HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » delrem » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »

delrem

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:12 AM
Number of posts: 7,106

Journal Archives

The problem that I have with "Skinner's advice",

and please see my post #24 to understand more about where I'm coming from, is that his comment chastising supporters of Bernie Sanders for uncomely behaviour was not fair - considering that at the same time Skinner was donning a HRC logo. His comment was "blind", it was partisan, and it is still being used today to bludgeon Bernie Sanders' supporters.

Please see the Bernie Sanders group on DU and compare it with any other group, for any other candidate, regarding whether it is upbeat, positive, pro-Democratic. Skinner's slam against Bernie Sanders' supporters was wrong. It doesn't reflect the reality of DU.

Imagine. There are some who want to see him executed for treason.

Others more compassionate just want him to serve the rest of his life in solitary.
Of these there are some who wouldn't mind to see him water-boarded and worse, worse forever if their imagination needs the room, so long as nobody is caught, so long as nobody can prove it in a court of law - all of which are owned.
(If someone is caught it's a black eye, but if nobody is caught it's a feather in our cap.)
This way we get to discern a "liberal center". A land of "bleeding hearts".

You didn't try very hard.

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-c1-bernie-sanders-president-2016-20150306-story.html#page=1

It quotes from an extemporaneous speech at the Prairie Lights bookstore way back in early March.

It doesn't mean anything.

What means something is that Mao kicked out the European free-ports, those colonialist enterprises run by colonialist countries.
It had to be done.
The Brits still had their Island colony.

The ruling class on that Island colony hadn't done a very good job for China, when they were in power - and now they ruled their Island at Her Majesty the Queen of England's sufferance.
In the thousands of years of China's history, their governance was the nadir.

China now had to fend for itself outside of and ostracised from the American/European economy, in a condition that was totally undeveloped and totally the product of neglect.

For all its faults, China is now/soon the #1 economy in the world.
That happened quickly, considering the size of the engine.
The Chinese invented the concept of "state capitalism" decades ago, whereas most Americans still associate China with a nebulous hate-word 'communism', think its economy has something to with "Marx", and beyond those insights don't have a clue.










You have successfully run me off DU.

Not your post alone, of course, but because I respect your posts and it was you who posted it, it was "the straw that broke my back", my will to continue.

I cannot post on a forum where I'm accused of being a racist because I support the ideals and aspirations of Bernie Sanders, and try to defend Bernie Sanders against innuendo that he's either a racist or doesn't give a shit about racial issues. When I can't even rec a post lauding MLK, without being shat on as "cherry picking" or whatever crap-filled innuendo is being flung.

I respect your posts, and those of 1SB and others. I think you all have good hearts.

But I cannot continue to post on DU when discussion is under such an all pervasive noxious cloud, where I have no way to defend myself against slander against my character.

There are a couple well known people on DU flying the Bernie avatar

who have never, to my knowledge as a regular reader of DU, posted anything remotely suggesting that they would support Bernie Sanders. The opposite, in fact -- their politics would be way way way closer to yours. As "Bernie supporters" their posts have never promoted any policy that Sanders is distinguished for, but instead all their posts castigate Sanders' supporters for being especially awful people.

Go figure.

You do realize that the Saudi despots aren't, like, "the good guys" on planet Earth?

If the US wanted to spend a couple years working up a case of hate against the Saudi regime, as forerunner to one of their now regular "regime change" operations, they wouldn't have much of a problem. Certainly no more of a problem than they have against all the other hated enemies.

Right now the PNAC list of prime targets has been whittled down to Syria, Lebanon (??), Iran, and most certainly Iran has seen the progression and knows that it's next in line. God only knows how the USA expects to control the product of their ME war, where they're aligned with extremist despots in Saudi Arabia (wahhabi - ISIS - al queda). The question baffles the best of minds.

Posts like this say that NOTHING MATTERS.

And a letter 'D' is NOTHING if all there is to it is blind submission to authority, so long as it is 'D'.
It's part of that damned "loyalty oath" crusade, that hit when HRC's candidacy hit.

I don't see it that way.

I see DUers as being individuals first and foremost, each with a different upbringing, education, experience, building a different understanding. Nothing of that "reflects on a political candidate".

Even when someone flies a candidates icon, I don't presume that they're somehow a proxy for that candidate. That wouldn't be fair to "candidates". It just wouldn't.

w.r.t. "candidates" in the Dem primary - well, I'm Canadian so I look at the US circus from the bleachers. We have our own problems. But in that regard I look at the policies that each candidate brings to the table, and I look at the history of the candidates themselves to get an idea. For example, Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair, *and the history of their parties*, will all present their best foot forward e.g. on "the environment". They all might say the same kind of thing, relatively speaking, about how they care. So I look at their historical record with an eye to that. In general that's how I judge "political candidates", or "politicians".

NYC_SKP wasn't a member of Bernie's campaign.

What contributors to DU say doesn't reflect directly back on specific politicians.

It isn't even close to being that kind of thing.

In one series of exchanges on this topic I learned that one contributor here said, back in the day, that a prominent Dem politician was "morally depraved", reiterating that the Dem politician is just plain "depraved", and there was no ban, no hide, yet it was during the last primary -- but now that same contributor says that altho' that post claiming "depravity" was totally OK (because considered true, or why?), thinks this ban is righteous because.... some difference cited in what read to me as argylbargl.

That doesn't make sense to me. Because "depraved" isn't on a list of banned words?

I learned that "the c-word" has been used thousands of times on DU, with absolute impunity. Esp. when directed at R's, used with glee. This case was an oblique usage in a massive fail of a joke, in response to a troll.

Generally:
Contributing to DU has made me care more about the words I use. In fact just a day ago I was searching for another word to use because the word that came to my head, "brethren", was male-centric and didn't capture the full meaning intended, or rather, it was *exclusionary* in a subtle and somehow insidious way -- whereas in my lazy normal day to day I just let that stuff go, because impossible to be perfect. So yes, language is important.

But shit, are we not allowed to make a mistake?

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »