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

M Kitt

Profile Information

Name: Really?
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: California
Home country: USA
Current location: So-Cal
Member since: Fri Apr 5, 2013, 10:18 AM
Number of posts: 208

About Me

Former military, I enjoy commentary as should be made apparent by my posts ;-)

Journal Archives

Can anyone name a "Liberal" site kicking members off without good reason?


Think about it. Any site at all, give it a minute.

If that were the case, if you had been kicked off without recourse or reason give, if emails were not replied to and site management completely ignored personal requests, what would you do?

Per the above post, some of us have logged back on as "New Users" in violation of site policy, for purposes of complaint.

Which would of course be used as rationale for further "Violation" under site management authority

But hey, if you were running a "Group" and had complete control, if you could essentially snuff out all opposing viewpoints base on entirely partisan criteria, wouldn't you "Indulge"? Wouldn't you (perhaps) kick a member out of that group without notice, even if it were their first post on that Group?

Membership on any site isn't worth "Indulging" site management if they're prone to complete abuse of their authority. If group rules, when opposed, lead not only to being locked out of a group, but eventual lockout from the entire site for 12 days, would membership be worthwhile?

I'll eventually remove all of my posts from the particular site I'm referring to, it's not simply worth my efforts across 3 years to be kicked off of an entire site for a disagreement with a group "Manager". Essentially, that dictatorial "Power" is being supported by "Site Management", and to answer the question asked above, membership isn't worth being subjected to that kind of abuse.


Other sites, posting available people


Renegade DU site member, Kicked off! Twitter Commentary follows! - See more at: http://www.thomhartm


Soon to follow, what email inquiries were sent to DU site administrators? I'll post them!

Wow, a red bait comment on DU, who'd have thought?

Am I mistaken, were you perhaps being facetious?

Otherwise, thank you ever so much for "enlightening" us.

Senator Sanders is an Outsider, thankfully!

Hillary for VP? Not likely.

She's an "Insider" who has accepted campaign finance money from the large banking and investment interests.

The possibility of bringing Hillary in as VP would have occurred to Mr. Sanders, I'm sure.

The relevant question, I'm thinking, is whether or not he'd need Hillary's support to get those voters. Based on current polling, that's not likely, so I'm guessing he'd not carry her as VP Don't think she'd accept that "Secondary" position, regardless.

And what would an Outsider like Senator Sanders be like in the White House?

As an established outsider, would he maintain that viewpoint, IE "Philosophy", as he's been doing all along up 'til now?

Well, he's already got that "Status", so why not use it in his favor?

I've heard it said that if elected to the White House Bernie could be a "Catalyst", would bring about a landslide of change and sweep both houses causing Dem/Progressive majorities, bring progressive candidates along for the ride.

Possible, right? Is there evidence to support that?

Our current POTUS had that kind of support once in office, but lost it as time played out. Impressive win, historically, and had majorities in both houses at one point BUT lost much of that support 2 years later in the next election cycle.

Why? Public Disappointment, you would think.

He spoke as a Progressive Outsider before the Presidential election, ran on that platform but behaved as a Centrist Dem, or Liberal Republican, perhaps, once elected. We "Disappointed" voters understand that he could have used his Presidential influence much more progressively once in office, but chose not to.


So this President COULD HAVE refused to bring Wall Street insiders into his cabinet, he COULD have NOT supported further investment bank bailouts, and COULD have NOT decided that investigations of Political Corruption against the Bush Administration were a bad idea, War Crimes or not.

This President COULD HAVE shown us all that "Too Big to Fail" concerns didn't necessarily apply within our political system, that combined Wall Street and Investment Banking influences didn't control behavior of that administration, that their money wouldn't buy influence within the Obama White House.

That outcome has been quite unfortunate for all of us, since the "Lock-down" of Congress and Senate bills has remained in place ever since we lost the Congressional majority. So Public Programs have been in decay across 2 full Presidential terms in office, all because Constituent Support was lost based on (mistaken?) policies over the last several years.

So as President, would Bernie "Sell Out", once elected?

One of the latest comments on another thread gave Bernie 90 days before he "Sells Out" to some extent or another, but I honestly don't think that would be the case. I think this Senator recognizes what few today seem to, that supporting the "Status Quo" isn't a benefit to a candidate running for office in our current political climate. Wouldn't benefit him in office, either.

Not in terms of "Voter Support", at least. Media airtime can be bought. Voter Support, tho, cannot.

What's the difference?

If you have no message, no resonating Hope and Change! platform of policies that lift you above the other candidates, you may as well have nothing in terms of actual political influence and support.

Because campaign finance alone will not buy the TRUST & INTEGRITY needed as currency for votes, money won't necessarily get you elected in the current campaign environment.

Which seems to be the factor that plays in favor of "Outsiders" like Senator Sanders, these days many of us are fed up with the current political process and results to date, especially over the last few terms.

BUT those with "Insider" money can at least broadcast their message to the public. Like Hillary

So what WILL "Insider" money get you?

Giving in to questionable sources of Campaign money like Super PAC Corporate provided financial support?

Or Koch brothers (Tea Party!) money? That money buys "Media Air Time" as mentioned above. Politically Beneficial coverage on what passes for news these days, that's what money CAN buy.

Just Ask Trump

That is what I attribute the popularity of Mr. Jacka$$ Donald Trump to, he's a Loud Outspoken Outsider who's not supportive of the "Status Quo". He's also a Stupid Bigot obviously, but he's quite Popular.

Regardless of his obvious lack of informed or coherent opinions. Media air time? He's got all that money can buy

And What about Senator Sanders, is he just another Outsider?

Bernie? He's an Outsider who's not either Stupid or a Bigot.

AND he seems to realize that it's to his advantage while running for office to REMAIN an outsider, hence he's not taking money from the usual corruptive influences. Instead, he's getting media attention (and funding) thru Grass Roots support, and limited donations from private donors.

He's also using Social Media feeds to gain support, as President Obama did while running for office (Go ActBlue!).

NO Corporate or Wall Street money like Hillary, NO Super PAC money like the Tea Publican GOP primary insiders.

Because of that, there's another VERY large difference between "The Donald" and Senator Sanders, one that should serve all of us once he's in office. This difference applies to Hillary Clinton, also.

Senator Sanders has ALWAYS been an outsider, and is actually running on that premise. In fact, he's been elected on that platform for his entire political career, and Big Money sources haven't ever purchase an election for him. Hence, he's not a Sock Puppet for any of those Special Interests.

In his case it's actually Integrity that defines him as an outsider, not politics as usual to support an election campaign.

For what it's worth, Thanks.

Agreed, hence this is a "Group" MB

I've posted here several times across the past few years, don't disagree with the premise you've just described. Most replies here have been courteous and valid.

Religious viewpoints are given quite enough attention, written into the fabric of everything in our society from election cycles to National war policy.

Exclusion of those conditions in this "Group" is entirely understandable. Thanks again.

Which Shootings are labeled "Terrorist" related? What's the Religious component of that?

Linked again, but comments can be posted here or on the GD page.


Plus, there are some interesting associated comments here.




For those who've experienced recent Anti-Islam phobic behavior, and disagree with that behavior.

Again, Thanks.

Sanctimonious Militant TeaHadists Pi$$ me off

Not the post, just a link.


Feel free to comment here if you're not a participant in the "Atheists and Agnostics" group.

FYI, I'm an agnostic and while supportive of all religious beliefs, have to confess my opinion that Fundamentalists of any given religion are a blight on our entire Society, and the World in general.

Other flawed Religious Views under Christianity?

Plus, the Calvinist and/or "Dominionist" movements were contrived for very specific purposes, exploitation of resources being the general intent. Human beings are also subject to exploitation under those same conditions, as intended by the founders of those "Movements".





Interesting comment on the hipocrisy of organized religion.

Praise the lord and pass the bullets, right? And he doesn't even address the contrast of a homeless man, outside a church with so much conspicuous wealth, dressed in the remnants of what used to be a military uniform, an obvious Vet.

Unfortunately, for that church to disregard completely the "New Testament" aspect of their religion is simply a practical adaptation to the rules governing our current society overall.


From that post:

"Right Wing Fundamentalists assure us that current supporters of Jesus neednít REALLY follow his example, their worldly wealth should NOT be given over to the poor, for instance, since under current Evangelical Fundamentalist standards Excessive Wealth among church members (AND Church Leadership) represents APPROVAL from and by God.

Thus TAXES are (by WingNut logic) an imposition equivalent to giving money to the poor, canít have THAT, can we?"

And since I'm an agnostic, why not throw in a bit of Comment number 7 of that same thread.

ďThe modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.Ē
~John Kenneth Galbraith~

But let's not overlook the Conservative Political influence. Think that quote was from 1929 or thereabout, not much has changed in that respect.

Per my opening post many current (IE Right Wing) Fundamentalists seem intent on avoiding New Testament values, they're not inclined to accept recognized values of Compassion or Empathy since that would be in conflict with their inclinations of GREED.

Under tenants of "The Golden Rule" they'd have to accept Liberal/Progressive values "which is NOT going to happen" so they disregard that context completely and justify their "New Improved" values within a new religious framework contrived specifically for that purpose.

As John Galbraith was pointing out, they're simply replacing God with worship of money, tho that's an unspoken imperative of that twisted morality.

War is often driven by the "profit motive" underlying our Society as a whole. As is Religion, for that matter. Thanks.

Those were both worth review, thanks.

You might check out the previous threads, my conversation with Yorktown

Interesting personality, persistent without apparent intention of offending anyone. Not many Militant Anti-Muslims are so polite, in my experience

Wrong, but polite.

Umm, think I'll only address the final statement of that post, per the brief replies you've made

"US was made the main offender VS world peace for a few years"

As the result of GW/Cheney administration's NeoCon war ambitions.

We're at least in complete agreement about that, except for the scale. The United States is still held accountable for those actions within Middle East nation states, NOW, today. Global memory of our actions isn't likely to go away any time soon.

Continuing to generate more of those "Radicalized Fundamentalists" we previously discussed.

And since we still have ground troops in Afghanistan and Iraq (among other locations), duration of those military involvements has actually been across about 15 years, continues to this day. Not "for a few years" as you remarked above.

Accuracy is important.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »