It amuses me to no end that some folks want

[MannyGoldstein]

to institute a purity test to throw the people off of DU that they call... the Purity-Test Left.

If this is intentional comedy, it's brilliant!

[pscot]

1. Teabagger envy

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Thread win!

Pretty low bar, but still...

[demwing]

111. not cool!

that was the first post, and nothing was available for comparison.

Still...teabagger envy...

[Roy Rolling]

144. Groucho Marx said it best

and it it applies to me passing a "Purity Test."

"I refuse to belong to any club that would have someone like me as a member"

[quinnox]

3. I think we will see more calls for purity and purges as we approach the mid term elections

Just a wild guess.

[1000words]

5. +1

Wouldn't be surprised if the admins did a little house cleaning, too.

[quinnox]

7. Another duer made the observation that often, ironically, it is the ones calling for purges who end

up getting banned themselves. It is true, in the past I have seen this happen.

[truebrit71]

9. That would be sweet indeed..

...

[quinnox]

10. lol, well, let's not tell them, then. It will be our little secret

[Le Taz Hot]

67. That may have been me

though there are others who have made the observation as well:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4739673

Personally, I prefer the "give 'em enough rope" strategy. It requires no effort on my part other than to sit back and watch them tie their chonies in such a bunch they're eventually shown the door.

[840high]

138. One can hope.

[joshcryer]

17. They didn't in 2012.

It takes pretty egregious behavior to get banned, unless you have just signed up and MIRT can get you.

Better Believe It was allowed to shit stir all the way up until right before the election.

[1000words]

23. DU admins are sharp folks

Certain trolls can be useful with regards to site traffic, and keeping the place "buzzing."

[joshcryer]

25. Indeed.

Nothing wrong with that. But if you were around when we switched from DU2 to DU3 a lot of us Obama supporters supported the system changes (particularly juries), but the detractors were freaking the fuck out about purges. The exact opposite happened. More Obama supporters became dismayed by the changes because it allows for this sort of meta-attack-each other post behavior, which was strictly banned on DU1 and DU2.

I admit I myself have fallen for it (hell, just today I made a quip) so I am starting to question whether I should continue participating in GD at least.

[1000words]

27. Too many folks taking it way too seriously.

And worse, personally.

[joshcryer]

30. True that.

It's difficult not to take stuff personally when you're clumped in with others, such as people being accused of being Third Way, stuff like that. Those insults don't get to me, because I know they're untrue, falsehoods intended to flame-bait, it's the false sense of sincerity or caring for others here that annoys me.

[fleabiscuit]

38. OK, got another Q, what is MIRT? n/t

[joshcryer]

40. Malicious Intruder Removal Team

They can ban users if they are below a certain post threshold and a certain signup period. After that period runs out then only admins can ban. Whenever you see "Name removed" that's MIRT banning a new sign up troll (or spammer too).

[fleabiscuit]

42. Ah, Seal Team DU. Thank you. (An no MIRT, I didn't call anyone a STD) n/t

[hrmjustin]

4. I hate purity tests.

It would destroy the site.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

150. I refuse to put my legs up into stirrups.

[Skittles]

6. They lack critical thinking skills

yes indeed

[BainsBane]

8. You mean like being a Democrat?

On a site called Democratic Underground? Outrageous, isn't it?!

[Doctor_J]

12. everyone here is a Dem

even ones who support torture, "free" trade, chained CPI, mandatory for-profit insurance, Bush tax cut extensions, "clean" coal, and fracking. They call themselves Dems. Who am I to say different? That's the problem with purity tests.

[BainsBane]

13. Actually that's not true

Several have said they will not be voting Democratic and proclaimed the Democratic Party just as bad as the GOP.

[Scuba]

60. I keep seeing this claim, but there's never a link. Do you have one?

[BainsBane]

101. Look in the thread with the poll about the Democratic Party. nt

[Scuba]

102. So "no".

[BainsBane]

103. Wow.

You really aren't interested, are you? That was a clear direction on where to look. If you don't care, there is nothing I can do about that. Jesus. You didn't even try.

[Scuba]

104. I asked for a link that would back up your claim. You couldn't / didn't provide one.

It's your claim. Either back it up or withdraw it.

[BainsBane]

105. You asked for a link so I would get a hide on a callout

like I did a couple of days ago, and got flagged as a result. I'm not withdrawing what I know to be a fact. If you want to stick your head in the sand, that is your problem entirely.

[Scuba]

106. It's not incumbent on me to back up your claims. That onus is on you.

[BainsBane]

107. I did back them up

I told you where to look. That you can't be bothered to is your problem entirely. You must have seen that thread anyway since it was a very active one in GD yesterday. You don't want to inform yourself, which is your choice, but you don't get to put that on me. I'm done with this. You know where to look.. All it takes is actually giving a damn.

[Scuba]

108. Link please.

[AgingAmerican]

124. No link forthcoming

nt

[xocet]

121. How about a link? n/t

[BainsBane]

125. Initative people

Here is the link to the OP. Note I am not calling out the original poster or anyone else but simply showing members where they might look. I have only provided this link after continual demands that I do so, therefore it does not constitute a callout and should not be hidden by a jury. Now, in order to avoid the appearance of a callout, I will not be following up this link with discussion of anyone in that thread. Understood? This will be my last post on this subject matter in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4739751

[xocet]

127. Thank you for the link. n/t

[randome]

131. And I'll second that non-intention to call out anyone.

In case anyone wants to alert, I'll lend my considerable (snicker) opinion in your defense.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[BainsBane]

148. Thanks

[Whisp]

16. ha ha. How do you account for all the ones banned for not being a Dem?

you think they are really all gone now?

[Doctor_J]

22. Well, many do seem to still be around

and some have proclaimed they'd like to rid the party of, for example, those insisting on actual health care as a platform plank. But then in another thread the same day they will proclaim just as ardently that those same people, who they want to kick out, are to blame for not voting. Again, purity tests are hypocritical by their nature.

[BainsBane]

43. A purity test suggests there is some postiion members would be held to

We've been putting up with all kinds of RW views because we were told those differences exist within the Democratic Party. Now we find out some of those folks aren't Democrats, don't plan to vote Democratic, and consider the two parties the same. The only "purity test" is how they describe their own political intentions: not to vote for Democrats.

[1monster]

152. We have a secret ballot in this country so that people can democrtically vote for

the candidate of their choice.

How are you going to enforce your purity test? By insisting that DU members give up their Constitutional right and civil duty to a secret ballot?

I don't think that is something the Democratic party has ever advocated. In fact, I can't remember a time in my life that the Dems supported any kind of purity test or loyalty oaths... The Dems have always been vehemently against such measures.

[BainsBane]

153. This is not the ballot box

It's a private website where members agree to terms of service in which they say they will support and vote for Democrats. When they announce their intentions to do otherwise, they violate that TOS. DU doesn't pretend to be open to the entire political spectrum. It's specifically billed as a site for Democrats, progressives, not right wingers, their allies, or those who otherwise advance Republican electoral prospects.

[A Simple Game]

157. DU is also billed as first and foremost a site for liberals, please see the mission statement.

From your post:

It's specifically billed as a site for Democrats, progressives, not right wingers, their allies, or those who otherwise advance Republican electoral prospects.

As written this presents a dilemma, the site is not for right wingers, their allies, or those who advance Republican prospects. This is the main reason I first came here, good so far if you don't dig too deep. This was fine when I first joined DU as most on the site were liberals.

I as an unaffiliated liberal who often supports Democratic candidates but will not vote for them on the Democratic party line am subjected to scorn for my wanting to vote for the most liberal candidate available, which by the way is not likely to be the Republican and sadly increasingly also not likely to be the Democrat.

With rare exceptions, by DU rules I am obligated to support the Democrat, but if I do support a blue dog Democrat, I am running counter to your statement above and should be subjecting myself to banishment. Unlike many on DU I will not support a Republican even if they call themselves a Democrat which is increasingly more common these days. There are even known teabaggers running in Democratic primaries. How do you justify forcing someone to support a known DINO with your statement I have copied above?

If we are to embrace blue dog conservatives, moderates and liberals please tell me what the Democratic party stands for because these three groups don't want all of the same things or embrace the same solutions for common problems.

I stand for liberal ideals, but DU members are expected to stand for whatever their Democratic representatives say they stand for which may and often does change from candidate to candidate. What a way to run a political site, blowing in the wind. And there are many examples of this every day with posters that I know have complete support on a subject because President Obama supports it when they were completely against it when Bush was for it. Drones are just one example.

I stand for my principles that is why I am no longer a Democrat.

[1monster]

158. Yes, it is a private website, and the founders, Skinner, Earl G. and Elad make the rules.

If DU members want to suggest a change in t he rules, they should take it up with them. None of the rest of us get to make the rules.

I've been staying away from DU more and more because more than a few posters insist on telling others how they should think and post and because of the outrage when others don't. The kind of debate that ensues depresses he heck out of me.

As for supporting the Dems: I'm a registered Democrat and have been since I first registered (in order to vote against "Saint Ronnie&quot . I vote mostly for Democrats, but sometimes am not able to do so because there is no Dem running in the race. I did vote for an Independent for Senator last election because the Dem running didn't bother to campaign anywhere near adequately and didn't have a snowball chance in south Florida of winning. He put so little effort into it that I barely knew his name, and Charlie Crist was a much better choice than Marco Rubio. I'd do it again under the same circumstances. (By the way, Charlie changed his party affiliation to Democrat.)

I also won't vote for a candidate JUST because s/he wears a D after his/her name. S/He has to meet some criteria. If s/he is corrupt, sorry, having a D after his/her name isn't enough to get my vote. The criteria most often met and the one that most often influences my vote, though, is which is the lesser evil and that is nearly always the Dem.

[sabrina 1]

52. If they're banned they're not here. And what do you think of the latest trend of defending Right

Wing Policies? How about the 61 NJ Dems who ENDORSED Republican Chris Christie for Governor, causing their own Dem Candidate to lose that election? Would THEY be allowed to post here? Are WE Dems expected to support Dems who support Republicans for elected office and defend their Republican policies?

I am a Dem who supports Democratic policies, all the way. Eg, I do not consider anyone who supports the lies about SS and the the Deficit to BE a Dem. I am very suspicious of people like that. Found quite a few of them here on DU. They have not been banned. So it appears that supporting Right Wing policies is now okay here.

[hootinholler]

81. Very few who are banned are banned for not being a Democrat

Most are banned for being some flavor of asshole.

[Whisp]

92. like rw troll asshole, and ones who have been here for a loooong time

sniping away day after day.

Enough is Enough kind of explains that.

[Le Taz Hot]

69. Um, actually, I'm not.

There are others as well but they're too intimidated to come out and say it. I know this because they've PMed me.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. me either, I just vote for those knuckleheads 'cause the other ones

are too scary. I do that knowing full well that it is all theater (until it isn't, but I digress) and that we have a corrupt corporate kleptocracy managed by a duopoly.

[Maedhros]

132. Also not a Democrat.[n/t]

[frylock]

141. i'm not a registered dem..

my voter reg status is Decline to State.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. I stand with Zippy

[GeorgeGist]

21. I am not a member of any organized political party.

I am a Democrat.
Will Rogers

[hobbit709]

64. +1000

[840high]

140. ...^ that

[Hissyspit]

32. Yes, it is.

The TOS has never required posters here be Democrats.

[BainsBane]

39. From TOS

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

[Oilwellian]

47. I would have put this sentence in bold

When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day.

[BainsBane]

48. So in the mean time

It's okay if some pave the way for the GOP to gain power? No thanks. I'm not down with that. Whether someone claims to be left wing or not, when they work to suppress Democratic votes and pretend the Democrats are as bad as Republicans, they are the same as a Republicans as far as I'm concerned. Besides, I've put up with a lot of RW shit from some people who couldn't be more clear about their hostility to the concerns of women, people of color, and in some cases LGBT Americans. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, that makes it a duck, even if it thinks it's a swan.

[sabrina 1]

55. You're not down with the TOS? I think they are very good, very fair, and realistic. Good for

Democrats to hear from the people whose votes they are seeking. That is called DEMOCRACY. But if you don't like the terms of service, why would you want to be here?

This part of TOS is what makes DU such a great site:

But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them.

You really should read the TOS. I get the impression you only read part of it.

[Scootaloo]

57. Let me put it this way, BainsBane...

The people most vocal about "loyalty" are, one and all, the people who should have the very least say in anything that goes on on this site. It's a drive by right-wing trolls and neocon moles to turn DU into their very own little Republican-lite website, where liberal voices are booted to the wilderness, and party loyalty - defined as DLC loyalty and non-questioning of policy - is defined solely by the sorts of people who have all the ethical beliefs of the average drunken cockroach.

Some are even the same people you describe as making this place hostile for women and people of color. Some were some of the nastiest transphobic bigots I've seen. A recent one who made the demand is on record mocking the mentally disabled.

Look at it this way. Most of us here vote for Democrats because Democrats are the best fit for our beliefs. We're with the democrats because of shared principles

But there are also posters who simply want to play a team sport - Democrats, right or wrong (but always right). They will change position on a fucking dime, dependant on the current position of democrats, They just coast along for the hope of "winning" and have no principles or positions whatsoever.

it's the latter group demanding blood tests as a prerequisite to submitting posts for approval by their inner councils, or whatever the fuck is foing on in their pointy little fascist heads.

[Autumn]

72. Is that site administrator a real "maverick"?

If so I think I know what site that is. They have a nice real time chat room.

[Puglover]

95. That site has the rules that this crowd pines

for. And is a ghost town. You would think they might connect the dots but noooooooooooo.

[Autumn]

96. Yeah I signed up over there cause I recognized so many names

[Puglover]

97. Eeck!

Last edited Sat Mar 29, 2014, 01:58 PM - Edit history (1)

I have taken a few peeks over there. Nothing horrible, nothing great. Just sort of nothing.

Whatever. I was moderating the day that "Maverick" was shown the door so he could find greener pastures. It was a good day for me I must admit. I guess I simply don't understand why, if for some, DU is filled with such egregious posters that it doesn't have more traffic. It is after all tailor made for people that want to see and hear nothing but positive things about our party.

[Autumn]

98. Most of their members post here.

[Puglover]

99. Believe me.

I know.

[QC]

126. I'm pretty sure he visits this site from time to time.

The mav was inclined to repeat certain phrases like a parrot with OCD, things like "intellectually dishonest" and "venom and vitriol," and several such posters have come and gone since Mav's tombstoning. It's really obvious.

Oddly, the Zombie-Finder General has had nothing to say about it.

[Autumn]

128. Glad I'm not the only one who has noticed that.

I've seen the mav come out of the incubation chamber and just sit back and wait till it gets banned. They never seem to change their main MO

[QC]

130. Truly, he has more avatars than Vishnu.

All of them identical.

[QC]

135. I've heard that real-time chatroom is where the bat signal is located.

That would certainly explain what certainly appears to be coordinated swarming and alerting.

[Autumn]

137. Funny how that works

But what is sad is that site is so fucking bland and boring, an echo chamber and it seems that is what the "mav, etc" seem to want DU to be.

[bvar22]

180. I have too few years left ...

...to waste a minute caring about what "they" are doing.

In fact, I'm glad they have a place to go and play.
Every minute they are "there" is a minute they are not here.
Kind of like having a Children's Table in another room at Thanksgiving.

[BainsBane]

116. There clearly are a wide variety of posters and personalities here

Like on every site, but there is a clear overlap between the groups of people hostile to concerns of women, people of color, and LGBT Americans and those most vitriolic against the Democratic Party and the President. Since they consistently advance conservative views and so dislike the President, I do not think it unreasonable to assume they are conservatives. Now, this correlation is not absolute. And I certainly have noticed a couple of posters who make a point of backing everything the administration says. I, however, haven't observed hostility from them on diversity issues, but that is not to say they might not have expressed them. Truthfully, I rarely read what those posters say because it's so predictable. As for DLC types, that is part of the Democratic Party, and there is nothing wrong with those posters participating on a board that brings together Democrats. While I may disagree with them on certain issues, at least they are Democrats and not working to bring about a Republican electoral victory. The fact is there are RW moles on this site who take advantage of disillusionment with the President to turn people off voting Democratic and thereby make it easier for the GOP to gain power. If a person is a leftist but so unpractical as to refuse to vote for the Democratic party, the effect of their political participation or lack thereof is to contribute to Republican electoral victory. They may be ideologically leftist, but they are politically Republican in terms of the impact of their political behavior.

In regard to the danger of DU becoming an echo chamber: Fat chance. Democrats disagree about everything, hence Will Rogers famous quote.

Now as for disillusionment the President, I saw all this coming from the day of his election. Everyone projected onto Obama all their hopes for what they wanted America to be, often entirely independent of what he actually said. My aunt, an old hippie, said that Obama was going to legalize marijuana, when he never said anything of the sort; in fact he said the opposite. Others made similar pronouncements based only on their wishes and noting the President had promised. It was clear to me the man was a moderate in temperament, which meant that would be how he would govern. I could tell that from what I knew of his leadership on the Harvard Law Review. He made a point of welcoming conservative voices that has previously been excluded, not because he agreed with them but because he is a conciliator by nature. While I wish he would have taken on the big banks, I can't say I'm surprised he didn't. The facts are that capital wields enormous influence in capitalist states. This administration, like all in the history of not only the US but of virtually every governments in modern history, caters to moneyed interests. That is what governments under capitalism do. It is what they have always done. The campaign financing system as sanctified by Citizens United and related rulings makes that all the more tenacious. To pretend some political messiah is going to descend from the heavens and change that is a pipe dream. That is not how political change happens. History demonstrates that governments only implement change when forced to do so from popular movements from below. I've been saying that around here for ages, but no one wants to listen. They still expect social and political reform to be bestowed from above. The only change that ever comes from above is authoritarian.

Part of the disillusionment, I think, comes from the extent to which people buy into American national mythology about our government being of the people are for the people. When those ideas were penned, the people meant landed men only. It has never meant the majority. Ideologically, I'm strongly influenced by Marxism. Politically, I'm highly pragmatic. I long ago gave up the idea that politicians could reflect my political views. I look for the best option available to me, and that means the Democrats. George W Bush taught me that lesson, and I have voted straight Democrat even since 2002, after having been idiotic enough to vote for Nader in 2000--in Florida, in Palm Beach county, on the butterfly ballot. Never again.

[Maedhros]

133. "I long ago gave up the idea that politicians could reflect my political views."

If we all believe this, then democracy is truly dead.

[BainsBane]

139. Here's the deal

I don't accept the capitalist ethos. I know we live in a capitalist country. I know this country was founded on capitalism and exists for capitalism. How can its government reflect anything but capitalism? Since I do not see capitalism as a good, there is no way for the government to represent my views. However, I can choose from the options available to me and pick the one that most closely approaches my values.

I also don't believe the US is now or has ever been a true democracy. Is representatives bodies were formed to distance them from the people. The framers deliberately sought to avoid direct representation and direct democracy.

Perhaps it's a function of growing up female and poor, but I never expected that the government would reflect me. Perhaps if one grows up in different circumstances, he doesn't see such a huge gap between his own life and government representatives.

[Le Taz Hot]

73. And nowhere in that TOS

does it say you HAVE to be a Democrat. Skinner, et al know I'm not a Democrat and haven't been one since 2004 but here I still am (much to many people's dismay, apparently). I've even had a couple of back-and-forths with Skinner but again, here I still am which says a lot about his integrity and the integrity of this site. I think the Administrators are fully aware that active debate is what attracts visitors. If this were an echo chamber, as some here think it should be, this site wouldn't be nearly as popular.

[BainsBane]

110. What's the difference between voting for Democrats and being a Democrat?

I don't see one.

[MannyGoldstein]

112. Suppose you had choose between anti-choice Democrat Zell Miller

or a pro-choice Green, and the Green was polling better than Zell.

Who would you pull the lever for? Why?

[randome]

113. You need to look at the bigger picture, of course.

Having a powerless Green candidate in Congress would mean nothing unless you were convinced he/she could sway others to that position.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[MannyGoldstein]

115. So *you* would likely vote for Zell in that situation? nt

[randome]

117. Of course. I think the 'Democrats Always And Forever' meme is a construct of your imagination.

As I said, if a Green had a realistic chance of helping the country change its direction, I would most definitely vote for that candidate.

I think you see the 'vote for more Democrats' advice as a realistic evaluation of what is available to us: 99% of the time it's either Republicans or Democrats. That's simply reality.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[MannyGoldstein]

118. 'Democrats Always And Forever' -- isn't that what BainsBane is saying?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4749356

Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

That's what I'm trying to flesh out.

I believe that all of us default to voting for Democrats, but will sometimes vote for non-Democrats. Our differences lies in when we'll do the latter.

[randome]

119. Not sure. She didn't show up at the last Purity Police Patrol (PPP or 3P).

I'll see if we can send a few 'officers' to her domicile, yank her back in line with our official position.

I'll keep you informed as to her re-education results.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[MannyGoldstein]

120. Sigh.

Is that really necessary? I'm trying to understand her position.

[randome]

129. Did not see that coming. So you DON'T appreciate satire and irony?

Hm, I'll have to re-think my view of you, I suppose. Or am I speaking with Anti-MannyGoldstein? The one with the goatee and the agonizer strapped to his waist.

I'm not going to even pretend to speak for another DUer. If you are unable to figure out her position for yourself, I suggest you not bother and move on to the next challenge.

But please stop lumping everyone into one or two convenient categories. People are complex.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[randome]

145. No, not 'Anti-MannyGoldstein'. Mirror-Manny is born! Has a better cadence to it.

I'd welcome you to the club except...we don't have one.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

168. But it's you that isnt looking at the bigger picture. If you keep electing republicans

that call themselves Democrats (like Zell Miller) we will always have republican policies prevailing. If you vote for your principles, then someday we will get a Congress with decent Democratic principles. Dont give up your principles for mere expediency.

[Phlem]

172. Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! ..We have a winner folks.

I don't get why that's so hard to grasp.

Thanks for saying it bud.



-p

[randome]

175. It's not hard to grasp. I get rhett's point precisely.

But how many decades do you think it will take to make the Green party into a viable alternative? Realistically I don't see it happening. Realistically, I think we have a better chance of leaning and organizing protests against the Democrats who aren't pulling their load. Or maybe even are pulling against us, like Miller.

I think the only difference between us is where to allocate resources.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[fleabiscuit]

134. The green party is a faction of the democratic party. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

143. Here in Mass, they run in the general election against Democrats nt

[fascisthunter]

156. My Neighbor became a Green Party Member not too long ago

and asked me if I wanted to come to one of their meet-ups. I may do so, but I really believe in working from within the party because I think the Green Party has no chance in winning. Too few choices in this country, but anyways,that's where I am at. Also in MA.

[MannyGoldstein]

171. Howdy neighbor?

Where in Mass, if you're ok with sharing? I'm a Newtonian.

The Greens are like the Libertarians, they want to make a point not win an election. They tend to not even make their point well. If either of these parties actually won an election, they'd be shocked and baffled.

[fascisthunter]

173. I'm in Roslindale

Yeah,I really don't see the point other than to protest the two party system. It would be more of a significant factor if their numbers were greater.

[BainsBane]

155. My representatives are Keith Ellison

Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar. I vote for them over the other alternatives. I don't need to suppose. I live in the real world. I don't live in the part of the country that elects people like Zell Miller, so I not confronted with such hypotheticals.

If one votes for a Green candidate, he is in fact voting for a Republican. I could indeed vote for a Green over Klobuchar, for example, but the result would be helping some Tea Bagger get elected to represent Minnesota in the Senate. I have no doubt some would prefer that. I am not among them.

[sabrina 1]

51. Do you have a list of people here who are not Dems? Or maybe a list of people claiming to be Dems

but who are supporting Right Wing policies, such as the lies about SS eg. Lot of that going on here lately, defense of Right Wing policies. Still I'm more for discussing these issues rather than silencing, even moronic defenders of WRONG policies.

Just wondering who is not a Dem since you appear to know.

[JoePhilly]

86. Don't suggest folks vote for every Democrat they can ... you'll be called a sycophant.

DU's high priests of liberalism won't tolerate it.

[n2doc]

93. And how is that defined? n/t

[JaneyVee]

11. It amuses me that many posters here

Exist solely to tear others down by starting pointless threads about other posters while trying to create a circle jerk/feeding frenzy to whip up anger and further divide this site. Nihilism.

ETA: I am not in favor of purity tests.

[BainsBane]

15. Say what you want about the tenets of national socialism, Dude

Totally ripped off from Whisp (or was in Squinch?).

[Whisp]

18. It's been around for a long while now.

I think the Big Derpowski has to take the real credit. The uncool one. LOL.

[sabrina 1]

53. Did you tell that to the person who posted the thread demanding the banning of dozens of DUers

because they do not agree with HER/HIM? I agree with you, such posts are simply to tear good Democrats down because they refuse to support Republican Policies.

If you did, good for you. And I agree re purity tests.

[baldguy]

14. Eyes on the prize.

Progress only occurs when the majority of people pull in generally the right direction. If you campaign to get rid of all those who are insufficiently zealous in favor of your pet issue (such as some myopic DUrs wish to do with Pres Obama) - and ignore the fact that the Democratic Party is a coalition of interests - then you're getting rid of most of the people who are helping you & you doom yourself to failure.

[sabrina 1]

56. 'Pet issue'?? Where have I heard that before? I remember, it was several years ago

on DK BEFORE Kos' apparent recent transformation from despising 'liberals' to now despising 'the third way'. He regularly attacked liberals and their constant insistence that Democrats fight for the rights of women, gays and other issues that affect the voters who will be asked to elect them. Several 'third way' candidates were obviously not overly concerned about those 'wedge issues' as they called them, emphasizing that liberals needed to stfu because we have to WIN!

But it's hard to get Liberals to stfu about important issues. So kos told them all, especially the women, to get lost, because 'your pet issues are not going to interfere with Dems winning. He went further, he attacked Liberal women as 'the women's studies set' who were costing Dems elections.

Yes, ponies, pet issues, purity trolls etc all aimed at liberal dems. Women left his site in droves and formed their own sites.

But something has happened to kos since then. These days he's talking like all those who attacked, banned, or who left his site. He's attacking the very people he once worked for, the Third Way. It's possible he learned that the Liberals were right after all and now that he has a family to worry about, perhaps he appreciates what real Dems do for that average person.

Personally I would not trust anyone who ever supported Third Way policies and who called Democrats trying to push Democratic policies 'women's studies set' and called their very important issues 'Pet Issues'.

That left an indelible mark on a whole lot of women and gays and other minorities at the time. I'm thinking he lost so many Democrats he has to lose the arrogance and is now looking for donations from the very people he told 'I don't need your money'. He certainly was WRONG to call important issues 'Pet Issues'. I left there totally disgusted at what was calling itself a Democratic Site, as did thousands of others.

I hope he has learned that the Left was right after all. But I'm leaning more towards him having lost so many people his business may be affected.

Btw, what issues are 'pet issues' in your opinion?

[baldguy]

87. That's all well & good. But I don't read Kos. Never did.

So if you're trying to hang him or any of the 60+ other contributors to his site on me, that's a big 'ol fail.

A "pet issue" is anything where the Republicans employ useful idiots to try to erode support for the Democratic Party.

[sabrina 1]

94. Is SS a 'pet issue'?

You didn't need to read kos, the 'talking points' against liberals which often made their appearance there, were quickly spread, as your use of one of them right here, shows. People don't come up with these talking points all on their own. They absorb them, as intended and help spread them around like a virus intentionally or unintentionally.

And they come from both Right Wing think tanks AND Third Way think tanks. Makes you wonder why both sides view the Left as so threatening, considering all they ever do is support Democratic principles, they both put so much effort into trying to shut them up using those talking points.

I think it should be easy to explain what a 'pet issue' is. Since you used the term, you must have had something in mind.

[baldguy]

100. It's one issue among many. The question is: *Who* are you willing to sacrifice to preserve it?

If you're willing to abandon the Democratic Party over that one issue, that's exactly what you're doing: killing your friends & allies. And because of your actions, Republicans will dance with glee.

The simple fact is one party is bent on destroying individual rights, liberties & freedom, the middle class, every historic progressive gain America has made over the last 80 yrs, and world peace in general...and one party is on track to try to preserve those things and expand upon them.

Now, the latter party may not be bold enough, or be moving fast enough, or make enough feel-good noises about the issues you care about for your liking - but you can't reasonably deny which side they're really on.

[sabrina 1]

109. One issue? Who said anything about 'one issue'?? The Democratic Party platform is not about ONE

issue.

Oh, I see, I gave an example of one of many issues that are currently under threat, issues, several of them, that affect millions of Americans.

But your response is interesting. It appears to be saying that we should sacrifice SS in order to 'win'.

What else should we sacrifice in order to 'win'?

I despise feel-good noises, which we hear plenty of, so no, there is no shortage there. I judge ACTIONS, not WORDS/NOISES. I hear PLENTY of 'feel good noises about the issues 'I' (shouldn't that be WE btw) care about.

And there you go again, talking about 'sides/teams'. THERE ARE NO SIDES if you are a Democrat. The Platform is clear, if you are willing to sacrifice that platform to the Right, most Democrats are NOT.

And if that is what you are preaching to other Democrats, don't expect it to be a 'winning' strategy. Democrats have traditionally FOUGHT and FOUGHT HARD for the working class. What I am hearing from you is 'we should not fight, we should give in to the Right so we can WIN'.

If Democrats had YOUR attitude toward the Dem Party Platform, all those great programs you mentioned would never have come to pass, they would have been sacrificed as you are suggesting we do with SS now, in order to 'win'.

I have a different idea of what 'winning' means than you. Winning doesn't mean getting to a distination and losing everything you were carrying with you that was of great value, along the way. All that means is 'I got here, phew, but I have lost everything along the way'.

You also seem to be UNAWARE of the polls on issues. Wtf? When a majority is on YOUR side of the issues, why the hell you abandon the very issues the PEOPLE WANT??? See 2008, then look what happened in 2010 when Independents were upset that the WINNING ISSUES were not fought for, the ones they went out and voted for, like SOCIAL SECURITY eg, placed on the Deficit Table??? Either you are extremely naive about politics, and the dynamite that SS is which is supported by a vast majority of people across the board, or you have not been studying WINNING strategy and are simply repeating the nebulous, nonsensical tripe we have been hearing for so long. 'WE CAN'T WIN UNLESS WE GIVE UP OUR WINNING ISSUES!' Does that make ANY sense at all? No, it never did, it is a LOSING strategy. It's like holding GOLD in your hand and exchanging it for sand, then inding out the people wanted gold all along.

[baldguy]

114. Who said anything about "one issue"? You did. You put forward SS as a possible "pet issue".

It's difficult to believe anyone who works so hard to find something - ANYTHING - to divide Democrats from the only party that has an interest in forwarding progressive issues really has the objective of having those progressive issues succeed.

[Oilwellian]

146. You poor dear

You seem a little flummoxed. Perhaps you should read post 100 and see who first mentioned "one issue" and "pet issues."

I can understand why Sabrina had you confused. She's really good at getting to the meat of Democratic issues, and I would love to hear your answer to her question...would you cut SS so Democrats can win?

[baldguy]

151. My post applies to anyone who would seek to destroy the Democratic coalitition over "one issue"

Especially when they use hyperbolic, exaggerated or just plain false GOP-generated straw-man talking points in doing so.

[joshcryer]

20. Do you ever post not being critical of other DUers?

If you're not posting under your alter ego "Third Way Manny" which tries to "sarcastically" dig at DUers (most of whom find your positions they hold to be a caricature of epic proportions), it seems you are just talking about how other DUers should do this or that.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Can't I get a moment's peace?

[joshcryer]

26. Another day goes by...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. it amuses me to watch you cry for attention and then beg for peace.

You a Funny man. Yes, you are.

[MannyGoldstein]

31. It's not easy being me.

[zeemike]

44. Everyone who posts an OP is looking for attention.

Otherwise why post at all?
But some seem jealous when otters get more of it...I say good for them, I love seeing people being loved for their wit and talent with words.

[joshcryer]

59. Not really, some post OPs for discussion.

But even Manny admitted today that you need to post a flamebait bullshit topic line to get attention.

The fucked up part is I can't disagree with Manny there. He's right. I've posted dozens of OPs that sank like a fucking goddamn brick. It disgusts me. But that's how it is. Manny will get hundreds of recs and posts talking shit about the administration but someone posting a nuanced post, with lots of thought put into it, will sink to oblivion.

[zeemike]

63. There can be no discussion without attention.

And how is it not jealousy if you complain about him getting more recs and yours sinking?
If what you post does not grab their attention or they are not interested in it, it is not Manny's fault because his does.

[joshcryer]

65. People can read the link.

To think I am jealous of a self-admitted shit stirrer is completely absurd. What a joke. How utterly intellectually dishonest.

[zeemike]

68. I read the link, so what?

He was meanly saying what the print media has known about forever...the headline must grab your attention.

And the charge that I am intellectually dishonest because I point out the obvious is frankly intellectually dishonest...but that phrase is used as a cover all too often.

[joshcryer]

74. I did not say that.

I did not accuse you of being intellectually dishonest. I merely responded to your accusation of "jealousy." That is absurd. How can I be jealous of someone who shit stirs? It is beyond my comprehension. Because I choose not to drop controversial headlines in my topics? I can't understand how this should make ma jealous. I physically feel ill whenever I do it, and I have done it, and it does work. But only rarely have I done so. I don't do it because it's bullshit and it "Makes DU Suck."

Jealousy is far beyond me at this point, at this point all I feel is pity.

[zeemike]

84. And your response of it being intellectually dishonest

Was to what i said...how is that not me?...all I am here is what I type on this puter.

Well of course you are not jealous of what you cauterize as shit stiring...why would one be jealous of the pejorative label used?
But you want DU to really suck just ban all contriversy...this place would sink like a rock.
I and most people come here to discuss controversial things not to agree with everything.

[joshcryer]

90. Eh, I don't care.

I ignore 80-90% of shit stirring posts. No bans are necessary.

[awoke_in_2003]

36. And the beat goes on. nt

[WillyT]

29. I Just Got Locked... Hilarious...

[MannyGoldstein]

33. These are dark days, WillyT

We must be careful.

[WillyT]

34. No... You And I Both Know, That's Not How We Roll...

[MannyGoldstein]

35. LOL

True!

[grasswire]

45. locked?

where?

[WillyT]

46. This Would Be The Second Time I Got Locked For Pointing Out A Purge Fest...

For what it's wortrh: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024747136

[Warren Stupidity]

70. It is very important to stop an outbreak of discussion.

[Le Taz Hot]

77. FWIW,

The "purity/purge" thread was locked as well. Unfortunately, it was allowed to go on for WAY too long. Otoh,, it "outed" a lot of people if you know what I mean.

[ljm2002]

37. Agreed ...

... in fact, I bookmarked that thread for future use, thinking along the same lines.

Just waiting for the next time someone throws that one out there.

[Vashta Nerada]

41. It's performance art.

It's like Theater of the Absurd, but more absurd.

[Bobbie Jo]

49. Are you kidding me?

If there was ever anyone suggesting that certain DU'ers were unworthy of calling themselves liberal, principled, Democrats, or part of the left, it was your fan base.

What a hilariously ironic post.

Purity Test? This coming from the leader of the Purity Brigade himself?

Holy crap. Talk about "intentional comedy."

[Douglas Carpenter]

50. The people MUST speak! But criticizing the Party and its leader is NEVER acceptable!!

Because the Party is the organized will of the people and its leader is its articulated voice. To criticize the Party is to criticize the people and to thwart the will of the people. To criticize the Party's leaders is to hamper the voice of the people. Anyone studied in the science of the dialectic should already know this.

[Scuba]

61. You forgot the satire thingy.

[RC]

176. Satire thingy? How many people around here think that is the way it should be?

Way too many, I'm afraid. Don't we already have a political party set up like that? Yeah, we do and it's not the Democratic party.

[Warren Stupidity]

71. You say you goat a revolution, well well you know...

[JoePhilly]

85. And yet those angry critical OPs dominate DU.

Right wing Christians have nothing on DU's perpetually disgruntled when it comes to feeling silenced and persecuted.

And if you won't run around with your hair on fire along with them, it is you who have attacked them.

Apparently.

[kenny blankenship]

123. I remember the closing cadences of "Triumph of the Will", too.

That's a pretty good paraphrase you got there! Of course Dr Joe didn't use so many words, but they flew right down the same line like an arrow.

I assume that was parody. Well done!

[Rex]

54. Yeah, about that...you are not supposed to notice that really.

I mean, even a 5 year old would notice but...can't you just pretend not to notice? Thanks.

[Live and Learn]

58. Infighting is so human

and so counter productive.

[sendero]

62. No one accused these folks..

... of being the sharpest tool in the drawer. And for good reason.

[Le Taz Hot]

66. I think we all know it's not "brilliance"

that's being displayed here and that is exactly what brings the discourse down to 3rd-grade level.

I've no problem with back-and-forth DEBATE, but the level of and accusations of "troll!111!!111" and "ponies" and "purists" is just a waste of my and everybody else's time.

[Katashi_itto]

76. Yep, I was just given a demand yesterday for a purity test on DU because I dared speak my opinion...

My response was

[ProfessorGAC]

78. Pot Calling The Kettle Black

You kidding, right? Or are you participating in unintentional comedy?

[randome]

79. Please enumerate the points of this 'purity test' you so clearly see.

Never mind, I'll save you the trouble.

1. Do not descend into childish, illiterate insults when trying to make a point.
2. Do not go out of your way to find faults with Democrats.
3. Do not post hyperbole as a means to garner attention for oneself.
4. Give the benefit of the doubt to Democratic supporters.
5. Do not hero worship other DUers who happen to agree with you.
6. Do not link to dicey sources such as RT.com in order to violate point #2 above.
7. Engage in discussion, not denigration.

Does that pretty much cover it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The wind doesn't care when you shout at it.
Commit to something that makes a difference.[/center][/font][hr]

[barbtries]

80. could you maybe share a link or give some more background.

i have no idea what you are talking about. thanks

[Skidmore]

82. Frankly, I don't find your sense of "humor" to be amusing at all.

You sow discord and strife. Then you stand back and snicker at the bickering that follows. I don't get it and it is extremely cynical.

[randome]

83. When a DUer acquires a cult following on Conservative Cave, it's a good sign to dial it back.

http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,95576.0.html

This remark is especially pertinent: "If he were my mole, I'd go dark for a while."
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Autumn]

88. He's not the only one who has a following on CC. I did learn of two high profile

posters who were posting there and outed. One is gone ( cough, sorry choked on a pretzel ) and the other is still posting here at DU demanding all non Democrats be gone. It's amazing the links one is sent by other DUers when you are on MIRT.

[randome]

89. I can only imagine.

Oh, shit! It's not me, is it?

I did see my name once over there. But without vitriol and hyperbole, my posts probably don't merit the attention that others get.

Took me a minute. 'pretzel'. Hah.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Autumn]

91. No.They were posting there under other names until they found out who they

were and then the cavers changed their names to what their names were here.

[Rex]

149. Wow how totally pathetic.

Oh well, at least they played their hand and now everyone and their dog understands why authoritarians suck.

[QC]

183. Those cave trolls are truly the bane of our existence, aren't they?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

122. A Loyalty Oath by any other name.....still sucks.

[tabasco]

136. I wish we could just do away with boring assholes.

[DeSwiss]

142. K&R

''Whomever's in-charge, gets to define everybody else.''

~Paul Cienfuegos, Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund

[Rex]

147. Authoritarians will always be the enemy of liberals.

I LOVE watching them expose themselves as the total hypocrites that they are! It makes me all day long!

[bvar22]

154. Would the Purity Testers ban Debbie Wasserman Schultz from DU?

Democratic Party Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz refused to endorse DEMOCRATS,
and was seen at fundraisers for Republicans in 2008.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the co-chair of the Democratic Red to Blue committee at that time, refused to endorse of campaign for the following 3 Democratic challengers for Republican seats:

Miami-Dade Democratic Party Chair Joe Garcia

Former Hialeah Democratic Mayor Raul Martinez

Democratic businesswoman Annette Taddeo

All three had won their local Democratic Primaries, and were challenging Hard Core Republican incumbents with whom Wasserman-Schultz had become cozy.
Not only did the head of the DCCC Red to Blue Program REFUSE to endorse these Democratic challengers,
but she appeared in person at at least one (possibly more) Campaign/Fundraiser for their Republican opponents.

FL-18, FL-21, FL-25: Wasserman Schultz Wants Dem Challengers to Lose
by: James L.
Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 7:15 PM EDT
<snip>

Sensing a shift in the political climate of the traditionally solid-GOP turf of the Miami area, Democrats have lined up three strong challengers -- Miami-Dade Democratic Party chair Joe Garcia, former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez, and businesswoman Annette Taddeo to take on Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, respectively.

While there is an enormous sense of excitement and optimism surrounding these candidacies, some Democratic lawmakers, including Florida Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Kendrick Meek, are all too eager to kneecap these Democratic challengers right out of the starting gate in the spirit of "comity" and "bipartisan cooperation" with their Republican colleagues:

But as three Miami Democrats look to unseat three of her South Florida Republican colleagues, Wasserman Schultz is staying on the sidelines. So is Rep. Kendrick Meek, a Miami Democrat and loyal ally to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. [...]

This time around, Wasserman Schultz and Meek say their relationships with the Republican incumbents, Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and his brother Mario, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, leave them little choice but to sit out the three races.

"At the end of the day, we need a member who isn't going to pull any punches, who isn't going to be hesitant," Wasserman Schultz said.

Now, you'd expect this kind of bullshit from a backbencher like Alcee Hastings, but you wouldn't expect this kind of behavior from the co-chair of the DCCC's Red to Blue program, which is the position that Wasserman Schultz currently holds. Apparently, Debbie did not get Rahm's memo about doing whatever it takes to win:

The national party, enthusiastic about the three Democratic challengers, has not yet selected Red to Blue participants. But Wasserman Schultz has already told the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that if any of the three make the cut, another Democrat should be assigned to the race.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1537

The bloggers also are furious with Rep. Kendrick B. Meek (D-Fla.), who similarly refuses to endorse the Democratic challengers to the three Cuban American Republicans.

They are calling for Wasserman Schultz to step down from her leadership role at the DCCC. And they're not letting up, even after one Florida liberal blogger reported that the congresswoman seemed "frustrated" by the blogs and had asked to "please help get them off my back."

This prompted even harsher reaction from perhaps the most influential of the progressive political bloggers, Markos Moulitsas, a.k.a. Kos, founder of Daily Kos, who wrote on his blog Wednesday: "On so many fronts, the Republicans are standing in the way of progress, on Iraq, SCHIP, health care, fiscal responsibility, corruption, civil liberties, and so on. Those three south Florida Republicans are part of that problem. And she's (Wasserman-Schultz) going to be 'frustrated' that people demand she do her job?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031903410_3.html

Here are Kos comments on the Wasserman-Schultz betrayal of the Democratic Party:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/03/20/480511/-DCCC-Says-Uproar-Over-DWS-Recusal-Much-Ado-About-Nothing



A lot of time has passed since 2008, but I don't take these kinds of betrayals lightly,
and don't forget them easily.

---bvar22
cursed with a memory


http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4478022

[MannyGoldstein]

166. Oh, I suspect Debs would do just fine.

She'd probably be spearheading the test movement.

[bvar22]

174. Becuase....

..It is OK with the Purity Tester to support actual Republicans,
like Charlie Crist, or Arlen Specter,
or even Joe Lieberman <gack> when HE ran against Democrat,
because Conservatives LOVE Conservatives.

I can understand why conservative democrats and Reagan Democrats simply LOVE President Obama.
He is exactly what they have been waiting for.
Even Moderate Republicans are thrilled with his Market Base Solutions
and whittling away the Safety net.
I understand that.

What I do NOT understand is WHY they refuse to let us old FDR/LBJ Liberals voice our displeasure with the abandonment of the traditional Democratic Party Values (New Deal, Great Society) that we have fought for over many years.

[MannyGoldstein]

179. Because...

If people heard about the New Deal and the Great Society, they'd realize that they're now getting the Raw Deal. They might want real change, not flimflam.

[deutsey]

159. I've been on DU since the spring of 2001

I've seen a lot of flame wars and have been in a few of them myself.

However, I really don't think I've ever seen this place so fucked up as I have lately.

Maybe I'm just getting old and don't have the tolerance for this shit anymore the way I used to.

All I know is I'm less inclined to participate here than I used to be.

Seems like Democratic Underground should change to Dover Beach Underground, where

...we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

[randome]

160. Well, you got me to look that one up so not everything is a loss, is it?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[deutsey]

161. Depends on what your meaning of the phrase "is it" is.

[randome]

164. Well, I don't see Dover Beach is copyrighted so...

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Dover Beach by Matthew Arnold.

The sea is calm to-night.
The tide is full, the moon lies fair
Upon the straits; on the French coast the light
Gleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand;
Glimmering and vast, out in the tranquil bay.
Come to the window, sweet is the night-air!
Only, from the long line of spray
Where the sea meets the moon-blanched land,
Listen! you hear the grating roar
Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling,
At their return, up the high strand,
Begin, and cease, and then again begin,
With tremulous cadence slow, and bring
The eternal note of sadness in.

Sophocles long ago
Heard it on the A gaean, and it brought
Into his mind the turbid ebb and flow
Of human misery; we
Find also in the sound a thought,
Hearing it by this distant northern sea.

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

There. Doesn't that make this crappy thread a little better?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[deutsey]

169. Depends on what your definition of "copyright" is

Sorry...couldn't resist.

Yes. It's one of my favorite poems.

[Generic Other]

165. I have to concur with you

We didn't have to prove we were card carrying members of anything -- just not Republicans. And we were too busy compiling infor4mation to spend as much time sniping at each other. We were a COMMUNITY of organizers, researchers, writers. We used our numbers to lobby Congress, to send supplies, support to our friends. And we went after the real enemies. And we moved mountains.

Every one of us on DU during the Bush years worked tirelessly to pave the way for an Obama victory. It's silly to suggest otherwise. Maybe we had deluded ourselves about how liberal a Democratic president might be, but if this is true then so did my entire county because our platform was left of most and included lowering age of SS, legalizing pot, universal healthcare, free public transit and a whole lot of other rather startling ideas.

[deutsey]

170. +1

[PBass]

162. Another trolling thread that is perfectly crafted...

It's "click bait" for the people who always agree with him, and "rage bait" for people who he's trying to provoke.

But he's just baiting people, and it's ultimately some pretty shallow trolling.

[randome]

163. You don't understand. I converted him!

Mirror-Manny doesn't care for hyperbole and sarcasm any longer. He says in Post #120 that he's only interested in understanding now.

Our long, national nightmare is ended!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Number23]

167. You speak NOTHING but the truth.

and it's ultimately some pretty shallow trolling.

And everyone with half a brain has been hip to this for a long, LONG time.

[rhett o rick]

181. I hope you arent calling Manny a troll. You arent are you? nm

[IkeRepublican]

177. Every forum needs an occasional scrubdown

Trouble is, a purity test is nothing short of an incredibly lazy method of doing it.

[MannyGoldstein]

178. I love your handle

Ike was a flaming two-fisted Socialist by today's standards, i.e. my kinda guy.

[In_The_Wind]

182. DU is interesting.