Is this still the DEMOCRATIC Underground?

[beaconess]

Kind of hard to tell with all of the bashing of Democratic candidates going on in here. If I didn't know any better, I'd think this was a whole different kind of site.

Try to focus, people! Our fellow Dems ARE NOT THE ENEMY!!! Everyone may have a different way to get where we want to go, but none of these candidates are evil or even working against our interests.

Jeez!!!

[Vincardog]

1. none of these candidates are working against our interests. Wanna bet?

[Ninja Jordan]

48. Ever consider posting somewhere else?

[rhett o rick]

88. That doesn't sound very Democratic. nm

[redqueen]

2. I'm not sure, actually...

I remember hearing COUNTLESS times over the past decade or so that we couldn't get this or that important business done because we were just powerless to get our amendments attached to bills or couldn't get our bills to the floor.

Until I understand how it was so impossible for us to do as the minority party... yet how it seems not such a big job for the other side now that they're the minority... I'm not signing any pledges.

[Froward69]

14. Because

ten years ago we were much more of a minority(than the repubes are now) that is to say they (repubes)had enough votes to override a veto. we don't. (at this time)

[ProudDad]

38. The Dems have ALWAYS had the power of the filibuster

all the way during the 12 years the pukes were "in charge"...

They almost NEVER used it...

Screw 'em...

I support the very few who are MY friends.

[Tempest]

3. Is anyone counting the number of threads like this?

Let's go for the record!


Our fellow Dems ARE NOT THE ENEMY

They are when they vote in favor of criticizing a group's right to free speech.

[JDPriestly]

8. Dems who have the power to speak for us and do not speak forcefully

and constantly on our behalf are just as much our foes as are the Republicans who blatantly oppose us.

Senator Feinstein, for example, constantly votes for right-wing policies. Every once in a while she supports a Democratic cause. Her condemnation of Move-On.org is so overboard I cannot believe it. It's the Democrats who voted to censor Move-On.org that are eating their own. They are the ones who deserve your condemnation. Not us. We are standing up for democratic principles, including the right to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates we are going to be voting for.

[CreekDog]

95. You're wrong: Feinstein's record is fairly liberal, not much different than Boxer's

You said she "constantly votes for right-wing policies". WRONG, LIE, ETC.

She strikes a moderate tone, certainly, but when it comes to voting, she usually votes the liberal way.

And that's my problem with your post, it's not correct. You want to complain about the times she votes or acts too conservative, go ahead, but instead you just make stuff up to make your point sound stronger.

Lame.

[beaconess]

12. Since when is criticizing what someone says a criticism of their right to free speech?

If MoveOn isn't tough enough to withstand criticism - if they are only capable of dishing out but can't take it - then perhaps they need to find something else to do with their time and money.

This is the big leagues. They jumped in and shook things up. They can expect a backlash. Get over it and MOVE ON already!

[Tempest]

22. Condemning what someone says is the first step

We've seen this before in history.

[beaconess]

32. You can't possibly be serious . . .

A critical aspect of free speech is the right to criticize OTHERS' speech.

Or do you only believe in free speech when you agree with what is being said and believe that only YOU have the right to criticize what anyone else says?

[Tempest]

46. It wasn't a person condemning MoveOn

It was the government, in the form of the Senate, that did the condemnation.

That's a path taken before in history which ended with horrible consequences.

[Lerkfish]

64. its the end of freedom of the press, actually.

it died officially today.

[suigeneris]

99. I just ran outside and checked.

I am happy to report: The sky is not falling!

Hey, have a sense of proportion, for
Pete's sake. And BTW, a senator is NOT the government.

Sheesh, for hyperbole...

[FiveGoodMen]

52. The people I voted for were NOT supposed to help Dubya keep telling his lies!

Free speech aside for the moment, their condemnation of MoveOn's truth-telling does, indeed, make them my enemy!

[JackRiddler]

102. Funny, how they didn't manage to criticize anyone else in the last x years

Where's the resolution condemning the hate speech and incitement to war of Bill O'Reilly, or Pat Robertson, or Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter?

Congress should stay the hell out of the business of passing resolutions on the political speech of American citizens, but doesn't it strike you as noteworthy that the only time they do, they condemn a "liberal" antiwar group (for saying the obvious: that the general doesn't give a rat's ass about the cannon fodder being sent to kill for imperialism). And they do this immediately after they once again fail to defund the genocide.

And that is exactly what a vote to continue the war is: genocide. As it was from the first vote to go to war.

[superkia]

4. You forgot the sarcasm thing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. It's this crazy thing some people have called "principles."

We're not democrats because we like the mascot.

[Zenlitened]

45. Damn. That's a great line: "We're not Democrats because we like the mascot."

:thumbsup:

[Hydra]

53. Yeah, the fact that our mascot is a Donkey may well be one of our problems

'Cause our reps are sure acting like one!

[ieoeja]

93. Stubbornly insisting on doing what's right?

You know why people breed mules? They want something strong as horse, but smart as a donkey.

[DangerDave921]

6. Passion

I think this site screams out Democratic because the people are so passionate about their views, and they are eager to discuss, debate, challenge, and yes -- scream and yell. If the site is nothing but polite agreement with everyone else, what's the point? And if it's just name-calling and bashing of Repubs, count me out. That's just juvenile venting, and is not reasoned debate.

I love hearing all views, and love making people defend their views. If it's all Barney-esque love each other, count me out.

[T Wolf]

7. Exactly how ARE they working FOR our interests? I have not seen one

god damn thing yet that I would classify as improving anything.

We have no influence over the puke pols. They are in office in spite of us.

Supposedly, we do have some influence over Democratic ones. They are in office BECAUSE of us. But, they still ignore us and support the Bush* war and other despicable policies.

They will not change unless they are forced to. Reinforcing their bad behavior will not bring about change. Ask any parent.

Dems get bashed because they have lied to us, as much as Georgie has. We know not to believe him. We need to learn to not believe them.

[ieoeja]

94. They raised minimum wage. n/t

[Deep13]

9. Goddammit, we are the "Dems" or at least a part of them.

The people define the party, not the politicians that the party put in office.

[beaconess]

15. The people on DU are not THE Dems. We are a segment of the party

DU does not define the entire party (Thank God!)

[ProudDad]

39. Why do you denigrate us

and expect us to agree with you?

"DU does not define the entire party (Thank God!)"

:wtf: does THAT mean?

[Deep13]

44. Yes, we are the segment that pays attention.

:eyes:

We are not completely reasonable, but then no one is. The middle-of-the-roaders are not more reasonable than typical activists. They are just not as involved.

[madfloridian]

10. Today they voted against free speech.

And gave in to the 1/3 who still support Bush.

Shameful and no excuse.

[LSparkle]

20. Reid should never have let that bill even get to the floor

Plain and simple.

We are the majority; we need to start acting like it.

[tigereye]

90. yeah, I agree

I don't understand why we are letting them grandstand. (the Reps.)

[dogman]

11. Do they still represent the values of the DEMOCRATIC Party?

Kind of hard to tell with some of their votes. Their votes do more damage than peoples opinions.

[baldguy]

13. "Democratic" is a description of an ideal, not just the name of a political party.

If the leaders of the "DEMOCRATIC" party cease to uphold the principles of that ideal, they're fair game.

[kdmorris]

16. Well, now.. depends on what you mean by bashing

Calling names, acting like an ass, that sort of thing... yeah, it should stop.

But if you mean "I think Hillary is a corporatist" or "I think Kucinich is an nonviable candidate because of his changing stance on abortion", I think that has a lot of value. We NEED to talk about the candidates, their stances, compare and contrast. In fact, I would say that's our PURPOSE here.

I don't think it's fair to say it's not the Democratic Underground because we are not warm and fuzzy about ALL of the candidates. And I believe that discussion on if or how they may be working against our interests is completely legitimate.

Or would you rather we all be the Borg, like the GOP, with no dissenting opinions allowed?

[beaconess]

33. I'm talking about the former

the namecalling, the personal attacks the accusations that anyone other than their candidate is a closet Republican . . .

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kdmorris]

49. Oh, yeah

that shit needs to stop. I try to point that out even for candidates that I'm not "warm and fuzzy" about. That sort of stuff actually detracts from the dialogue.

[beaconess]

51. Exactly nt

[Lerkfish]

54. apparently, one person's "bashing" is another's valid criticism.

and even more apparently, you feel your own view supercedes.

[kdmorris]

58. OK, here's a question for you

She has already stated what she thinks bashing is.

Do YOU think that it's OK and "valid criticism" to call Senator Hillary Clinton by the name "Hellery"?

How about Empress Hillary or Her Royal Fraudiness?

How about calling Kucinich an elf?

[Lerkfish]

61. yawn.

did I say that?

reread my post.

my point is that people seem to view criticism as bashing if its their candidate getting criticized. The same people who accuse critics of Clinton of vile things make the same criticisms of obama or edwards and think its ok.

My point is, its a relative perception, so why does the person i was talking to think their own myopic view is correct?
I'll even point out that I don't consider my view the only valid one. I do, however, think criticizing someone for policies or votes is not a pointless attack, it goes to the heart of accountability. In that way, I'll cut people a lot of slack if they're being hyperbolic BECAUSE they object to what they consider a wrong platform.
I give a lot less slack to people who just whine when their candidate is being criticized and think the whining charge is their shield against criticism.

[kdmorris]

66. Of course you didn't say that

That's why it was a question.

I think that sort of name calling needs to stop. It's ridiculous. Criticizing policy is fine and healthy and necessary. Criticizing someone's height or calling someone names that are more reflective of Republican name-calling needs to stop. She already said THAT was what she was talking about.

So, again, without the sarcasm and yawning, do YOU think that this sort of name-calling is OK or do YOU think it should stop?

[Lerkfish]

67. Frankly, I prefer to err on the side of saying NONE of us should say "stop"

I don't think its right of me to attempt to infringe on whether someone CAN say something, although its ok for me to argue with that person and say I don't LIKE what they say.

world of difference, there, my friend. One is censorship, the other is discourse.

[kdmorris]

72. Man, I wasn't saying a law should be passed to shut them up

I said it needs to stop. You can't tell the difference between a voluntary "we need to stop this shit" and a mandatory "You cannot say that"?

It's already in the RULES that you aren't supposed to do this. So, talk to Skinner about censorship:

Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.

[Lerkfish]

77. you asked me a question, I answered it honestly.

you asked: "so, again, without the sarcasm and yawning, do YOU think that this sort of name-calling is OK or do YOU think it should stop?"

I answered exactly where I feel the line is for me, and further stated that I don't think I'm the one to make that call, nor do I want to be.

and then you quote the rules to me as I'm breaking them.

:shrug:

did you really want MY answer to your question, or did you just want me to agree with you?

[kdmorris]

81. I didn't quote them as if you were breaking them

I was responding to your post which insinuated the *I* am the one "censoring" people. I do no think YOU are breaking the rules. I think that people who use such terms as "Hellery" to refer to Hillary Clinton are breaking the rules. Therefore, *I* am not the one who wishes to censor them, it's part of the rules.

Your answer was fine. I just disagree with you. And I don't really care if you agree with me, just as your probably don't care if I agree with you.

I was simply trying to state that it's not MY call. It's already in the rules.

[Lerkfish]

83. well, we BOTH feel the other has insinuated things incorrectly.

and we may be both wrong.
I first felt you were insinuating I was using abusive language, and you felt I was insinuating you were the one doing the censoring, when i was speaking in generalities abotu censorship.

got off on the wrong foot, here. Reread the exchange as if neither of us are trying to carjack the other.

[kdmorris]

101. Yeah, well, sometimes print doesn't lend itself well to these

exchanges. One cannot see the the other's facial expressions and tone of voice.

I don't have time to fully respond right now, and I do understand what you are saying. I think the only point we disagree on is whether it should be OK for us to call the candidates names when we don't like them (i.e. Hellery, Empress, "The Elf", etc). And I'm not even sure 100% that we disagree on that.)

Anyway, got to run. Peace!

[polichick]

17. Some of those fools in Congress have betrayed the base over and over again...

They sure are looking a lot like the enemy!

[tigereye]

91. we ARE them, aren't we? We elected them.

Wouldn't that make us the enemy as well?

[terip64]

18. Thank you. Looks like the headlines are working. Dems failed instead Repubs BLOCK!!!! K&R n/t

[ulysses]

19. yup.

And it's always been this way. Kudos to Skinner and Co. for maintaining the most vibrant and open left-center political community online.

[Tempest]

21. Barbara Boxer: "This is not about MoveOn.org anymore"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1eSMGdq9gE

[polichick]

25. That's right, where was the outrage when Kerry and Cleland were attacked?

Because of wimpy-ass Dems, the Reps have another victory this week.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LSK]

24. no, its kneejerk Underground

[Mythsaje]

26. NONE? Are you sure?

Even the ones that vote with the Repugs more often than not?

[liberalnurse]

27. DU is in meltdown.

:nuke: :scared:

[polichick]

28. That's because the Democratic party is in meltdown. nt

[terip64]

31. The dems are more united now then I have ever seen.

They all voted for each the Webb Amendment and the restore Habeas Corpus bill.

[polichick]

36. And yet they refuse to use the power of the purse...

...the power to choose which bills come to the floor, and the power to impeach.

The party is becoming irrelevant ~ and Bush enjoys victory after victory in spite of his low standing.

[ProudDad]

42. They voted for them knowing full well that they would be defeated...

Where were they when we needed them to filibuster like when that SHIT was ORIGINALLY PASSED?

Or how about when alito and roberts were nominated?

They have been in "get re-elected", don't rock the boat mode ever since they swore in in January...

A severe disappointment...

[The Traveler]

29. Hi beaconess

Shining a light again, I see. :) Thanks for making those points. I think sometimes we pursue our ideals so passionately we forget we have to make progress before we can achieve anything close to perfection. This country has gone ten miles into the dark woods ... we won't get out with a 1/2 mile hike and any of these candidates will head us towards the edge of the woods.

Having said that I am sure you will forgive me for mildly stating that THEY ALL SUCK EXCEPT KUCINICH.:evilgrin: Well, not really but I gotta plug my man, ya know ...

[beaconess]

35. Ha ha

[Rainbowreflect]

30. I will continue to speak against any and all Dems who

roll over and play dead for the Repubs. If they are not going to fight for us, why the hell should we support them?????

[DrDan]

34. ahem - did you check the resolution vote today?

[renie408]

41. Excellent observation. n/t

[hfojvt]

37. it has been that way since November or January

Now that 'WE' are 'in power' it is all our fault. Plus, in primary season we not only build up our own candidates, we also tear others down.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/51

[Solon]

43. I believe its infinitely more important to be a small "d" democrat...

beyond that, I don't give a flying fuck about party affiliation. I vote and support those I agree with or best represent me, and I'm against those that I don't agree with or don't represent me or my interests, period.

[Tempest]

47. MoveOn responds

Statement: I will fight back

The U.S. Senate just told you to sit down and be quiet. They passed a resolution condemning MoveOn.org and it has one purpose: to intimidate all of us who care about responsibly ending this war. They wanted to send a message that anyone who speaks unpleasant truths about this war will pay. To make everyone--especially politicians--think twice before they accuse the administration of lying.
We can't let that happen, so we're letting Congress know that they're not going to intimidate us. Can you sign on to this statement?

A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to your Senators and Representative.

http://pol.moveon.org/fightback/

[terip64]

50. kick

[Hydra]

55. Are they not the enemy?

The original premise Pelosi and Reid gave to excuse the lack of impeachment was that they were going to show how well they could run "the business of government" and would work to end the bipartisanship.

How is that working out?

[Lerkfish]

56. if your own teammates keeps shooting into the wrong basket

does it matter what jersey they wear? the result is the same.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lerkfish]

59. I'll be more kind: I'm not against the dem leadership. I'm against they way they're voting.

I'm not sure why that's a difficult concept.

[Hydra]

62. I'm being kind

"Quit sticking a knife in my back and saying that it doesn't matter and that I don't matter!"

[Lerkfish]

63. very apt.

well put.

I hope you realizeI wasn't dissing you with what I was posting, you and I are sympatico on this.

[Hydra]

65. It's all good

But I have no idea why we're being well behaved about this...do you?

[Lerkfish]

68. come to think of it, me neither. We live in an age where speaking truth to power

immediately gets a bunch of yahoos telling you you should apologize.

If the dems don't have our backs, and are voting against our interests, is it wrong to point that out?

[Hydra]

69. Apparently, some people think it is a sin to get mad when someone signs your rights away

I have to wonder who those people work for :evilgrin:

[Lerkfish]

71. naw, I don't even need to go there: even if its benign cluelessness, the point is

why do we have to apologize or tread lightly to speak the truth or ask the valid questions about the accountability of OUR representatives, elected by us?

[Hydra]

75. Truth...it's the most dangerous thing on earth

And most people instinctively shy away from it. The truth can destroy nations or it can build bridges.

It's power...and the people who argue against truth argue against freedom and self-empowerment.

I don't know why they feel the need- we have gov'ts and churches for that.

[FiveGoodMen]

60. Very good analogy

[concerned citizen23]

70. They may not be the "enemy"...but

To many of them are not serving the peoples interest but instead serving their campaign and lobbyist supporters interest...check their voting records...

Connect the dots folks...the election campaign and lobbyist funding all come from the same sources.

Regardless of party affiliations, they all serve the same masters
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3532891

Dennis Kucinich on corporate power
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=132&topic_id=3534002&mesg_id=3534002

Move0n.org Censor
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344

Jeez!!!

[Warren Stupidity]

73. Half of the Senate Democrats are posers.

Their allegience is to the Corporate Kleptocracy and War Party, not to the Democratic Party. I refuse to pretend otherwise. We do not have the same goals and we do not share the same interests.

[Desertrose]

76. Couldn't agree more!!

Their allegiance is to the Corporate Kleptocracy , War Party and the almighty power of $$$.

[BootinUp]

74. True.

Its hard to hold back feelings about the candidates though. We will get through it.

[concerned citizen23]

78. The hamster wheel...

Voting for the “lesser of two evils” is a loser’s game when both serve the same master!

Stupid is doing the same thing over and over again - electing and re-electing people that serve the same masters - yet expecting different results.

[autorank]

79. 97 to Zero - Lieberman Amendment supporting focus on Iran passed - 4/2007

That was in the U.S. Senate of course. The amendment had some weasel words about not endorsing force but it was KNOWN TO ALL who voted that that meant nothing since the WH has taken that right with Senate approval.

So who were those 97 Republican Senators who encouraged an Iran action that day? A real profile in courage.

Our party gives a wink and a nod to a new foreign invasion.

http://iranlegislation.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/DAV07990_xml.pdf

The amendment endorses the Bush claim in 2/2007 that Iranian Kuds Force was behind arming participants in the civil war. This was the same claim that was nixed by Gen. Pace right before *'s press conference. Pace knew what was up but then a few weeks later, 97-0, there's an endorsement of this rationale for attacking Iran.

So who were those 97 Republicans?

"Who's worse, the arsonist or the firemen who stand by and willingly let the house burn down?"

[yodermon]

80. Is this still the Democratic UNDERGROUND?

If we need to think outside of the box then so be it.

[Hissyspit]

85. That part always gets ignored in these posts, doesn't it?

Even thought it is a full 50% of the title.

This is a PROGRESSIVE board, not a Democratic Party Lock-Step board. It never has been and hopefully never will be.

[Forkboy]

92. We're supposed to be an unthinking, uncritical mouthpiece.

Get it right! :spank:

[Apollo11]

82. In other words: All dissenting voices should be tazed?

Having said that, it's not like I am a huge fan of "bashing" Democratic candidates.

[4_TN_TITANS]

84. One big organized herd of cats!

We need to get more ketchup if we're going to continue to eat our own. :hi:

[MetalCanuck]

86. When they enable Bush they are..

You do not understand that Blue Dogs..they are Bushies.

Pelosi let bush continue his work by NOT impeaching him. Kucinich is a true Democrat.

[rhett o rick]

87. Please don't tell me that all Democrats are good! nm

[rhett o rick]

89. I think many Democrats see that unless our Congress-critters start speaking out

against the march toward fascism, all will be lost. Some are and need to be commended, but some are showing cowardice in the face of the enemy. To suggest that we not speak out is not Democratic.

[Dr Fate]

96. Did you ask the same question when all the DLCers supported Joe Lieberman (I-3rd Party)?

Is this just about LIBERALS who disagree with elected politicians who seem to help Bush?

Does your analysis incluse conservative "centrists"-elected & otherwise, who openly oppose the Liberal & anti-Iraq war Democratic base?

[McCamy Taylor]

97. The Democratic Party IS its members, the politicians represent us or they get voted out.

If you think that we change our views to reflect what the Party leaders tell us we should be thinking, then you have us confused with members of the other party.

:dem:

[Dr Fate]

98. You are right- it's like saying :"The voters need to get in line with the career politicians"

As opposed to the other way around.

[JackRiddler]

False platitudes served up as self-evident.

Candidates may call themselves Democrats, but fail to uphold the supposed values of the Democratic Party.

More importantly, they are not "ours." They don't get a vote for being D's, too bad. They have to persuade and serve their voters, not the other way around, otherwise it's not a democracy. The party label says nothing.

When the Democrats stop supporting the Republican program (actually the Single Klepto-Corporate Party program), I'll agree with you.

Meanwhile, remember this is also the Democratic UNDERGROUND. It's not a cheerleading squad, dig?

[JackRiddler]

100. False platitudes served up as self-evident.

Candidates may call themselves Democrats, but fail to uphold the supposed values of the Democratic Party.

More importantly, they are not "ours." They don't get a vote for being D's, too bad. They have to persuade and serve their voters, not the other way around, otherwise it's not a democracy. The party label says nothing.

When the Democrats stop supporting the Republican program (actually the Single Klepto-Corporate Party program), I'll agree with you.

Meanwhile, remember this is also the Democratic UNDERGROUND. It's not a cheerleading squad, dig?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

103. sorry-this primary represents a battle for the heart and soul of the party

whether we go with the netroots/antiwar/dean movement that gave us '06 victories or whether we go back to the carville/dick morris "be like the gop to beat the gop' way of thinking that lost congress, the legislatures and governorships (and gave us NAFTA and wlefare 'reform)

my pleas may fall on deaf ears, but i'm not shutting up