If you are inventing new syntax to support semantics you don't fully understand along the way, it usually ends up as some franken language.
Lisp makes this a feature by limiting what most people end up doing into one syntax, and with things like macroexpand-1, you can see what "real code" is being generated.
The DSLs in Ruby, Groovy, Scala (often but not always) are not macro expansion. Often times these DSLs are very mutable and are like a state machine (and in fact have a state machine underneath which causes a whole bunch of concurrency issues).
This doesn't mean there isn't people who hate stuff like loop being in cl but it does go someway to showing why it's okay. I think the design of lisp encourages them as well (as the previous poster said) by the fact that the entirety of lisp is built up from a extremely limited amount of instructions so the entire language can be argued to be a DSL on top of a DSL on top of a DSL etc.