Sometimes I wonder if I'm "liberal" enough for DU.

[cali]

Well, of course I think so, but I regularly disagree with what sometimes seems like DU conventional wisdom:

I have a tolerance for RINOs from red states (sound kind of like the name of a fusion punk country band)

I wasn't troubled when my Senator (Leahy) voted for Roberts.

I don't think bushco is as bad as Hitler. At least not yet, and not in deed. Although a case can be made for comparing 1933 Germany to 2006 America, there are differences,

I don't support federal gun control. It should be a state issue.

I'm as concerned about Roe being so eroded that it remains as a hollow constitutional "right", as I am about it being overturned.

I don't think America is responsible for all the evils on the face of this planet, and our country's evils don't negate the the evils of others.

I don't think that bushco should be tried for war crimes in the Hague. I support investigations and impeachment, as well as Feingold's censure resolution.

I don't think the MSM is a wholly owned subsidiary of the republican party. I see it largely as corporate; with some branches that lean toward a liberal stance and others that lean toward the right. Mostly I see them as lazy and too easily bullied.

I'm not convinced that the repukes stole the election in 2004. Yes, there was nefarious activity, and manipulation of machinery, but I don't know that it was enough to change the results.

For over 20 years I've worked for liberal causes and candidates. I can find much to fault with dems, but I remain one. I don't think they've all betrayed us or the country despite wishing they'd fight better and harder, despite my grave concerns about the effect of money on the politics of our elected dems.

[xultar]

1. Start your DU Journal and add this. I love this post!

[baby_mouse]

14. sometimes I wonder if ANYBODY on DU is liberal enough for DU.

Then again, as long as you don't post RW bullshit, there's a fairly free reign.

I don't think it's an exam...

[The Backlash Cometh]

41. I consider myself a left centrist, but I'm mostly left of the views posted

in the original post.

[QC]

78. Only *I* am pure enough to be an authentic DUer.

Anyone who does not agree with me absolutely, on every issue, is a DINO DLC-PNACer!

[mattclearing]

131. Somehow I doubt the ultimate authentic DU'er would take Dell over Apple.

[Armstead]

2. Nah. Just shows you have an open mind

We all have our individual compass for these things.

I sometimes find myself debating the more "left" position in some threads, while defending "moderation" in others.

[blm]

58. Same here, because I'm basically a socialist with a major pragmatic streak

Which is why I find myself in the same position as you and cali here at DU.

I think we look for a couple of bottom lines - Is it accurate and is it constructive? - And then take it from there.

[Odin2005]

77. Same here.

I'm a socialist, but I am not a Marxist (I consider the Marxist interpretation of history western-cenered nonsense that purpetuates the myth of Civilization as a unitary entity instead of the reality of a plurality of civilizations each with a lifespan), which makes me have more in common with liberals than fellow socialists. Suprisingly, there is one thing I agree with conservatives (the traditional types like Edmund Burke, not the reationaries and theocrats that pass themselves off as conservatives nowdays), that society is an organic thing consisting of history, customs, and traditions and that the concept of the "social contract" is metaphysical and ahistorical nonsense; one must take into account a society's history and traditions when you attempt change, otherwise you risk the societal destabilization and violence associated with anti-tradition-based revolutions like the French and Bolshevik revolutions (Burke, was a big supporter of the American Revolution because he viewed it as the colonists wanting to protect thier traditional liberties from an over-reaching Parliament).

[blm]

82. The historic record is a HUGE factor in my overview of EVERYTHING.

.

[OKNancy]

3. It's a big tent and we need all kinds of viewpoints

I for one, enjoy reading posts that go against "DU orthodoxy"

[johnnie]

4. I'm sure many here agree with you on one or all of your points

There are many degrees of liberalism here at DU, and I'm sure many here agree with you. I know I do on many of your points.

[boobooday]

5. There's no litmus test, as far as I can tell

Liberals come in many flavors, most of them quite yummy.

Thanks for your activism!

[cali]

9. Thanks.

Actually the reason I was thinking about this is I've been called a troll several times of late for taking one or the other of these positions.

[Daphne08]

39. Join the crowd. I've also been accused of trolling.

Me. I've been a Democrat all my life, and I'm an oldie.

Seriously, I use my intellect, make up my own mind and do have some views that are not in line with the Democratic Party.

[seabeyond]

6. i dont have to be liberal enough for anyone. nor conservative enough

or christian enough, or nice enough.

but..... i oppose bush. everything about this administration and am fighting to get dems elected. it seems to be good enough for most all, especially good enough for me.

[Psephos]

7. You sound like someone who does their own thinking...

...rather than consume the pre-packaged product.

People like you are both our strength and our salvation: rooted enough in progressive values to be resilient and directed toward good goals, and flexible enough to avoid the problems that rain down when the same approved words fall from every person's lips.

Peace.

[cali]

17. thanks very much.

those are kind words. I'm fond of saying that I don't buy my ideas wholesale.

[Sammy Pepys]

8. Agree with you a lot here.....

Some of the stuff I see here is pretty unnecessary sometimes, and doesn't do anything to help the cause. But, we're a big tent group...I'd rather have free flow of idea and thought than blatant censorship/judgement just for throwing out a perspective or idea. Yes, some of them drive me up the wall sometimes...but we should be able to at least play nice on the outside with ideas we might not all share. There are lots of people that definitely out-liberal me here, but I've leanred to enjoy the variety of thought.

Honestly though, I think you represent a great portrait of the mainstream voter.

[quaoar]

10. Well.....

I think that scum like the guy who raped and murdered Carlie Brucia should be put to death immediately. Not a real popular view at DU.

[Greyhound]

11. I, for one, agree with most of what you've stated.

I also wonder about fitting in here. But, what the hell, as long as they don't tombstone me, I'll just keep shouting into the storm, and enjoying the imminently satisfying moments when I get to say "I told you so".

[Dhalgren]

12. You are not as "liberal" as some, but more so than others;

it's a continuum. You're to the right of me, but to the left of others...

[FlaGranny]

13. Sometimes I wonder if DU is liberal

enough for many DU members.

I DO think you are a bit naive about the media.

The more I've researched what I find on these pages, the more convinced I've become that things are worse than most imagine, and even though I am not a far left radical.

Edit: I'll bet you that the "president's men" would consider me a lefty radical, though.

[Minnesota Libra]

15. THANK YOU - I've tried saying this same thing many times but........

.....I'm not that good with the English language apparently because I got flamed unmercifully. I'm very much a "middle of the road Democrat" and I'm not into the extreme arms of either party.

The only thing I might disagree with is the 2004 elections, they were just too many coincidences for my liking.

THANK YOU

[stray cat]

16. Same here - thanks for a well conceived post

[bpilgrim]

18. all those points are certainly debatable ;-)

and some can even be called RW spin, imho, but thats the point... we come hear to debate, so expect to be challenged ;->

for example, i am a liberal and i loath the 'blame america first' BS refrain as well as the 'america is responsible for ALL the worlds ills'... i find them to be weak broad brushes posted by folks who either don't know the topic well or who wish to change the topic.



peace

[Solon]

19. Well, first thing to do is be consistant...

I wasn't troubled when my Senator (Leahy) voted for Roberts.

I'm as concerned about Roe being so eroded that it remains as a hollow constitutional "right", as I am about it being overturned.

If you are so concerned about Roe being either eroded or overturned, doesn't really matter which, then why aren't you bothered by Leahy's vote again?

[cali]

23. Who was Roberts replacing?

Oh, that's right, he was replacing William Rehnquist, who was resolutely anti-Roe. Was there a chance that opposing Roberts would have resulted in a better, more qualified candidate? No. Did Roberts say a lot of things that indicated that he would be fair minded and take into account stare decisis? He did. He was not in the mold of Alito or Bork in his testimony. I wish he weren't on the SC, but I do understand Leahy voting to confirm.

[Czolgosz]

25. FYI -- Roberts' scant record suggests he is WELL to the right of Rehnquist

You may disagree with Rehnquist, but he was generally a principled conservative (which demands a certain respect for judicial precedent). Roberts (as far as can be judged by his thin judicial record) is not a conservative, but an activist reactionary (which is a judge who is not satisfied with enforcing the status quo against liberal change -- which is conservatism -- but who would go further by ignoring and reversing precedential decisions to try and take our rights back to an idealized point in the romanticized past before certain liberal changes were adopted).

[Czolgosz]

27. I agree with you except on Roberts. Why didn't Leahy's vote trouble you?

[cali]

37. I disagree with your characterization

of Rehnquist as principled, and I think it's arguable that Roberts is more right wing than Rehnquist was.

In 1954 Rehnquist advised Jackson, to oppose the Brown decision overruling the "separate but equal" doctrine. He wrote Barry Goldwater's speech opposing the Civil Rights Act. He opposed the ERA because he thought it would destroy families. He supported literacy tests and poll taxes. Pretty hard to talk about his principled conservatism in the face of those facts.

[Czolgosz]

68. I base this characterization on cases like Lawrence v. Texas,

Nevada Dep't of Human Resources v. Hibbs, Van Orden v. Perry, Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, United States v. Virginia Military Institute, Clark v. Martinez, Locke v. Davey, Dickerson v. United States, and United States v. Fordice.

In every one of these important cases, Scalia's position is well to the right of Rehnquist's. What generally separates Rehnquist's views in these cases from Scalia's is not a more moderate ideological view, but a greater respect for precedent, which is a principled conservative value.

If you read Roberts's opinions (for example, Rancho Viejo v. Norton) as well as the cases he has joined and the work he did to secure his appointment to the Supreme Court, it is clear that Roberts falls much more in the Scalia camp with regard to his lack of respect for precedent than the Rehnquist camp.

[Buck Rabbit]

73. My Senator was conned by Roberts.

Wyden specifically talked to Roberts about Oregon's death with dignity law, and Roberts played him on it. Turned around and joined only Scalia and Thomas to vote against it as one of his first votes.

My guess is many people were wrong, that it will be Roberts in firm lockstep with the two stooges, with Alito joining them most but not all of the time. We will see.

[dogfacedboy]

109. We must hope that

no more Justices leave until the radical right has been neutralized and/or deleted.

[Solon]

26. My problem is that Sandra Day O'Connor was replaced already...

So we replaced one moderate and one right wing asshole with TWO right wing assholes, and I don't trust their testimony to the Senate on any issue. To be honest, both are elitist, closet racists, I would hate to see what they would do to further weaken affirmative action and other programs that help the poor or disenfranchised along with the gutting of Roe.

[Czolgosz]

70. No. We replaced one moderate and one conservative with two agenda-driven

judicial activists.

The trade of Rehnquist for Roberts was not merely one asshole for another. It was like trading a traditional Republican (a conservative) for a NeoCon (a reactionary agenda-driven activist). This was a huge step is the wrong direction, which was marked by the fact that Roberts is better than Alito at putting a friendlier face on the hideous agenda which both judges share. Between Roberts and Alito, I suspect Roberts may very well prove to be the more lethal judge of the two because he is a friendlier face, because he will likely sit on the court longer, and because he will wield more power as Chief Justice.

[cali]

99. Fair enough. Those are excellent points and

I'm certainly concerned by the real possibility that Roberts and Alito will prove to be agenda driven, and more like Scalia than Rehnquist, though as I said, I had precious little use for Rehnquist. i shouldn't have glibly tossed out that Leahy's vote for Roberts didn't trouble me. More accurately, I understood his vote though I would have preferred he voted against Roberts.

[rman]

20. For sure that's a lot of interesting debating topics

I don't agree with you on all, but i don't think that means you're not liberal enough - whatever "enough" might be in this case.

[Solon]

21. And another thing, don't lie about DUers when you post...

I don't think America is responsible for all the evils on the face of this planet, and our country's evils don't negate the the evils of others.

Show me one damned post about this, just one, and I'll shut up, include a link as well.

[cali]

42. I don't care if you shut up or don't

but I would like an apology. I don't relish being called a liar. Please check out post #35 on this very thread for an example of the rhetoric I was speaking about. From that post:

"Have you read the book, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man?" Read it and then tell me we aren't responsible for all the evils of the world, or at least most of them."

[July]

51. When you mentioned DUers blaming the U.S. for all the evils in the world,

post #35 didn't exist. That poster used your own language to make a point.

On what did you base your original assertion?

[cali]

54. I don't see how you can possibly logically

conclude that that poster was using my language to make a point. I've seen plenty of similar posts on DU. No, I'm not going to go find exhibits for you. Post #35 suffices quite well. Why do you believe that said poster doesn't mean what he/she wrote?

[in_cog_ni_to]

76. Here...read your own words. Copied and pasted from the OP.

I don't think America is responsible for all the evils on the face of this planet, and our country's evils don't negate the the evils of others.

[July]

87. Okay, so your original assertion came from the ether.

Don't find exhibits for me, but don't expect me to try to find the justification for that assertion, either. You, not I, threw out your straw man -- which is what it will remain for me unless you can back it up with DUers' posts. If you don't feel like showing where it came from, don't be surprised when some of us don't take it seriously.

Speaking of logic, post #35 does not suffice to explain where your initial remark came from, as I've already said. Once again, as it didn't exist when you made your original post, its appearance after the fact does not explain your original post, nor could it, logically.

[Solon]

55. While I don't agree a hundred percent with his post...

Nor do I think the US is responsible for ALL evils in the world, one thing to make clear is that he used YOUR language in his post, to make a point. In addition to that, for the past 50 years or so, the US, along with the USSR, due to politics, have killed MILLIONS each in a tug of war that, in the end, accomplished nothing but pain and suffering. Not only that, but the United States is neither unique nor special in this regard, all powerful empires of the past were built up on the bones of the millions they killed to get to that point, the US, today, is not any different. To say that the US is responsible, either directly(Iraq, Vietnam), or Indirectly(various coups, drug running, etc.) for most of the evils in the MODERN world, that would be accurate, to say the least.

[in_cog_ni_to]

75. You haven't even read the damn book and you are making a judgement on it?

You are something else. Ask anyone here, who HAS BOTHERED TO ACTUALLY READ THE BOOK, if my opinion is not accurate.

[SmokingJacket]

22. If everyone agreed on everything, it would be dull here.

I'm sure you can find plenty of other people here who share your opinions, and plenty who don't.

That's how it's supposed to be!

[Warpy]

24. Two of my best online buds are Goldwater Repuglicans

who voted for both Gore and Kerry because they knew Stupid was going to be really bad news for every conservative value they held dear. They were right about that.

I find that we all want the same things for this country, but we have very different approaches on how to achieve it. My buds are reasonable types who listen and discuss. Sometimes I've convinced them of some point, sometimes they've convinced me.

I refuse to demonize RINOs (in the present usage, meaning non wingnut) within their own party. Most are reasonable people, just wrong. However, I don't think they belong in positions of power in OUR party because their priorities are not our priorities and their leadership has cost us all three branches of government.

A party that sacrifices its principles to expediency and abandons its base can't expect to get into power and stay there. Yet that is exactly what the conservative wing of the party has done to us.

It's time for a change in our party, and let's hope they get their party back, too.

[mdmc]

28. I think that you are kosher, cali. Your gonna vote for Bernie, right?

I am certain that I am liberal enough for DU. Sometimes I wonder if I am too liberal for DU.

I, too have tolerance of Rino's. I am actually a fan of Joementum.
I don't know how folks voted for Roberts. W. is boss, and should get to appoint SCOTUS nominees.
I think that BFEE is an extension of fascism that Hitler was part of.
I am a Bill of Rights purist. Those guns are needed to overthrow an illegal government (fuckin RADICAL!). Agree that it is a state issue.
Roe is based on privacy. I could care less what the SCOTUS does concerning Roe. If it is overturned, I firmly believe that this would lead to a progressive revolution where the right to privacy and to pursue freedom. This would lead to a progressive revolution against the Dems and the GOP.
The evils of this planet are due to greed and self interest. America is a big part of this problem.
If Bush MIHOP, then he deserves the Hague. I support a censure.
M$M is owned by corporations. The GOP and Dems are owned by corporations. M$M is profit driven, and is more sensational then conservative or liberal. M$M is actually liberal, in that they will report whatever story increased their profits. It does not matter whether a story is conservative or liberal, just profitable.
The 2004 election was lost based on fear. Bush was the protector, Kerry was going to the same government plays, only smarter and better. The progressive (Nader + Cobb) candidates offered a very different plan then Bush (or Kerry). We lost due to lack of vision (or our vision was easily co-opted by the GOP). The election was poorly framed by us, and masterfully framed by Rove.

I feel that main stream dems are comfortable. Americans are comfortable. We are all complacent. We won't win until we shake it up. I am a liberal, but I am registered as a Democrat. I am on my local dem committee. Out of 21 local elected officials, only 4 of them ran and were elected on the dems / Working family Party lines. All others were GOP or Dems+Conservative lines. You can't tell the difference between a local GOP and a local Con Dem. There really is no difference between the parties.

Sometimes I think that I am too liberal for DU.

[cali]

50. Of course I'll vote for Bernie!!!

I've worked on past campaigns of his. Love him to pieces.

[mdmc]

52. And you don't feel too liberal?

[Name removed]

56. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yollam]

29. I'm not DLC/PC enough...

I have little tolerance for corporate-owned "democrats" or those who support them just because they are "pro-choice", no matter how right-leaning their war/economy policies are.

I can't imagine being to the right of the DU mainstream. It's pretty moderate, IMO.

[in_cog_ni_to]

80. DU is NOT supportive of the DLC. We have a handful of members

who support/like the DLC or their "sensible center" politicians. Do a poll on it. You'll see. The DLC is DETESTED by most here. Cali is a DLC lover. IOW....to the RIGHT of DU.

[Yollam]

83. I realize that.

I used DLC for lack of a better word. I tend to believe in more socialistic solutions, whereas DUers seem more Clintonite in their beliefs. I don't mean to call DUers a bunch of Lieberman-type bootlicks. But most DUers are not as incensed by horrible, evil right-wing ideas like "flat tax", repealing the estate tax, or school vouchers as I am. Most DUers think Clinton was a terrific president. I think he was a right-wing warmonger - from where I stand, the ideological difference between a Clinton and a Lieberman is only incremental and attitudinal, whereas most DUers would see the difference as gaping.

I see the mainstream of DU as being slightly to the left of the DLC - right around where Kerry is - which is to say way to the right of me. I'm somewhere between Hugo Chavez and Dennis Kucinich.

[in_cog_ni_to]

85. Ah...gotcha! I love Dennis Kucinich too and Hugo Chavez is OK by me.

Anyone who supplies the poor people of Boston with heating fuel is OK in my book. He also hates the idiot-in-chief... He can't be all bad.

[RB TexLa]

107. Fred Phelps hates B*** too, you OK with him? n/t

[Yollam]

111. You're comparing a leftist president with a fundie psycho?

Why?

Phelps hate Bush because he doesn't put gays into gas chambers because he is either a self-hating closet case obsessed with gays or a phony and a publicity hog - either way I don't see how you can compare him to a man who is trying to bring egalitarian reform to one of the most crushingly unequal societies in our hemisphere.

I hear a lot of "Chavez is bad because XXX corporate newspaper said so, and because the rich in Venezuala hate him, and because he has restricted freedoms".

Usually, the accusations are short on specifics and simply require the reader to hate Chavez because he has had dinner with Fidel Castro a time or two (and even Fidel isn't half the thug Bush is)



And besides, are YOU okay with BUSH just because Phelps hates him?

If you have a point, why not make it concisely instead of posting snotty leading questions?

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[mandyky]

30. I never wonder but

I know what you mean (about 2/3 of what you said).
The other 1/3 of your doubts are reasonable ones.

[ourbluenation]

31. I just got flamed for not being a liberal cuz I condone random

locker searches at high schools (with parental permission only). Our local high school is infested with drugs and alchohol problems. I think it's a good idea and I got a rash of DU shit for saying so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Minnesota Libra]

33. Well, here is a parent who TOTALLY agrees with random searches of.......

....school lockers and bedrooms of kids. I know it's not a popular notion around here but we are the parents, not them. Until they turn legal adult age kids need guidance and monitoring.

I know I am setting myself up for a flame fest but so be it. Based on the fact that NOT ONE of my own four kids or the six step-kids I raised were involved in gangs or drugs I guess at some point I must have done something right.

[ourbluenation]

43. glad to meet you! From my experience even really great kids do

really dumb things sometimes. Everyone agrees that drugs and alchohol don't belong on campus I'm sure. But unless they think they could be randomly checked, some kids are going to bring it on campus, and in some cases sell and deal.

[Minnesota Libra]

49. EXACTLY!! nt

[BoneDaddy]

60. I happen to agree with you on the simple fact that

the lockers are the property of the school. That simple. I would fight the school if they wanted to do a search of the student's person or their car.

[Solon]

65. I agree with you their...

School Property is School Property, Cars and Persons themselves are different however, need probably cause for either of those, or, in the case of Cars, most likely owned by Parents, permission to search.

[Bridget Burke]

74. The topic of the thread was a new Federal plan...

All students enrolled in extracurricular activities will be subjected to drug testing.

NO locker inspection. NO parental approval required.

[stepnw1f]

32. Don't Be So Touchy

Follow your convictions... not everybody has got to agree with you either.

[cali]

38. Actually, I'm not at all touchy and I have

no problem following my convictions. I was trying to start a conversation on this topic. No where did I suggest that you or anyone else has to agree with me.

[ginnyinWI]

34. a lot of us aren't liberal enough for DU

I don't march in lock-step with a lot of people here--but I don't argue with them, because I think the Democratic Party has a big tent. A party out of power is like this--split up into a lot of factions--until they gain the majority again--and then they tend to emerge with a more unified voice. So there's nothing wrong with differences--it's a liberal value to be tolerant of differences.

Moderate positions are just as valid as extreme lefty positions, IMO. It doesn't make you a bad Democrat when you don't just accept everything that pops up on these forums.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[theHandpuppet]

36. Just a couple of things...

First of all, you are constantly posting Freeper threads over here at DU. Y'know, you may have a masochistic curiosity about that gaggle of dittoheads, but I don''t come here to DU to read the annotated "The Best of Freeperville".

Second, your rather generous opinion of the MSM may not be shared by all here, but is it really necessary to go out of your way to attack others who question them and/or their agenda? You know exactly what I am talking about.

Now you are certainly not the most conservative poster here, as there are (from what I've read) many moderate and even conservative Dems among us. But rather than bemoan the fact that you feel accused of being a Freeper, there are some positive steps you could take to present your point of view without deliberately stirring people up.... to what purpose, I don't really know.

Anyway, those are just two suggestions towards resolving what you feel is a personal attack on your integrity. 'Kay?

[Bluebear]

48. Along with not throwing a couple of bucks DU's way

I know not everyone can afford 5 bucks to keep the site going, but I can't help it, the star at least tells me there is some kind of commitment.

[Dorian Gray]

71. I don't think that's fair.

I enjoye people's posts regardless of whether they have a star by their name or not. It's not fair to judge someone for not having a star. There could be a myriad of reasons why not, and I think it's a totally unfair prejudice on this board. (And I do donate.)

I'm not all together familiar with Cali's posts, but if you disagree with him/her, that's one thing. I just don't like bemoaning the lack of a star by a poster's name.

[Le Taz Hot]

92. Um, just FYI

I donated for years (since 2001) and have donated for others when I could. I don't have a star next to my name because my husband has been out of work for almost a year. I've committed myself to politics for 30 years. That's MY committment.

[Bluebear]

123. Calm down with the hot red face already

I wasn't talking about you. I was addressing the moderate posters who claim to be not liberal enough etc. Also. I said I just couldn't help feeling the way I do, it's just another piece of the puzzle to me, so no offense intended.

[BootinUp]

40. You're fine I think, or we both should go, heh. n/t

[WI_DEM]

44. Excellent post

Too many people on DU think if you don't feel the same way as they do on every issue that you are not a real liberal or pure enough for DU. Democratic party has always had many voices and extremes.

[FredStembottom]

45. I don't march in lockstep either....

BUT I am currently in complete solidarity with Lefties of all stripes. I don't care to argue the points I don't necessarily agree with right now. I feel it to be too much of a luxury in these dire times. Sometime in the future, when Democrats have regained some control and are calling the shots, I'll indulge in the fine-points I take exception to.

[rucky]

46. Some constructive criticism...

This thread works, while your other related threads haven't, and I think i know why:

You've presented your stance on the issues clearly and respectfully. Now I'm not saying I haven't seen you get unfairly attacked with namecalling and incredibly stupid non-arguements. That's going to happen here to you - especially because you often hold unpopular views and there are 85,000 pissed off people on these boards.

So I'm suggesting that it's up to YOU to stand your ground and stay on the high road. Any potshots you take will draw in a dogpile (hows that for a mixed metaphor). In other words, really really try not to get defensive - even when you know you're going to be attacked. A majority of us here respect clear, thoughtful and reasonable posts - even if we may differ in opinion.

Peace,

rucky

[cali]

53. thanks

but what related posts that don't work are you talking about? In all candor, I don't mind having my opinions challenged. I kind of enjoy it. It's good to have to think about the positions one takes. I don't even mind the attacks that you characterize as unfair, and I don't think that's happened to me personally, too often.

[theHandpuppet]

62. Correct me if I'm wrong...

... but I think the poster may be referring to these types of posts?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

In any case, I haven't really seen anyone here accuse you of being a troll. Certainly, I don't peruse a majority of the threads here on DU (there are simply too many) but some of us don't even know where you're coming from. I DO know you have posted a lot lately about being accused of being a troll, but are you really being accused or just being overly sensitive? If you ARE being accused of being a troll then that is an issue that can be addressed by the mods. At some point this feels too much like grandstanding, Cali. If you are being picked on then give folks some basis of reference for your feelings.

[bvar22]

47. Labels are misleading.

According to these polls, I am a Centrist, but feel right at home at DU.

In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic party:

1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

8. Over 65% of all Americans believe that the Invasion of Iraq was a mistake.


Forget the labels.
Where do you stand on the issues?

[Adelante]

57. "Forget the labels. Where do you stand on the issues?"

That makes so much damned sense.

[cali]

59. I agree. Labels are misleading.

Where do I stand on the issues? I'm with the majority on each point in the poll. As far as Iraq goes, three times I've taken a bus overnight to DC to march against it- and I hate crowds.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. Well, we're even. I sometimes think I'm too "liberal" for DU.

[leftofthedial]

63. nope. you're not liberal enough.

[anarch]

64. me too...but not for the same reasons

I'm far more extremely left-wing in most views than the majority of people here seem to be, and I refuse to just toe the liberal line when it comes to specific issues.

Nevertheless, I'm right there with you as far as your last two sentences are concerned.

[Mythsaje]

66. I don't find any of these positions

particularly difficult to comprehend. Sometimes I too think the rhetoric goes to far and harms our overall credibility. I still find myself somewhere in the middle...I believe Bush and Co HAVE committed war crimes, though it's doubtful they'll ever face any sort of real charges for it. For one, they knew enough to refuse to sign on to the World Court. How prophetic of them.

HOWEVER, I think there are valuable insights throughout the spectrum. Election fraud is an issue--how LARGE of one I cannot say. I want to tear my hair out every time I read a post which suggests "none of this matters...they can just steal the vote with Diebold...Diebold...Diebold..."

Same with the 9/11 conspiracy theories. We have MIHOP and LIHOP folks in abundance and, okay, I'll give them their space. I remember that day, when I got over my initial shock, my first thought was "how convenient."

I expected Bush to use it to his advantage. Whether his administration was complicit or not, he certainly ran with it just as I'd expected.

Personally I don't like DINOs in ANY state. They totally screw up the dialogue and stab their constituents in the back by voting against their interests. It's pretty shabby representation if they're willing to do harmful things just to get re-elected because the average voter is misinformed or too bound by ideology to even recognize where their own best interests lie.

[Canuckistanian]

67. We've been wondering about you, too

You haven't come to any of the secret librul meetings.

You ignore the marching orders given to you by George Soros.

You don't love the terrorists as much as we do.

You complain about the media, but they're doing exactly what we want them to do.

In short, Rush Limbaugh can't use you as a 'model librul'.

(K&R, but don't tell anyone)

[Vektor]

69. I agree with you on some stuff, and disagree on other points, but...

that's fine. That's what we do here on DU - debate and discuss. One of the great things about the Democratic party is that we are all free thinkers. While it may prove a mixed blessing when fighting the Repukes who have unity in their lockstep march, I still wouldn't trade in my individuality (or yours) for a place in the Army of Conformity.

Be who you are. If you are a more moderate Democrat, so be it. You have every right to be exactly who you want to be. I hope you'll stay.

[iconoclastNYC]

72. You certainly are whiny enough.

Another moderate DUer bitching that we're too liberal.

[cali]

101. Yawn. That is such a tired insult.

The silliest ad hom of all. There's nothing whiny about my OP, or any of my other posts on this thread.
I don't consider myself a moderate for one minute. I'm a liberal. I've spent over 20 years working for liberal candidates and liberal causes. Just because I think the whole to the Hague with bush mantra is stupid and unproductive and because I don't believe that the admin arranged to fly the jets into the towers, or that bush is worse than hitler or that I'm in imminent danger of being thrown into a detention camp because of my activities with my local peace and justice group, doesn't make me a moderate. Sorry, you can't steal the lliberal moniker like that.

[iconoclastNYC]

110. Right.

You get to decide what's "too liberal" and who's just liberal enough, and who's a moderate. I forgot you are the judge and jury. Why don't you focus on the positive aspects about DU and ignore the negatives. Your bitching is quite tiresome.

[cali]

113. I didn't

pronounce judgement. I realize that everyone's dug in, but someone carefully reading what I wrote would be hard pressed to characterize it as you did. Here's what I said:

One last thing: I'll be damned if I let people like you take over the word liberal. Your thinking is anything but liberal. Your pronouncement that someone can't be a liberal if they don't believe bushco should be tried in the Hague is anything but liberal. Your lying is anything but liberal. Your militant belief that you have a lock on the truth is anything but liberal.

Please note that I was responding to someone who did precisely what you accused me of; stating who qualifies as a liberal and who doesn't. I don't measure people by degrees of liberalism. I'm ok with people describing themselves as they please.

What you call whining or bitching or whatever, I call a spirited argument. No where did I go into a poor pitiful me, I'm being picked on thing. I don't feel that way. I know damn well that if you start a thread like this, you're going to get people who passionately disagree with you, and that's fine. Nor did I see my OP as negative. Provocative? Absolutely.

Finally, I see many good things about DU. It's been a terrific help to me. I learn a lot. I enjoy being challenged.

I'm sorry you view it as bitching, and I don't expect there's anything I could say to change your mind.

Respectfully,
cali

[iconoclastNYC]

121. why dont you just

Argue your position on the issues. Why denigrate DU as a whole? It seems counterproductive and whiny.

[cali]

122. I frequently argue my position

on the issues. I think you're being more than a tad oversensitive if you think I'm denigrating DU. There was nothing in my OP or other posts that did that. I feel compelled to note that the charge of whiny seems to be used frequently as an ad hominem attack. winguts use it against liberals, liberals use it against wingnuts, and people use it with abandon against those they disagree with. It doesn''t add to the debate. I could easily charge you with being whiny about my OP, but that says nothing. I prefer to explain why I disagree with someone.

[stillrockin]

79. You're RIGHT, alrighty!

Have to agree, you're not liberal enough . . .

[in_cog_ni_to]

81. LOL.

I don't think that's what she's fishin' for!

[Le Taz Hot]

93. LOL!

"Fishing" being the operative word here.

[Cleita]

84. Weird. I think I'm too liberal for DU and don't post everything

I think because of it.

[Yollam]

89. I've been called a right-winger, even though I'm basically a socialist

But since I put egalitarian economic concerns way ahead of "choice" and gay rights on my priority list, that makes me a right-winger, even though I'm to the left of my accusers. Weird.

[coalition_unwilling]

86. IMHO, the real question(s) for DU are three-fold:

a) is capitalism the best system of economic production?

Liberals tend to say yes, although they prefer their capitalism more well-regulated than conservatives or fascists. Socialists\communists uniformly argue that capitalism, while a necessary stage in human economic development, is not the be-all and end-all of economic production. Socialists\communists tend to regard the two-party system in the United States as a reflection (superstructure) of the underlying economic system of capitalism (substructure). As such, socialists and communists don't have much as much faith in the electoral process as liberals or conservatives.

b) is Bush a fascist or simply a post-industrial oliogopolist?

Liberals tend to view Bush as an oligopolist, whereas socialists\communists tend to see Bush as shading towards or being firmly planted in the fascist end of the spectrum. Of course, socialists\communists also tend to view Bush as evil in himself and as reflective of an evil system (oliogoply capitalism).

c) is human history the result of inexorable social forces beyond individual man's control or the result of some combination of individual efforts combined with inexorable social forces.

Liberals tend to take the latter position, placing more faith in the power of individual actions to shape history. Socialists\communists, on the other hand, while recognizing the contributions of individuals like Cindy Sheehan or Rosa Parks, tend to see history more as a working out of inexorable social forces.

At the risk of starting some sort of posting battle here, allow me to say that what I've written above is general and perhaps excessively so. But it's what I've been able to boil down in 46 years of reading and studying. I would say that liberals, socialists and communists should all feel at home on DU, but socialists and communists probably would not put as much effort into electoral politics as liberals would.

[msgadget]

98. Your questions are for the liberals at DU

only, right? There are a great many moderate and centrist DUers which, imo, could mean any damned thing these days. Do you have any moderate questions because I'd like to see those comparisons!

[coalition_unwilling]

130. I'm not sure I understand your question, but I was

attempting to respond to the topic\question of whether someone can be too liberal (or not liberal enough) for DU, as framed by the original poster.

I tend towards the socialist\communist end of the spectrum, especially when the fascists control all three branches of government, as they do now.

[Marie26]

88. I think so too sometimes

But I'll keep posting all the same. It's good to bring a diversity of views. I don't see why you should feel like you don't belong on a liberal site - you've done much more than many to advance liberal causes throughout your life. So what if you're against the mainstream sometimes? Everybody is on something. DU is a Democratic site, AFAIK, so there's no need to be "liberal" in that sense - I would assume moderate or even conservative Dems could post as well. And even liberals disagree on a variety of issues. In any collection of people, it's impossible to have 100% conformity to one POV; and we shouldn't even want that. What's the point of a discussion board where everyone agrees?

[LaPera]

90. Aren't you just adorable? Yes, I agree with you & your wonderment!

Moderates are here at DU in huge numbers...so you should feel right at home here!!!

[Forkboy]

91. Strangely enough

I always felt I was TOO liberal for DU.

Scary huh?

[depakid]

94. "I wasn't troubled when my Senator (Leahy) voted for Roberts. "

Sounds like that answers your question right there....

The man is an extremist with fundamentalist leanings.

[blogslut]

95. duuuude!

I love DU but it's just a message board. Not everyone will agree with you and some will get downright nasty in expressing their views. Ya gotta learn to appreciate the good, consider the reasonable and ignore the jerks. Your views are just as important and valid as anyone else's.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

97. This isn't the first post of this type I've seen on DU

I don't understand the others anymore than I do this one.

What is the point of posting this? Are you looking for sympathizers, complaining about the fact that others don't agree with you or just going on record?

I've seen this here and on other boards on the internet, it's because we (Dems) are free thinkers in my opinion. One poster post their views, people disagree and tell them so in turn they disagree back and then somehow it becomes an issue of one poster being too liberal or conservative for the board.

If a poster is a RW propaganda spewing troll people will alert and they will be tombstoned. If you support the Democratic Party, be you a liberal, moderate or conservative Democrat you will find others here who think like you do. That includes people who are suffering from fatigue from all the hell we've been through in the past 5 years.

I agree with many people here but not all, which is how I like it. If everyone here felt the same way and held the exact same opinions on everything what would be the purpose of discussing issues here?

We may as well just post DITTO to every thread and lockstep off into the sunset.

[KitchenWitch]

102. I am open to all viewpoints that help to eliminate the * administration.

[blm]

112. DING, DING, DING - and it takes all kinds to support that feat.

cheers and a thumbs up.

[msgadget]

104. Odd, lately I've felt too liberal for DU...

even though in a more sane political climate I'd be considered moderate.

[Lexingtonian]

105. uh, you're being liberal and sane

while a lot of this board, generally illiberal Left sorts, runs off the deep end every so often.

Never apologize for being liberal. Thank your deity that you have your senses about you and are not a power-hungry, Right-hating, Lefty.

[Catchawave]

106. I'm pretty open about being married to a Republican !

And have been called a hypocrite, mole and a troll Nah, I never hit *alert* either because I think those comments were just uneducated, not personal.

I love DU and coming together with like minds, even if we don't always agree, it's just one big happy dysfunctional family sometimes, which is very normal.

Otherwise, Cali, I agree with your OP. So, I'm pretty moderate, which is definitely my personal "happy place" in politics

[Skinner]

114. Is your account still turned on?

As long as your account is still on, then you are welcome at DU. You don't need to worry about what other people think. Just follow the rules, and everything will be cool.

[cali]

115. LOL,

neat and gentle. Thanks, skinner. I suspect you know that I was using a rhetorical device to start a conversation about the meaning of liberalism in general, and on DU in particular. I meant to provoke an interesting exchange, though I must admit I didn't anticipate that it would get so heated. I try to follow the rules. They seem reasonable to me.

[Thtwudbeme]

119. boy, I read that wrong. I thought you meant, "oh crap, I thought I turned

that account off!"



Now, that was funny---

[IsItJustMe]

116. I'm to liberal for you. I'm to conservative for you. I think your

simlistic act of trying to label DU to begin with is a exercise in futility. We all have different ideals because we are all unique.

Would you be happy if everyone thought as you did? I think not.

[bloom]

117. My response...

I have a problem with Republican politicians. Period.

I also have a problem with DINOs and DLCers.

I am concerned about Roe being eroded, overturned, and laws that protect women in general being minimized.

I think it's reasonable to compare 2006 USA to 1933 Germany.

I think the USA and it's corporations are way too imperialistic. Also - it's well known that Americans @ 5% of global population are responsible for 25% of energy use. Also the US' anti-regulatory policies are threatening the world and the US lack of cooperation in Kyoto is indefensible.

I think that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should be tried for war crimes - at least as soon as they leave office. And we should get them out of office as soon as possible.

While I think much of the problem with the corporate media is that it's the corporate media - I also think that Republicans have too much influence in media in general by virtue of having more money to throw around on PR and propaganda.

I am convinced that 2000 as well as 2004 was stolen one way or another.

I think that Democratic and Republican politicians are being too much influenced by the Israeli lobby.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Gun control is not a big issue with me. Although I think every state having different laws is a nuisance.

[Kerrytravelers]

118. While I don't necessarily agree with you, I certainly don't think you're

a troll or any less a liberal than I am. That is why we're liberals. We allow others to think for themselves. The other team isn't allowed to think- only take orders.

[IsItJustMe]

120. Why don't we complain that the summer time has flies. About the same.

[lumberjack_jeff]

124. The problem isn't that we have too many RINOs

It's that we have too few radicals.

[upi402]

125. Please don't let radicals like me bunch yer shorts!

[Ksec]

126. I have my disagreements with some also

Like on illegal immigration - but Ive always been a Democrat and I havent heard others accuse me of not being a Democrat. Thats good.

You can disagree on issues and still be a strong Democrat. No special interest group owns the party. Dont be afraid to state your beliefs. They are as valuable as anyones.

[RDU Socialist]

127. I think by far the majority of DUers are rational liberals

but there are several people on this forum, just like every other, who take an idea to its most radical conclusion. For every far leftist who will defend Stalin, consider President Bush as bad or worse than Adolph Hitler, there are tons of people who support liberal causes while not thinking the worst of America and Americans. As for the Nazi/Fascist comments I see people make on here, I lump those people together with the right wing idiots who call liberals "Commies" and "Pinkos." It's stupid, completely incorrect, and only stifles debate.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

128. Cali, I Agree With A Bit, Don't Agree With A Bit, But Give You 100%

respect for this thread. I think it took a ton of courage to post this. Even more importantly than that, I think that for a post rooted so deep from your mind and heart, that you wrote it as intellectually, reasonably and tactfully as any thread I've seen. And for that I give you mass respect. Threads like this from the heart, when you know they might be provocative to some, are incredibly challenging to post. I think you did one heck of a job!

Having that said, I agree with you on several points in your OP, disagree somewhat with a few, and am uncertain on others. But I don't feel any more liberal than you or view you more liberal than I. Because the way I see it, my definition of being a democrat, liberal, progressive etc, is holding the core values of decency, honesty, integrity, respect, graciousness, tact, diplomacy, and a genuine caring for all races, genders, classes and age groups and desire to improve the lives of them all. And dear cali, when it comes to those qualities, regardless of which points I do or don't agree with above, you are top notch and I'm proud to call you a liberal, k?

[welshTerrier2]

129. a few points ...

first, although we may disagree on many of the points you raised, i think it would be tragic if the DU community became so regimented that diversity was no longer tolerated and respected ... and the views you expressed seem like solid progressive views to me ...

i think we do our causes a major disservice when we try to measure "liberalness" along a continuum ... it reduces what should be an American issue to a partisan issue and weakens our case and the magnitude of our support ...

for example, are you "liberal" if you think there's too much money in the political process? ... do right-wingers who genuinely believe in the Constitution and the institutions of government and the American electoral system really want a government of special interests? i don't believe they do ... instead of framing this as a left-right battle, we should be framing it as a "let's restore and reform our democracy" issue ... the labels really hurt the cause ... they divide us and let big monied interests maintain their dominance ...

you also said gun control should be left to the states ... fwiw, i strongly disagree ... it's important to understand that states that make it very easy to obtain guns make it close to impossible for more restrictive states to enforce their laws ... i vaguely remember some statistic from years ago that said something like 90% of the guns used in gun crimes in NY State were sold in Virginia ... my memory isn't so good; perhaps the data is wrong ... but the point is that one state's policy clearly impacts other states ... state's rights arguments are good in that they allow for local autonomy; they're bad because they often impose the preferences of one state on its neighbors ...

and finally, you wrote "I don't think America is responsible for all the evils on the face of this planet" ... i don't either ... the "left" is often tagged with this mistaken, anti-American bias ... frankly, it is often the left that raises issues of human rights concerns around the world ... while pro-business types want "free trade", "the left" often wants trade conditioned on whether we condone other countries' human right policies ... also, it's important to understand that US foreign policy has been highly abusive of many weaker nations ... we have assassinated; we have "toppled"; we have exploited foreign resources and foreign labor and we have had an imperialistic foreign policy for more than a hundred years ... as the most powerful nation in history, we are certainly not the only evil-doers on the planet but we are perhaps ultimately the most damaging ...

finally, while i also see the MSM as first and foremost "corporate", i think the real risk is not specifically "republican control of the media" but rather the dangerous centralizing of the media that has continued under both Democratic and republican administrations ... the risk to our democracy is first and foremost the corruption of big money and the power and abuse it enables ...

anyway, i salute your independent voice on DU ... i wouldn't worry at all about measuring up to the official DU mindset ... if we all thought exactly the same thing, there wouldn't be a whole lot of point to exchanging and debating our views ...