 smear artists and former Dems acting like 3-year-olds that didn't get their way.

by Poor Yorick 2008-07-02 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Get used to it.

What party is that? The National Socialist Party?

In my party, no leader is beyond criticism, and no candidate deserves blind loyalty. We are Democrats. We do not follow our leaders in lock-step.

by LakersFan 2008-07-02 11:08AM | 0 recs
Nice MO. Won't work with me, though.

Who's talking about blind loyalty? Not me. I'm one of the early members of the angry FISA group over at BO's site.

I said tearing down, e.g. smearing, rumor-mongering, lying. Big difference unless of course your purpose is to foment discord.

by Poor Yorick 2008-07-02 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice MO. Won't work with me, though.

Glad to hear it. Your "Anyone who tries to tear down the leader of my party is my enemy" statement made you sound like so many people around here that cannot tolerate any criticism of their beloved. Sorry if I misinterpreted it. (I should have guessed that a Shakespeare lover wouldn't be so simplistic in their thinking.)

by LakersFan 2008-07-02 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice MO. Won't work with me, though.

I think the main thing to note here is that Obama supporters, or at least people who are still open to the idea of supporting Obama, airing legitimate grievances is welcome here.  Look at some of the diaries on his faith based initiative ideas last night as an example.  There were people discussing the issue coming from all walks of life, some defending the idea and some in vocal opposition to it.  His FISA stance is another example of this.

The reason that people get up in arms is that there are plenty of people here that don't support Obama, aren't open to supporting Obama, and exist here solely to be a pain in the ass and derail legitimate conversation.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-07-02 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice MO. Won't work with me, though.

I actually think the legitimate convesation is derailed much more by the people who obsess over every thing little said by a few "pain in the ass" people. It's like picking a scab. Just leave it alone if you ever want it to go away!

by LakersFan 2008-07-02 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice MO. Won't work with me, though.

On that I agree with you 100%.  While bitching about the people that are only here to gripe about the nominee, it's probably a self defeating exercise.  It's like scratching a mosquito bite... feels great at the time but if you keep doing it you've got a bigger problem than when you started.

They are here to derail conversation, and look at the rec list right now.  Two of the featured diaries are bitching about these people instead of talking about McCain's positions, legitimate concerns about our nominee, or other issues that we as progressives should be interested in.

Anyway, good point.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-07-02 12:44PM | 0 recs
Sorry for the terse reply

but I've had so many experiences where I've been referred to as a cultist, blind, etc., that I lash out right away. I'm holding Obama to a high standard, and I'll be there screaming as loud as I can when I think he's stepped in it. But I'm not going to abide some deadenders' angst to the detriment of a Democratic presidency. I've had enough conservatism for my fucking lifetime, and anyone who tries to derail the train can get run over for all I care.

Also, while I do love Hamlet, it's not my favorite, and the 'orick is as much a reference to my favorite opus of the last decade. 8)

by Poor Yorick 2008-07-02 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Calling Out All PUMAs and Their Sympathizers

Thank you! I'm glad someone finally said it. The secretly Republican-led PUMA's aren't going to give up their insanity even if we do bend over and kiss their asses from here until doomsday. So we might as well tell them to get on the bus or get thrown under it heh heh.

Frankly, I'm not all that worried about them. They are full of sound and fury, but signify very little. The Media ADORES them though, because it gives them something to continue the "ongoing narrative" for their ratings.

by Rictor Rockets 2008-07-02 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Calling Out All PUMAs and Their Sympathizers

The Media ADORES them though, because it gives them something to continue the "ongoing narrative" for their ratings.

Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner!!!

by Kysen 2008-07-02 08:39AM | 0 recs
Don't call them out! If you do, that implies

that they're welcome to come here and respond.

by Geekesque 2008-07-02 05:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't call them out! If you do, that implies

keep on trying to put locks on the doors and bars on the windows of that "Big Tent". Do a good job and the dems will be identical to the repukes...

by zerosumgame 2008-07-02 08:20AM | 0 recs
John McCain's lap doesn't

fall under the big tent.  The PUMA kitties can't sit under the big tent and on big John's lap at the same time.

by Geekesque 2008-07-02 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: John McCain's lap doesn't

enjoying your ratings abilities these days geek?

by zerosumgame 2008-07-02 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: John McCain's lap doesn't

and a lot of them would not BE even close to his lap if jerks were not being, well, jerks and pushing that way. funny how that happened in Cuba, and Nam, and Korea, and Iraq but you cannot quite seem to grasp that...

by zerosumgame 2008-07-02 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't call them out! If you do, that implies

They are already here. No need to name names, everyone knows who they are. They even post on the hate sites bragging about how they come here and beat up on the foolish obamabots.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-02 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't call them out! If you do, that implies

Funny how they would think they actually do anything here, they just post little whiny sarcastic and meaningless posts.  Yeah some serious smackdown, these flipping tools (republican tools I should say).   I have yet to hear one substantive argument against the fact that they are helping to suffocate Hillary's career...all in the name of Hillary?

by KLRinLA 2008-07-02 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't call them out! If you do, that implies

kind of like your whine i am replying to now?

by zerosumgame 2008-07-02 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't call them out! If you do, that implies

Ok, explain how voting for McCain won't hurt HIllary?  Do tell genius

by KLRinLA 2008-07-02 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't call them out! If you do, that implies

Crickets...I thought so

by KLRinLA 2008-07-03 03:42PM | 0 recs
Ignore them.

Can we please just ignore these people. They are truly a waste of time and energy.

Every time we post a diary about them we are just giving them attention. Attention they do not deserve by their numbers or their positions.

Sometimes when a child starts throwing a tantrum it's better just walk out of the room. This is one of those times.

by jsfox 2008-07-02 05:26AM | 0 recs
Seriously - were PUMAs in the news?

NY Writer has a diary on the rec list addressed to PUMAs.

Why the renewed interest?

by catfish2 2008-07-02 07:37AM | 0 recs
Beats the hell out of me.

by jsfox 2008-07-02 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Seriously - were PUMAs in the news?

It's a carnival sideshow. People can't help but gawk at the oddities on display.

by BobzCat 2008-07-02 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Calling Out All PUMAs and Their Sympathizers
With all the crap we have going on right now, why are we spending 90% of our time on this blog crticizing a few whackos?
It's like some people cannot get past the negativity that abounded throughout the blogosphere during the primaries.
Can we please talk about more relevant issues?
As jsfox said above- it's time to walk away from these people and don't look back.
by skohayes 2008-07-02 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Calling Out All PUMAs and Their Sympathizers

Seriously, PUMA has no existence outside of a handful of wannabe latter-day Bastille stormers who are instead "storming the blogs" while sitting uselessly around the house in their PUMA sportswear logo-infringing t-shirts. Which they are actually buying.

Basically, PUMA is a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game for less than a hundred people, and the "world" they're playacting in are the blogs. But we don't have to play.

by Addison 2008-07-02 05:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Calling Out All PUMAs and Their Sympathizers

People it's about democracy!  If we don't hold our politicians (right or left) feet to the fire and demand that they act only in a democratic manner then what's the good of all of this anyway?  And whether we like it or not dissent is part of a democracy.  Do you realize that you're sounding just like the administration we are trying to get rid of?  It's my way or the highway.  Do you see my point?  

by ayankeegal 2008-07-02 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Calling Out All PUMAs and Their Sympathizers

Yea but you work to elect John McCain.

Therefore you are our adversary.

Read the title of the site.

There are plenty of other sites that will take in your support for John McCain with open arms.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-07-02 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Calling Out All PUMAs and Their Sympathizers

TRd for slander

by William Cooper 2008-07-02 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Calling Out All PUMAs and Their Sympathizers
I see your point but it's flawed. You don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Get Obama elected, then work to fix what you perceive as being flawed within the Democratic party. Worse comes to worst, you work to have Obama lose the primary in 2012. But you don't sacrifice all those you profess to care about with your policies to "teach a lesson" or "hold someone's feet to the fire".

People who work against Obama seem to view his loss simply as a punishment for him. I think they tend to forget that they're also punishing millions who have to suffer through four more years of similar policies. YOU DON'T ALLOW MILLIONS TO SUFFER TO PUNISH A FEW. I'm disappointed that I have to even say that to fellow progressives.
by ThinkerT 2008-07-02 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Calling Out All PUMAs and Their Sympathizers

Disappointed Thinker, Yep, it's your way or the highway.  Been there for the last 7+ years. I know where that got us.  Politicians should be kept, by us/citizens, on the straight and narrow.  Please remember we are hiring/electing a politician to run our country, not crowning a king.   Why do you think demanding honesty and accountability is going to help elect McCain and make Obama lose anyway?  Is Obama so fragile and weak that any little dissent will break him?  I doubt it. And shouting is rude.

by ayankeegal 2008-07-02 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Calling Out All PUMAs and Their Sympathizers
Apparently someone needs to shout at you, because you didn't hear me. Dissent all you want, but the diary isn't about that - it's about PUMAs actively working against Obama. If you're against that, please say so. But if not, don't try to claim you're working for some higher purpose or equate people trying to tell you the consequences of your actions with the straw-man Bush "my way or the highway" argument.

The facts are, regardless of the past, we will have one of two presidents - Obama or McCain. One will obviously be far better for causes progressives care about. So Democrats and progressives have two choices - vote for Obama, or risk having McCain become president. That's not a "with us or against us" or "my way or the highway" argument, it's just simple fact - those are the only two possible results. I don't know how many times people have to say it to make it sink in.
by ThinkerT 2008-07-02 11:09AM | 0 recs
ROTFLMAO!

PUMA is a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game for less than a hundred people

That.  Is.  Perfect.

by spunkmeyer 2008-07-02 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: ROTFLMAO!

LOL!!!!!

That is the best description I've read of these tools EVER!

Hahahahaha!

I could fit all the PUMA's in the trunk of my Prius!

by spacemanspiff 2008-07-02 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: ROTFLMAO!
I could fit all the PUMA's in the trunk of my Prius!

Now you're making death threats against us!  Is this that hope and change we've been hearing so much about?!?!
by thatpurplestuff 2008-07-02 12:03PM | 0 recs
LMAO

That is one of the great analogies I've seen on the toobs.

No shit. There are literally less than a hundred active participants that I've seen. And the gameplay goes like this: jump off a cliff and when that doesn't work, jump off a cliff...lather, rinse, repeat.

by Poor Yorick 2008-07-02 10:23AM | 0 recs
PUMA is just a good start
your language is very telling who you are. GFY!
somebody on mydd suggected a better TLA than PUMA:
UMA = Unite My Ass.
by engels 2008-07-02 06:45AM | 0 recs
Love you, Engels!

But if you keep saying "Unite My Ass," I'm afraid somebody's going to take you up on the offer.

Your holding-on sweetie,

spunkmeyer

by spunkmeyer 2008-07-02 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA is just a good start

I suggested unmitigated moronic assholes or unrepentant morons association

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-02 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA is just a good start

Engels is back!  Mojo'd!

Wait until I tell sricki!

Please write a diary about this new movement Unite My Ass.

We need more of your insight buddy!

PUMA!

by spacemanspiff 2008-07-02 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA is just a good start
I prefer HUWA - Head Unites With Ass - myself.
by ThinkerT 2008-07-02 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA is just a good start

I was the one that suggested it, and I'm still serious that if there's any money to be made in Uma Thurman merchandise I want 5%.  It's a great idea really, because you can only make so many ads using old nature videos.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-07-02 12:09PM | 0 recs
Ho, hum, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I'm a PUMA, and it's all about the welfare of the nation.

It's not about hurt feelings. It's not about supporting Hillary. It's not about "doubts".

We're not few in number. (You wouldn't bother calling us out if we were.) We're not "secretly Republican-led". (Somebody missed the big debunking yesterday.)

You do mention "they're simply projecting their own enmeshment in a cult of personality". How ironic.

Site policy bars me from presenting a positive case for any of the options PUMAs might consider, but I will say it's all about the welfare of the nation.

Run over us if you like. It won't win our votes.

Or hop off the bus before you get thrown under the bus, and help us get this party started. It's the first week of July, and Obama is only the presumptive nominee.

by RonK Seattle 2008-07-02 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Ho, hum, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

We don't want your vote irrational PUMA guy.  We want you out of the way.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-07-02 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Ho, hum, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

So, are you ACTIVELY working for McCain?

Why not Nader? Or McKinney?

See my post above, mostly, PUMA's can't answer that contradiction?

I have seen at least ONE Honest Puma, on Larry King live.

"This is about how Hillary was treated, and we need to punish the Democratic party."

Tell us ALL how electing a Republican helps us progressives?

Tell us HOW letting a McCain administration pack the circuit courts (don't give me this crap about the Democratic Senate will block the USSC conservative nominees) which are already overwhelmingly conservative helps "THE WELFARE OF THE NATION!"

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-02 08:12AM | 0 recs
"It's all about"

"under the bus"...please present your lies and rationalizations in less cliched terms in the future.

by JJE 2008-07-02 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Ho, hum, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Obama is only the presumptive nominee

And I suppose in November and December, you'll remind us that he is only the President-elect?

by ihaveseenenough 2008-07-02 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Ho, hum, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Actually, I'm waiting to see which of these folks posts the first

"Hillary would have won EVEN BIGGER"

diary, the day after Obama is elected.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-02 08:42AM | 0 recs
Emphasized for the reading impaired:

If you've ever wondered how people could delude themselves into believing that George W Bush is a good President, then you need look no further than your own "justifications" for helping McCain win. No matter how bad Obama might be, McCain will be worse. IF THE DECADES LONG HISTORY OF REPUBLICAN MISGOVERNANCE HASN'T TAUGHT YOU THAT, THEN YOU'RE NO BETTER THAN A BUSH SUPPORTER.

by xynz 2008-07-03 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Calling Out All PUMAs and Their Sympathizers

Fuck you right back.  No one cares what you have to say either.  

Party
Unity
My
Ass

by bsavage 2008-07-02 08:49AM | 0 recs
Your estrangement from reality, proves my point.

No one cares what you have to say

Except for the dozen or so reccs and the nearly two hundred comments, which are mostly supportive.

What color is the sky in your world.....

....Plaid?

by xynz 2008-07-03 02:16PM | 0 recs
PUMA
Pathetic
Unhinged
Malevolent
Assholes
by april34fff 2008-07-02 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: PUMA

CALL Me!!!! To discuss this.

by johnny sexton 2008-07-02 10:12AM | 0 recs
Wow, seeing the

hate spewing from you so-called progressive supporting BHO in the comments is disturbing. You people are worse than Bushies.

by LatinoVoter 2008-07-02 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow, seeing the

Nice sig.

Hypocrite much?

by spacemanspiff 2008-07-02 10:02AM | 0 recs
Nothing wrong with my sig

according to Obama people there is nothing wrong with the original quote my sig is based on. So no, not hypocrite much.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/6/30/2 01016/050/164#164

by LatinoVoter 2008-07-02 10:15AM | 0 recs
What kind of chickenshits call people out ...

... and then hide their responses?

by RonK Seattle 2008-07-02 10:00AM | 0 recs
'call out' means 'challenge to a fight'

"Fight" doesn't mean "hide".

Chickenshits.

by RonK Seattle 2008-07-02 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: 'call out' means 'challenge to a fight'

I understand the desire to tr everything that comes from the PUMA crowd and I have a ton of respect for those of you that are tr-ing them, but we did "call them out" so to speak.  So I say at least in diaries like this as long as they aren't being abusive (as some of them surely are upthread), we shouldn't 0 rate everything that comes out of them.  Giving them a 1 should suffice, since they are essentially breaking site guidelines.

But Ronk, you aren't the one to be making that point since as you can see those of your ilk have been tr-ing with impunity all over this site.  PUMAs have been making this place into a circus the last few weeks and I don't understand your point.  

You aren't converting anyone.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-02 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: 'call out' means 'challenge to a fight'

there goes the same old (I am a VICTIM dammit!" whine. PUMA's making the place hell the last few weeks? WHat a laugh with spiff and his ilk HR'ing anyone and everyone they "disapprove" of no matter what the actual content.

by zerosumgame 2008-07-02 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: 'call out' means 'challenge to a fight'

But they are HR-ing the actual trolls.  It's not their fault the admins haven't deleted them.  

But the trolls are running around HR-ing the most innocent of comments.  I've seen them do it to virtually all of the regulars.  

That isn't fair when the regular community is attacked by folks who have their own community elsewhere but simply want to destroy ours.  

Especially when there is no purpose to it.  Their communities don't even allow dissenting opinion so don't tell me their here to proselytize about the virtues of democracy and hearty debate.  That's not what this is about.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-02 04:52PM | 0 recs
Gee, what a change of pace in your Elitist

talk.  You sure sound like an Obamabot to me.

I have to rec'd this.  lol

Thanks for further proving points.

by thebluenote 2008-07-02 10:17AM | 0 recs
Restated and Emphasized, for the Thinking Impaired

[Obama] is a politician who has astutely tapped into a tremendous amount of political discontent. He's done a lot of things that I'm not happy about.... his candidacy [is] just another stepping stone towards a resurgent 50 state Democratic Party. That renaissance is bigger than any one candidate.

If you have failed to understand those basic concepts, then I can see why you think I am an elitist.

Because your failure to understand those basic concepts have proved my point.

You've just exposed yourself as an self deluded idiot, who is no better than a Bush supporter.

by xynz 2008-07-03 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Calling Out All PUMAs and Their Sympathizers

by AZphilosopher 2008-07-02 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Calling Out All PUMAs and Their Sympathizers

Sorry that was a mistaken click.  Also I TR'ed a couple posts I thought were too confrontational.  I only HR in super extreme circumstances.

by AZphilosopher 2008-07-02 10:20AM | 0 recs
The dirty little secret the PUMAs won't admit

is that a lot of them are really just plain old racists.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-07-02 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: The dirty little secret the PUMAs won't admit

You may think we're racists, but we KNOW you're sexists.

by William Cooper 2008-07-02 01:15PM | 0 recs
Hidden for baseless attack

I back up my statements. It's telling that you can't do the same.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-07-02 01:26PM | 0 recs
When will people get it

Thank you xynz. I really appreciate what you had to say. We are adults (mostly) and we really need to start acting as such. I am all for identifying trollish behavior and shutting them out. I do not want to talk to anyone who is acting in that manner. By this I mean: disrespect, inanity, insanity, and any juvenile beahavior.

If I cannot spot it right away, hopefully someone else can. But I will talk to anyone who is reasonable, listens more than they speak, and is polite. I don't care if you know how to solve all of the worlds greatest problems, learn how to fracking communicate and then let us get on with it.

save zion save the world

by Hollede 2008-07-02 10:55AM | 0 recs
Someone here is afraid of PUMAs

Someone here is "calling out" PUMAs from safe behind a stone wall.

The major drama of the 20th century was the rise and fall of regimes that thought they could eliminate dissent by eliminating the expression of dissent.

Some of their ideological heirs are still here.

by RonK Seattle 2008-07-02 11:20AM | 0 recs
You just blew my MIND

If there's anything that compares to Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR, it's people saying mean things on blogs.  Totally apt analogy, dude!

by JJE 2008-07-02 11:47AM | 0 recs
'mean things on blogs'?

What's that got to do with it?

Hiding on-point responses? That's another matter.

by RonK Seattle 2008-07-02 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: 'mean things on blogs'?

What are you talking about? Your PUMA sites don't allow dissent of any kind.  It was specifically created for stragglers to find refuge in the mire of group-think.  

But you are breaking site guidelines and until the admins deal with it we should tr you.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-02 01:52PM | 0 recs
Nothing I posted here violates site rules

... and you're not the admins. You're just routine ratings abusers.

by RonK Seattle 2008-07-02 03:58PM | 0 recs
except that I almost never tr, not even deserved..

Actually the admins and the user page do give trusted users the authority to tr based on site guidelines.  Being from PUMA and acting as an agent advocating for the Republican nominee you are breaking a site guideline.  It makes you essentially a Republican troll who is only here to "excessively bash the Democratic party".  

Let me repeat and rephrase before you respond.  I'm not talking about criticizing the nominee, I'm talking about bashing the Democratic party (which is inherent to the nature of PUMA).

You are partially correct, we should be giving you a 0 and not a 1 according to the site guidelines.

* Do not troll rate (rating as 1) another user's comment unless it is a comment that is an attack on another user. Do not hide (rating as 0) a comment unless it is an abuse of the guidelines.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-02 04:44PM | 0 recs
You are stretching the site guidelines ...

... by several degrees of separation.

Site admins recently gave specific guidance to the contrary, and I have honored those restrictions scrupulously.

You are the abuser here, not me.

by RonK Seattle 2008-07-02 08:11PM | 0 recs
If you say so...

I don't recall any re-clarification of site guidelines.  If you would care to link me to that I would greatly appreciate it.

Oh, and feel free to report my alleged abuse.  

I'd love to have a discussion with the admins about what constitutes abuse and who is participating in it.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-02 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: You are stretching the site guidelines ...

Oh and just one last thing.  Although I adamantly disagree with you, I actually stuck up for you when you called people out for hiding your comment upthread.  

I wrote that I didn't agree with hiding all PUMA comments regardless of content, although my response was hidden along with your comment.

I gave it a 1 to uprate it so you would no longer be hidden.  I did that per the site guidelines:
If a trusted user deems the post should not be hidden, they can 'rescue' the post with a '1' rating.

So as I said earlier, I think PUMA's are trolls and I perfectly understand anyone tr-ing them, but I only tr for abusive or unnecessarily personal attacks.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-07-03 12:07AM | 0 recs
You want site guidelines?

# Titles of diaries should not be inflammatory, call out other users or the site, and will be deleted if not edited out, and the user banned.

...

# Do not troll rate (rating as 0) another user's comment unless it is a comment that is an attack on another user. Abusing this privilege will result in all your ratings being erased and/or getting a warning, or being banned.

by RonK Seattle 2008-07-02 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: 'mean things on blogs'?

It looks to me like people hide rated you strictly according to the rules-- because you were campaigning for McCain

by wrb 2008-07-02 01:55PM | 0 recs
Yes

Hiding comments on a blog is exactly the same thing as what the Nazis did.

You have gone completely off the rails, you know that?

by Angry White Democrat 2008-07-02 02:34PM | 0 recs
I'm not the one who said 'nazis', you know that?

by RonK Seattle 2008-07-02 04:01PM | 0 recs
Oh, please

The major drama of the 20th century was the rise and fall of regimes that thought they could eliminate dissent by eliminating the expression of dissent.

Some of their ideological heirs are still here.

The implication is clear.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-07-02 04:03PM | 0 recs
Implications that are 'clear' to your mind ...

... are not necessarily correct.

My reference was to the soviet systems, primarily.

by RonK Seattle 2008-07-02 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Implications that are 'clear' to your mind ...

Oh, okay then. Yes, hiding comments on a blog is exactly like oppression in Soviet Russia.

You've officially lost it.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-07-03 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Someone here is afraid of PUMAs

You are funny.  

You keep pretending your irrational problems with [fill in imagined oppressor] is legitimate "dissent".  

by Blue Neponset 2008-07-02 11:54AM | 0 recs
You're another Bush supporting idiot.

There's plenty of room on myDD for dissent.

For example, there are plenty of people who've voiced strong dissent against Obama's stand on FISA.

I think Obama's stand on FISA is stupid.

However, you have made a ridiculous claim that dissent isn't tolerated here. You've claimed that those of us who don't want to see another Republican in the White House, are running an oppressive regime. That exposes you as an idiot, on par with a Bush supporter.

There is plenty of room on myDD for people who wish to constructively criticize Obama, his candidacy and the Democratic Party. But, there is no room on myDD for people whose goal is the defeat of the Democratic nominee. There are plenty of other forums for that.

Dissent is tolerated.

Putting another Republican in the White House is not.

That should be simple enough, even for you to grasp.  

MyDD doesn't want another Republican in the White House. If you can't get behind that, then get the fuck out.

by xynz 2008-07-03 02:50PM | 0 recs
You know what?

Fuck 'em.

Dissent is not the problem.  I have no problem with dissent.  I have a problem with opposition.

So, as I said:  Fuck 'em.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-07-02 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Calling Out All PUMAs and Their Sympathizers

It isn't necessarily Hillary Worship, but rather there are millions of lifelong Democrats that just don't like Obama.  We feel he is actually Republican Lite.

Many recognized it immediately, many more have come to see it only in the past week or two.

Just as there are millions of "anyone but Hillary" voters, there are just as many millions of "anyone but Obama".

Imagine how happy we and so many others would have been if Republicans could have foreseen how terrible GW Bush would turn out and in 2000 they rejected him and voted for Al Gore.  Republicans would have castigated those voters yet their action could have saved the country and the world tremendous heartache.

I will not vote for McCain but I will also not vote for Obama.  I will vote for Nader to teach those traitors back in 2000 a lesson.

You can not demand people to fully support your nominee.  The more strong-arming and cajoling you do, the more you drive those people even further away.  You give those disaffected voters no reason to vote for Obama; you actually reinforce their concerns.

by wblynch 2008-07-02 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Calling Out All PUMAs and Their Sympathizers

No offense, but people shouldn't be making their decision on who to vote for based on diaries on the internet.  People should look at the political positions of Nader, McCain, and Obama and see what fits them best.  If that means that they vote for Nader or McCain, so be it.

About the Hillary worship, it does in fact seem to be a major tenant of the PUMA movement.  Just take a look at some of their sites.  There may be plenty of Democrats that dislike Obama and won't vote for him outside of that group, but within that group you can't deny that the inability to get over Hillary's primary loss is the tie that binds.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-07-02 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Calling Out All PUMAs and Their Sympathizers

I really know nothing about the PUMA 'movement'.  I don't particularly care to spend time looking it up.

To say that people should not base their votes on blog postings is kind of condescending.  I'm sure there are thousands or millions of people that read and lurk and never post but they use the blogs to help gather information for making their decision.

Instead, I would be more inclined to believe that a huge portion of Obama fans actually became so from internet and blog influence.

I do not base my vote on blog diaries or posting.  I base my vote on my own intuition and so far, after 36 years of voting I have never been wrong - (actually going further back to my childhood and the Kennedy/Nixon campaign and protesting the later Nixon presidency, Vietnam war and Ronald Reagan's California governorship).

I argued in the summer of 2000 that, one way or another, GW Bush would find a way to make war with Iraq.  I knew that the WMD charges were false.  Yet people guffawed at my insight.  Some very intelligent people I know were completely fooled by Bush.  If you recall, Bush had a huge approval rating for the first 5 1/2 years of his presidency and his highest rated trait was "honesty".

So, this year, for the first time in my life, I will not be voting for the Democratic candidate.

Does it even register that millions of Democrats are willing to suffer a broken heart over this situation?

I truly believe that Obama is no progressive Democrat any more than Bush is a uniter.  His stance on FISA, Faith-Based initiatives and so many other issues shows me that he is a cave-in politician that refuses to stick his neck out.  

Obama has always been this way and to believe he will change after Jan 20 is ludicrous.

Why did he bash Wesley Clark?  If he were a true Democrat he would back Clark and at least say that Clark is entitled to his opinion, even if it differs from Obama's.

I am certainly not racist and I am not a Hillary-or-no-one voter either.  I would gladly have voted for any of the other candidates if they had bubbled to the top.  But, alas, here we are.

by wblynch 2008-07-02 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Calling Out All PUMAs and Their Sympathizers

I sincerely apologize if that sounded condescending.  My point wasn't to say that people don't get invaluable information about candidates through blogs.  My point was that people shouldn't be basing their votes on perceived slights by random bloggers.  What it really should come down to is the policy positions of each candidate (in which blogs are an invaluable resource).

In regards to FISA, I along with many Obama supporters was incredibly disappointed.  Neither Hillary or Barack took a stand on this, so it's a bit unfair to only nail one of them.  Democratic leadership was completely lacking on this issue.

In terms of the faith based initiatives stance, I am a tepid supporter of the idea after reading more about it.  It isn't exclusive to religious organizations, and any organization or religious body can apply for funding as long as they don't proselytize the people that they are helping.

Obama also never bashed Wesley Clark:

The Senator says his call Monday for supporters to avoid denigrating military service was not a reference to Wesley Clark's comment about McCain.
"I think in at least one publication it was reported that my comments yesterday about Senator McCain were in a response to General Clark. I think my staff will confirm that was in a draft of that speech that I had written two months ago."
Also says Clark does not owe McCain an apology.

More on that is discussed in this diary: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/1/18111 7/0313

Anyway, I appreciate the response and again, I'm sorry if I offended you earlier.  It was not my intention.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-07-02 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Calling Out All PUMAs and Their Sympathizers

Don't apologize, I wasn't offended.  I just wanted to respond because I've heard that statement so many times before, yet blog participation is one of the foundations of the Obama 'movement' (net roots).

If older Democrats were as well versed in internet methodologies there would likely have been a much larger reaction to the Obama-supporters' takeover of the blogs and message boards.  That response could easily have steered much support away from Obama and delivered a different outcome.

So, as Howard Dean understood net-roots support in 2004, Barack Obama was able to capitalize on in 2008.

Just be aware that after this, no one candidate will realize an internet advantage.

It was the same in 1960 when John F. Kennedy foresaw the power and importance of television, which Richard Nixon had no understanding of at all.  Yet by 1968 Nixon was able to put it to successful use.

by wblynch 2008-07-02 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Calling Out All PUMAs and Their Sympathizers

Hi WBlynch...

I have seen your posts for a long time, you have been pretty adament about not voting for Obama, no matter what.

Sounds like you are, like me, a life long democrat (I marched with my mom doorbelling for Jack Kennedy) and it's truly sad this year you can't vote for our nominee?

But, at least you dont sound like one of those nutty PUMA's who is going to vote straight Republican, just to punish the party?

Hate to lose your vote, but let your conscience, not anger, be your guide.

Hopefully, you can join back up with us in the coming years.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-02 01:36PM | 0 recs
Obama never bashed Clark

That is a plainly false statement.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-07-02 01:38PM | 0 recs
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

And assume that you're sincere.

We feel he is actually Republican Lite.

Even if Obama is Republican Light, McCain is still Republican Hard Core and he will be much, much worse. Forget about McCain's carefully contrived "Maverick" brand and look at his record of supporting Bush when it counted. No matter how "Republican" Obama might be, McCain will be worse. On top of that, there is also the issue of appointments to the Supreme Court.

Just as there are millions of "anyone but Hillary" voters, there are just as many millions of "anyone but Obama".

No. The millions of "anyone but Hillary" voters are the result of a decades long Right Wing campaign to demonize Hillary and her husband. A similar campaign has been started against Obama, but it would also take decades to build millions of hard core "anyone but Obama" voters who aren't simply following the Republican brand.

I will vote for Nader to teach those traitors back in 2000 a lesson.

I sure hope this was an attempt at snark. Because if it's not, then I can withdraw the benefit of my doubt. If you're sincere about this, then you are an idiot on par with a Bush supporter.

by xynz 2008-07-03 03:19PM | 0 recs
Alegre returns!

She is back, still too cowardly to post, but enough courage to uprate PUMAs and HR Know Vox (creatively known as Xov Wonk since he was banned)

Kudos to Alegre, maybe she is coming back to her senses.

I know we are not supposed to talk about bloggers real lives, but in the end I don't think Alegre is a real person.

We know Texas/Socal was a made up personality, I have to guess Alegre is too.

by DemsLandslide2008 2008-07-02 01:54PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads