Skinner and admins, I don’t think your rule clarifications deal with the core problem here in DU.

[rhett o rick]

I greatly appreciate your hard work to make DU a place for decent political discussion. However, I don’t think your rules deal with the major problem here in DU. There are two distinct factions of Democrats here in DU that have major disagreements on policy.

As the Republican Party dies off, many conservatives are fleeing to the Democratic Party. Major corporations are smart enough to recognize that owning the Republican Party lock, stock and barrel isn’t enough to guarantee favorable legislation. The corporatists have turned to the Democratic Party for support and are being welcomed by quite a number with open arms (and hands out), especially by the New-Democrats (the conservatives). Those of us that support the core Old-Democratic principles see this trend as a huge threat to the Democratic Party. It is no longer appropriate to say Democrats good and Republicans bad. There is a growing number of bad Democrats (DINO's) that vote Republican. There I said it. So your rules do not deal with the problem that we have progressive Democrats vs. conservative Democrats (Republicans in Democrat clothing).
You made a comment about supporting constructive discussion re. the DLC, yet I have found that the consera-Dems, blue dog DINO’s, and/or the DLC sympathizers here in DU will not discuss their agenda or their stands on issues. They will not answer questions like why wont Pres Obama fix the corrupt Bush DOJ? or why oh why wont he dump DADT? Or why not fix the Patriot Act? End domestic spying, end the horrible wars, stop rendition, close Guantanamo, prosecute war criminals, etc. They seem only capable of attacking those of us that are trying to hold our Pres accountable to core Democratic principles, and telling us that we shouldnt be attacking those in our own party.

[GodlessBiker]

1. So, what do you suggest?

[Zhade]

199. That's a vital question --- how do we bridge the gap?

How do we make common cause when one side supports the rule of law, and the other excuses the continuation of warrantless wiretapping? UHC versus paying the same medicorps that caused the healthcare problems in the first place? Supporting unions versus destroying them?

Just a few examples of the fundamental disconnect between people who support principle over party, and those who prize loyalty and winning over ideals.

[Robb]

205. Clearly calling those who disagree with you "Republicans" isn't going to work out.

...Can we start from there?

[Zhade]

274. I have no problem with that, seeing as how it's an irrational statement...

...since there's no way to be sure a poster really is a Republican, and no way to prove a direct correlation between disagreement and voting R. As a result, I think (and hope) I've never said as such. I try to remember to state that conservatives SIDE with Republicans in their espoused views, rather than say they are card-carrying 'cons.

IMHO, there truly is an impassable obstacle toward party unity, and that's the advancement of conservative policy by the Democratic party and, by extension, its supporters who value winning over what we want to achieve by winning. Lending support to encroaching conservatism is something I simply have no interest in doing, and more to the point can't do -- I see it as not only anathema to everything I hold dear, but as destructive to pushing liberal-minded help-ourselves-by-helping-everyone policy.

You cannot, e.g., reconcile support for human rights with continued illegalities like warrantless wiretaps and bombing civilians.

[Hutzpa]

344. Yes there is

there are numerous ways to provide proof; an example ---if an an individual is advocating in a satirical manner that
Sarah Palin is the dumbest ___________ but at the same token claiming she knows how to stroke the crowd, that should be
cause for concern. Another example; the constant posting of right wing articles lambasting democrats, constant posting
of 20sec loops from fox news about how they made fun of such and such and such. This I personally like the most, the
nonchalant effortless display of reverse psychology, the quick to accuse the accuser of name calling knowing there are
others that will come to the rescue. (group attack) I could go on.

It's called mastering your enemy, understanding their defense mechanism and turning that into an attack mode all the
while making the attacker look less and less obvious to an untrained eye.

[pnwmom]

347. So who is the Republican/conservative in disguise? The person who

says Sarah Palin is the dumbest _______________ or the person who says she knows how to stroke the crowd?

I would agree with both statements, since the two aren't mutually incompatible. She is stupid in an intellectual way, but she is gifted at manipulating people.

[Hutzpa]

496. Thats my point exactly

when you see 5 threads all saying the same thing consistently being kicked
to remain at the front page one cannot help but to question the motive behind
such ploy.

[pnwmom]

641. So when people agree with both those statements, like me, that makes us conservatives?

I still don't get your point.

[fatbuckel]

583. It`s hardly a gift. A four-year -old can manipulate a parent. A dog can manipulate it`s master.

[Hutzpa]

647. You should know n/t

[Zhade]

713. I agree that those examples suggest something. It's just impossible to know for certain...

...if someone is an actual conservative if they don't proclaim themselves as such. They may just be really misinformed, or be an asshole who likes to post things that infuriate liberals. But one thing is clear -- the type of actions you mention do side with conservatives and their tactics, even when the poster thinks they're liberal.

[Name removed]

376. Deleted message

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

[howaboutme]

745. We need but one answer

Americans have many differing opinions that are not just red or blue.

I know of life long far left liberals who now have modest support for Palin. I know of life long Republicans who despised Bush and voted for Obama.

Political tents change in size as well as opinions and it is better to be inclusive than exclusive. A discussion forum without debate and disagreement is like eating pablum 3 times a day, 7 days /week, and 52 weeks per year. It becomes boring. There will be disagreements and the key is to not get personal.

What I really need to hear answered under oath by Nancy Pelosi is why she took impeachment of George Bush off the table. The impeachment trial would have gone a long way to resolving many of our concerns with Bush and the actions of future Presidents including Obama. That is the opinion of noted pundits such as Bill Moyers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttWBVU7XjFE

[GodlessBiker]

751. Again, what do you suggest?

[chillspike]

815. +1

[Cal33]

817. This is no suggestion - merely wishful thinking: Wouldn't it be

great if some of those Republicans who left the Republican-now-turned-Neoconservative Party
were to come up with the idea of trying to regroup, and call themselves something like
"The Real Republican Party" -- and explain themselves whenever asked what
they were all about?

I've wished for a long time that we had more than two major parties only.

[havocmom]

2. Proud to rec sincere and well thought out post

Not that it does any good, what with the neo-DEMs so fast on the un button

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. I gave it a rec too...still didn't show.

But we tried.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[SidDithers]

41. And now it's at +9...

What's your point? You don't like DU'ers expressing their opinion?

Sid

[Bonobo]

55. San Francisky? Did you drive or did you flew?

[Sebastian Doyle]

61. Don't confuse me with the Junior Woodchucks, Sidney

I'm all for opinions, in accordance with the DU rule "Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals".

[SidDithers]

407. +132 and counting...

yet you criticized DU'er expressing their opinion about whether this OP belonged on DU's Greatest Page.

That complaint seems kinda silly now, doesn't it.

Sid

[corkhead]

493. tell that to the 1 issue voters who vociferously defended the NRA in recent interactions I have had.

I believe there are "Independent Democrats" here that did or would have voted Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain and are unhappy with Obama.

[bobburgster]

638. I tend to doubt that.

Why would they bother coming here?

[sabrina 1]

100. I just rec'd it also, but it didn't show. Kind of makes

the point the OP is trying to make ...

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[blogslut]

4. So, you're claiming that centrist Democrats are actually Republicans?

Lovely.

[donco6]

10. When they vote with Republicans,

when they stand for Republican principles, when they oppose Democrat-sponsored bills, when they torpedo Democratic committee proposals, when they ignore the Democratic Party platform . . . the (D) after their name doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot, does it?

[MadBadger]

13. We arent talking about Congress people, were talking about DUers

And nobody on DU votes for Republicans

[donco6]

16. That's one group he mentioned, yes

"yet I have found that the conserva-Dems, blue dog DINO’s, and/or the DLC sympathizers here in DU"

Notice the "and/or" in there? He's also talking about Congress.

[MadBadger]

23. "Here in DU"

[Sebastian Doyle]

36. Oh no?

**Spoken in my best Jeff Foxworthy accent.....**

If you supported Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont..... you MIGHT be a Republican.

If you supported Arlen "Magic Bullet" Specter over Joe Sestak.....you might be a Republican.

If you think Blanche Lincoln is any more legitimate of a candidate than Alvin Greeene....you might be a Republican.

If you belong to a crowd that bashes Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold....no "might be" about it. You ARE a Republican.

[CBR]

37. If you constantly bash Barack Obama well... you might be

a Republican.

[MannyGoldstein]

39. " I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."

- Harry Truman

[CBR]

45. ""Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain, and most fools do."

-- Ben Franklin

[MannyGoldstein]

49. "Admiration is the daughter of ignorance."

- Ben Franklin

[rateyes]

323. SNAP!

[Hutzpa]

326. Wait a minute

does that mean Ben Franklin is a psycho, he seems to be quoting from both sides of the aisle.

:rofl:

[Donnachaidh]

448. oh snap and a half!

:rofl:

[SemperEadem]

481. filias veritatis

truth, the daughter of time.

[Sebastian Doyle]

48. Yes

But why are you watching FAUX Noise (or John Boner ranting on C SPAN) if you don't want to see that? :shrug:

[CBR]

56. I could hang out in the woods instead -- the content is almost

identical.

[Individualist]

89. If you equate legitimate criticism with bashing,

you might be a DLC/NDC supporter.

[tomp]

262. utter hogwash and simpleton logic.

if you can't see that obama can be attacked from the left, well...you can't see. the drivel that shows up here never ceases to amaze me. do you really think you can pass as someone who knows anything about politics with this kind of stuff. i mean, take it up, just a notch, please.

[lark]

580. Bashing Obama is not just for Repugs

Taking single payer or universal health care off the table,
refusing to prosecute Bush/Cheney
Waffling on his Iraq pledge
Not addressing DADT
Billions for billionaires with little accountability
AIG paying banks 100% for loans worth half of that wtih governments approval
Aiding BP by letting them lie, cover up, not clean up
Ending moratorium on all oil drilling (prior to current tragedy)
Not addressing MMS previously, doing it only half assed now and not really fixing the problem

All of these give true Dems head and heartaches.

[bobburgster]

640. Yes they do give heartaches, but keep in mind...

who Obama needs to pass his bills....Congress. The democratic congress + 1 are the main culprits.

[liberalmike27]

649. Really Depends on the Bashing

Doesn't it. I and others frequently bash him, but not on things he's doing, but on the fact that many of the bills are watered down, very conservative, and sometimes ineffective versions of what needs to be done. Republicans, it would seem, are dissatisfied with anything he's done, period. The GnOP.

[SwampG8r]

250. if you support charlie crist

over meek in florida ypu might be a republican

[Sebastian Doyle]

282. Thank you!

I knew I forgot one.

[Ken Burch]

290. +billions and billions(as Carl Sagan never actually said).

:thumbsup:

[Sebastian Doyle]

299. He didn't?

I'm sure I heard Sagan actually say that at least once. Though it was obviously exaggerated in satirical portrayals of him (including the ones I did myself in high school)

[Ken Burch]

315. He said "billions"

He did NOT say "billions AND billions".

It's comparable to Humphrey Bogart NEVER saying "play it again, Sam".

[Sebastian Doyle]

327. Or Captain Kirk never saying "Beam Me Up Scotty"?

Or Al Gore never saying he "invented the Internet"?

I dunno.... it's been years since I've seen any of the old Carl Sagan shows, but I swear I have a fuzzy memory of a multiple "billions" in there somewhere.

On the other hand, I was probably high when I saw some of those back in school. :evilgrin:

[SwampG8r]

333. i think once i heard

billions OF billions but not AND

[Ken Burch]

662. As I recall it, it was Johnny Carson who actually turned it into "billions and billions"

in his opening monologue.

[Ken Burch]

339. Maybe it's the "flashback echo" in your mind.

You know, like the part where the picture gets wavy and...oh, wait a minute, that's just on "That 70's Show".

[bananas]

389. He wrote a book titled "Billions and Billions"

"Billions and Billions:: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679411607/drfredsplac
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51P5WPA0D3L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

[Ken Burch]

661. At that point, he was "in on the joke".

If anyone was entitled to have fun with that, it was Sagan, especially since he was terminally ill by then.

[1monster]

384. Except that... who the hell in the general public in Florida knows who Meek is?

I live in Florida and I never even heard of him until I read about him on DU. I'd be willing to bet that 80% of the people in my county don't have a clue about who he is. (And that was a low-ball estimate.)

The man is doing an absolutley dreadful job of campaigning. If you support Charlie Christ over Meek in Florida, you may just never have heard of Meek.

[Enthusiast]

349. +1 nt

[truedelphi]

613. The point is, if the DLC Centrist Dems,

Including the President, act, talk and think like they are the Republicans of old (Say around the Richard Nixon era) then what do we progressives do?

The only way we can save the Party from destroying itself is to point out how little the party now resembles the Democratic party of old. But then it sounds like we are not Dems ourselves.

As far as I can tell, both of the main actors of the two major parties are in bed with the Corporations.
Thus perpetual war, with no victories in sight, while the troops suffer with shoddy equipment. Emergencies that are responded to very poorly by any of the many huge emergency bureaucracies out there.
(Bush was not responsible for the hurricane hitting NO, but he sure as hell didn't respond to it very well, and Obama didn't cause the oil gusher, but he is responding very poorly to that as well also.)

Our economy is being lost to the very Republican notions of trickle down, supply side economic philosophy (which doesn't really work, and is basically propaganda) embraced by the University of Chicago crowd. And where did Obama attend school? Univ of Chicago...

[blogslut]

14. The OP is calling DUers who don't agree with him, Republicans

And you, apparently support this.

Double lovely.

[DevonRex]

27. Yup. That's it in a nutshell. nt

[CreekDog]

35. not really

but it makes him look worse when you say so.

[robinlynne]

85. The OP is calling right wing Democrats right wing Democrats, which they are.

[sinkingfeeling]

421. Delete. Posted to wrong place.

[rhett o rick]

184. Please quote the author when he stated that those that dont agree with him

are Republicans. I think what the OP said, is that Democrats that vote with the Republicans are fucking Republicans. To say we cant call out those DINO's is wrong.

[havocmom]

187. Is lying about what was posted within the rules or a violation

Because the OP did not do what you accused him/her of.

OP discusses a volume of DEM pols in office giving corporations whatever they want, for some coin, same as GOP pols. Unless the DEM pols are also DUers, OP did not call DUers republicans.

edited to correct pronouns re gender of OP

[sinkingfeeling]

422. Yep, does that to anyone who questions anything he says. I stated a simple fact about

it taking 287 votes to reach a 2/3 majority in the House, and he called me a defender of the 'blue dogs'.

[rhett o rick]

469. No "he" asked you if you supported the blue dogs. I dont believe you answered.

"Yep, does that to anyone who questions anything he says." Explain what you questioned that I said?

The thread was discussing how some Democrats voted JUST LIKE THE REPUBLICANS. You seemed to imply that it didnt matter. It may not matter to you but it certainly does to me. Democrats that VOTE REPUBLICAN are not welcome. Maybe you dont agree, but plez dont misrepresent my posts.

[sinkingfeeling]

492. No, I said the bill could not get through the House without the help of some Republicans because

there aren't 287 Democrats. My concern is with getting bills through the Congress and I will and do support moderate Democrats as well as 'progressive' Democrats. Maybe because I understand that there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. I live in a red, red state and think we're damn lucky to have 2 Dem Senators and 3 out of 4 Dem Representatives (currently). I don't believe in purity tests for any office holder.

The comments in that post were counter-productive.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

452. The OP did not

but you think it makes your side look better if you say they did.

[Romulox]

467. When the OP telling the truth is the issue, things are dysfunctional.

:shrug:

[grantcart]

46. So when Feingold votes with the Republicans almost more than anyone else

he is a Republican?

[HughMoran]

54. Apparenlty he has a 'get out of Republican jail free' card

:shrug:

[robinlynne]

86. really? on what planet is this?

[Name removed]

114. Deleted sub-thread

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

[grantcart]

120. here you go

Feingold has become one of the most reliable Republican votes in the Senate. In the current session, Feingold has voted with the Republicans 22.16% of the time. That ranks him the 5th most conservative Democrat in the Senate. Progressive Punch also does a ranking based on what they determine to be crucial votes. Feingold proves to be an even bigger enemy of the Democratic agenda when the votes really matter. He votes with the Republicans 37.33% of the time, ranking him the 4th most conservative in the Democratic Caucus. The list of Senators with a better voting record reads like a netroots hit list – Specter, Baucus, Pryor, Landrieu. Joe Lieberman, the most hated man in the caucus, votes with the Democrats 84% of the time on crucial votes and 89.5% of the time overall. At this point, Feingold has more in common with Scott Brown than Sherrod Brown.

Russ Feingold likes to wrap himself in the mantle of Paul Wellstone’s legacy. Those of us who admired Paul Wellstone and understood his philosophy find the Feingold/Wellstone comparisons offensive. Wellstone fought for liberal principles and wasn’t afraid to criticize bad policy and bad bills. That’s where the similarities end. Wellstone understood the basic fact that all no votes are equal. He understood that a pragmatic half of a loaf was better than the purity of no loaf at all. As his friend writes:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x360210

[Individualist]

126. The source of those paragraphs is Blue Wave News

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x360210#360690

[grantcart]

313. and the source of the statistics is Feingold's voting record

Do you dispute the statistics?

What is your source?

[Major Hogwash]

484. You're ignoring the reasons he voted that way. That doesn't make him a Blue Dawg

And that is really disingenuous of you.

[grantcart]

571. No its not

My point is that Feingold undermines caucus solidarity.

When he votes against the caucus on grounds of "conscience" on A REGULAR BASIS he is giving the Blue Dogs a permission slip to do the same.

Their argument will be "If a liberal Democrat from a liberal state can vote against the caucus then it is OK for a moderate Democrat from a conservative state to do the same, especially if it means I keep us Democratic"

You can't have one set of caucus rules for the Blue Dogs and one for "Principled Senators". You are either going to advance legislation on the basis of caucus action or let everyone vote their own way.

For the record most representative democracies use parlimentary procedures that are based on caucus discipline. When a party can no longer advance policy that its own members support then it is deemed to have lost its mandate and a general election is called for.

Sanders, Franken and all of the other principled Senators make their point and then vote with the caucus. Feingold's actions actually help the Blue Dog's vote against the caucus.

In any case the question was - does anyone dispute the statistics on Feingold.

[Raineyb]

658. Yes it is. REasons matter and putting someone who has stated that he wants improvements and stated

what they are to Republicans who don't want to pass anything is a disgusting smear.

[Zhade]

743. Voting for things they don't agree with makes the real point. Their protestations then ring hollow.

Talk is cheap. Actions matter more.

[sabrina 1]

780. Yeah, the same way 'Kucinich votes with the Republicans'. Please

don't insult people's intelligence. Voting AGAINST something that is a bad bill, does NOT equate with 'voting with Republicans'. I am sure that Democrats who have a conscience don't worry too much about what Republicans do as they don't expect them to ever do what is right.

I'll tell you who voted with Republicans. Any Democrat who voted for the Iraq War, the MCA, the FISA Bill.

But this disingenuous, obviously prepared talking point to slam Democrats who actually have a conscience, is getting old.

Try something else, this old tactic is all used up.

[dflprincess]

208. Is Obama?

Who voted with them more than Feingold

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080906185829AAp9AdH

According to these stats Obama voted with President Bush almost half the time.

2005 - 33 percent of the time
2006 - 49 percent of the time
2007 - 40 percent of the time

[Tarheel_Dem]

66. You mean like Russ Feingold? (nt)

[rhett o rick]

11. LOL, you said "centrist". He he. nm

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

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

[Enthusiast]

352. Happy tree friends?

Just what do you mean by this? Is this a swipe at environmentalists?

[Ignis]

747. Kids these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Tree_Friends

It's actually mildly entertaining. :shrug:

[Enthusiast]

783. Honestly, I had no idea.

At 57 I guess I'm too old to know about these things.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Today's "Centrist Democrats" Are Roughly Reagan Republicans

And very, very far to the right of Eisenhower.

[Hatchling]

125. Well said!

[SwampG8r]

256. true

in fact a eisenhower republican would make most of the posters on DU look like bush 1 republicans

[Enthusiast]

354. And they have bought into

"trickle down" economics.

[Romulox]

468. Some here are to the right of Poppy Bush and Nixon, imo. nt

[Lorien]

518. To the Right of Nixon as well, even to the Right of Reagan on a few issues. nt

[CreekDog]

34. not what the OP said

and you don't seem to be disputing that you get shouted down here when you criticize the President.

[DevonRex]

40. "There is a growing number of bad Democrats (DINO's) that vote Republican."

That's what he said.

[CreekDog]

128. yes, not necessarily for Republicans but with them on legislation.

[SwampG8r]

260. how could anyone dispute that?

there is no discussion allowed if you have credible questions regarding policy it devolves almost instantly into a series of personal attacks
a sign of a weak arguement by the way

edit cause its late and i worked hard and it was hot so ....edited

[villager]

42. The problem is that, like the goal posts, the "center" has moved quite some distance...

...and not in a remotely leftward direction...

[HughMoran]

60. more or less

it is lovely, isn't it?

[laughingliberal]

68. You know the Senate was 1 vote from getting the bill on UI to the floor. Snowe/ Collins are on board

Ben Nelson is supporting the Republican filibuster. Can't say he's actually a Republican but, in this instance, he's voting with them to throw unemployed workers to the wolves.

Lovely

[Telly Savalas]

113. Did anybody here support him for this vote?

If it happened, I sure missed it.

[Raineyb]

491. I don't see anyone posting OPs excoriating him either. But they often do when more left leaning

politicians withhold their votes because it's not good enough for them. Ben Nelson is a fucking Republican who is apparently too much of a coward to come out as one. He's constantly stymieing legislation but it's Russ Feingold who people are getting all pissy with because he won't vote for the Financial reform bill because Feingold doesn't believe it goes far enough. Nelson just doesn't give a shit if people end up on the street. Quite the distinction in reasons I would say. Nelson gets a pass Feingold is being called a Wall Street tool.

[robinlynne]

82. First of all Dems who vote like Republicans are not Centrist. They are right-wing.

Second of all, the OP says that right wing Dems are not PROGRESSIVE!!

[NorthCarolina]

418. The OP specifically mentions DLC "New-Democrats" which

would reflect a right-of-center ideology that is akin to the Gingrich era Republican ideology.

[Lorien]

516. Yes, they are. The new center is the old "right wing"

Look at the policies of Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon. Many of them are actually to the Left of the new "Centrist Democrats". Globally, Centrists Democrats ideologically fall to the hard right of most European political parties. In fact, a member of the Tory party once told me that Kerry is a "good conservative Tory" while G.W. Bush was "just plain frightening."

[lark]

577. Ben Nelson is a Republican

He is not a Democrat. DINO seems too kind, he's a Repuglican in disguise.

[truedelphi]

609. If you are old enough to remember the Republican party of

Richard Nixon, and compare it with the present day DLC centrists like Obama (even though he has claimed he is not a centrist) you will see that these new powerful Dems don't even respect the old "price determining" stipulations that Richard Nixon put in place.

These "New Dems" are what the Republicans were forty years ago, while the Republicans have become Neo con Nazis who rely, when they want to, on the most unreasonable passages in the Bible.

Neither party cares one whit about a real economy, as Clinton supported Greenspan, whose idea of an economy was to ship jobs overseas, and have Americans live on credit.

Now the credit has run out, and we don't see the Democrats determined to bring back jobs, or even see to it that we have unemployment insurance.

And both parties are in bed with the Corporations. There are side issues, that the Elite could care less about but which most people get caught up in - gay marriage (Oh no. If gays marry, what comes next? People marrying their dogs?") and abortion.

But in general under both parties we see how our environment is being lost, our response to emergencies is ridiculously convoluted, slow and inefficient, and our wars wage on while our economy on Main Street falls apart, yet is required to constantly boost up the crowd on Wall Street through BailOuts.

[NorthCarolina]

837. Politically, the goals of the centrist Democrats (DLC New Dems)

are much closer to the Republican (Neocon Republican, not Tea Bag Republican)agenda, than they are to any Traditional Democratic core principles. The centrist Democrats are often anti-Union, pro-corporate over pro-citizen, etc., and with their push to usurp the Democratic Party, the people of this country suffer the loss of an advocate in DC. I can understand that from a Corporate perspective, it is much better to have the two viable political parties in America both be beholden to Corporate interests. That is financially and politically a no brainer. However, when I consider the morality of such a system wherein no viable Political Party serves the will, benefit, or interest of the people, then I believe as a country we have lost much.

[MadBadger]

6. Its clear you spend no time on DU whatsoever.

The Division is between Liberal Democrats and Progressives. The Liberal Democrats can be considered Dems too, but they believe in a pragmatic approach to politics that keeps them with the Democratic Party no matter what, while the others arent. They are fed up with the President and the party and often believe that the others are full of corporatists. I'm not judging either side, but to say that this is an issue of conservatives and Liberals isnt rooted in facts.

[DevonRex]

15. +1. nt

[SidDithers]

25. Good post...

Some DUer's have absolutely no use for the Democratic party, and consider the President a "colossal failure". Why they continue to post here, I don't know.

Sid

[KittyWampus]

26. you not only figured that out, you phrased it perfectly. Thanks.

[HughMoran]

47. Yeah

This thread is really off base and should be insulting to the intelligence of anybody who doesn't have an axe to grind.

[ima_sinnic]

62. oh, I see. The "New Democrats" are now "Liberal Democrats." yeah, right. whatever.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I thought "liberals" were "(bleeping) (bleepeds)"

[MadBadger]

70. Seems to me like we are talking about two different things. I'm talking about DU,

you are talking about Congress. I dont think anybody here would characterize them as "new democrats" in the same way that Evan Bayh does. They would characterize themselves as Liberals or progressives. And if you take a look at what they believe, they are.

[ima_sinnic]

75. uh, no. (nt)

[HughMoran]

76. sounds like crickets to me

[MadBadger]

111. What a thought-provoking post

[HughMoran]

77. agreed

[Usrename]

134. I don't really see what your saying.

Liberal and progressive have a sort of historic meaning. You can't just pin those words onto ANY ideology. I think if you look at people's views from their sense of liberty and justice you can easily see that there are two sides here. A right-wing view that we are somehow better than our enemies and we have the right to treat them like a non-human sub-species without the benefit of basic human rights, and then you have liberals and progressives that are fundamentally opposed to that right-wing viewpoint.

AFAICT, the exact same dynamic is what's been screwing up Israel for my whole lifetime. If you support apartheid then don't even try to fool yourself into thinking you're a liberal or progressive. It isn't reality. At this point Obama appears to be in full support of a new American brand of apartheid. He isn't a liberal or progressive as this view is the antithesis of what the words mean historically.

[MadBadger]

143. I know for a fact that nobody that here that isnt a troll thinks that...

we have the right to treat anybody like a non human sub species. I think your view of the Israel situation is too extreme, but I also dont really support Israel. I fail to see how that makes me a RWer.

Oh, and I guess Congressman Weiner supports Apartheid too in your words. He cant possibly be a progressive then

[Usrename]

194. I don't think it's a very exteme view at all.

The reality is what it is.

People, human beings, are being oppressed.

That's just a sad fact, which has nothing at all to do with my views about it.

Some people support it, some don't.

[SwampG8r]

270. i have been told

i was a sub human (not in so many words)and that "people like me" should have dreadful things happen to me
right here on DU
for my opinion
as the fools posting such claptrap know nothing of me i find it amusing
i have been a dem since lyndon johnson so i dont feel a need to trot out my dem bona fides for anyone
so a lot of trolls are here or you just havent had it happen to you.....
yet

[HughMoran]

74. Interesting distortion there - sounds very Orwellian

:wtf:

[stranger81]

139. +1000

The Chuckles crowd on DU are "Liberal Democrats" only if you strip the word "liberal" of any meaningful content.

This is not a liberal/progressive split. It's a liberal/conservative split.

[MadBadger]

144. Oooo, now the addition of "chuckes" gives a whole new meaning to Patronizing

[Romulox]

471. There's an organized talking points campaign for the "centrists" to appropriate "progressive"

So now the rightwingers will preface their comments with "As a progressive, I am for continuous war and corporate rule--traditional progressive ideals. Um...also, abortion or something, I guess."

[robinlynne]

90. Actually, we progressives are liberal Democrats. The Democrats the Op refers to are

not liberals.

[rhett o rick]

173. Ah yes start out your argument with that. Where in your opinion do the DLC

sympathizers fit? Liberal or Progressive?

[MadBadger]

176. One side doesnt spit fireballs at the DLC, because they dont think they matter in any way anymore

The DLC is completely irrelevant, and I fail to see anybody on this site who supports whatever the DLC is.

[Individualist]

190. How funny!

:rofl:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

456. I think maybe it's you that isn't spending a lot of time on DU

[Lorien]

520. It's clear that you spend no time on DU whatsoever. nt

[Kind of Blue]

185. +1. Well said. Thanks for being inclusive.

This is a good starting point instead of the castigating that goes absolutely no where.

[Hekate]

366. +1 thank you

[berni_mccoy]

403. Thank you MadBadger.

[droidamus2]

419. Interesting definition

I always thought the 'progressives' were just liberals that let the media and the Republicans convince them that 'liberal' was a bad word. Your right in the sense that I am a liberal and I see the pragmatic benefit in not cutting off my nose to spite my face. Yes I would love for there to be more parties than just the Dems and Reps so we would have a real choice, but to not vote Democratic Party (voting Green or whatever) to make an idealistic point while allowing a Republican to actually win seems to be self-defeating to me. Yes you remain pure to your ideals but the country gets screwed in the process. I don't know the answer other than building a 'progressive' (going with your definition) party from the ground up so that when you choose to not vote Democratic Party the candidate you do vote for has an actual chance of winning.

[ColesCountyDem]

451. Your analysis is more accurate.

Our strength as a party has been our long-standing willingness to accept occasional differing points-of-view. Unlike the Republicans, we do NOT 'march in lock step'; some here see that as being 'DINOs', or whatever, when it is not.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Yay! Have you seen today's pictures of Obama looking cool?

Obama was handed shit, so everything's OK.

[QC]

99. That picture makes me feel all funny inside!!! n/t

[redqueen]

8. Wow.(nt)

[Smarmie Doofus]

9. I'm wit' u, bud. K and R nt

[pnwmom]

17. Don't the new rules say that you're not supposed to be accusing Democrats here

of being Republicans or conservatives in disguise?

Just because someone doesn't agree with you on every single issue doesn't make them a conservative or a Republican.

[Enthusiast]

357. Aren't there Republicans

on DU masquerading as Democrats?

[SidDithers]

387. There are plenty of non-Democrats on DU masquerading as Democrats...nt

Sid

[ericblair]

727. Yes!

Any doctrinaire site is easy to troll. Feign rightousness and blast away from a purer-than-thou perspective. I've only posted on here a few times (and probably won't get to again until I register under my work e-mail) but look at my posts before the mods airbrush them and you can see how it's done

[geek tragedy]

460. The 'true progressives' here are some of the most intolerant

people this side of the GOP's Christian Taliban.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

551. Duzy!!!! n/t

[HughMoran]

798. Hear! Hear!

[Bonobo]

19. Agreed. It comes down to this:

Is DU about policy or is it about party loyalty and affiliation.

For me, it is about a core set of values and once a party ignores them substantially, they become or should become the target.

I say we change the name to Pregressive Underground, errr, scratch that. We'll figure out something better. :)

[tekisui]

84. I agree. If the owners of DU want a safe Party/Administration bubble,

they should say that. If they want DU to be a critic-free zone for Dems, they could do that.

But, they haven't. They still say it is a place welcome for any on the left,so long as they don't advocate third party.

DU is not and should not be a fan club. Its value is lost if that is what it is to become.

[SwampG8r]

271. duzy

[Bobbie Jo]

291. Sadly, no

those days are over, since the poster who put those together had enough of the lunacy. I'm not surprized you didn't know.

[SwampG8r]

332. i know jeff stopped

i still know a duzy when i see one though

[Bobbie Jo]

341. Empty as it is.

Enjoy.

[earth mom]

20. Did you ever stop to consider that the owners of DU might support the DLC themselves?

p.s. I don't think you'll get an answer to your OP, but it was a good try. :thumbsup:

[MineralMan]

43. What evidence of that might you have?

They might be groundhogs for all I know. But, we have this forum to discuss things. That's good.

I still don't even know what the DLC has to do with any of this. I think their influence is way, way overrated.

[DevonRex]

51. That's one of the rumors that runs rampant someplace else. That

one of the site owners was once in the DLC. No proof, no nothing. Oh, and that Rahm runs this board now. Crazy people are on the intertubes. Best to steer clear of them.

[MannyGoldstein]

67. One can review the recent gang-tombstoning

and discern a pattern to which group the deceased came from.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8584989&mesg_id=8584989

[MineralMan]

69. I pay absolutely no attention to who comes and who goes here.

I'm here to read and post.

[Individualist]

93. +1

[dionysus]

514. they were so pissed they couldn't shit on democrats freely, so they asked to be banned.

good riddance.
:shrug:

[Individualist]

95. Al From disagrees with you that their influence is overrated.

In 1998 Al From said:


"I've got bad news for the President's opponents in both parties: New Democrats are winning the battle for their party's soul. New Democrats, not liberals, will be the party's dominant force in the 21st century."

New Democrats are here to stay

[emulatorloo]

615. "1998"??????????? n/t

[Individualist]

673. You have a problem with '98? Here are his comments from 2009!!!!!!

We formed the DLC to change our party -- to redefine and rebuild it

-snip-

That is what we did, and we proved the experts wrong.

-snip-

Now, with a new Democratic President in the White House and strong majorities in both houses of congress and among statehouses, the mission we set out to achieve in 1985 has been accomplished and the first phase of the DLC's work is finished.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=254927

[emulatorloo]

832. I still think he is a delusional idiot. He can say anything he wants about his supposed "influence"

doesn't make him any less of a Loser nor does it make the DLC anything more than the inconsequential website that it is. Anybody can have a website.

[MineralMan]

72. Ah, the DLC meme. How tired. How sad.

[Moochy]

132. There's an even sadder meme

The greatest thing the devil ever did was convince people he did not exist!

[ima_sinnic]

140. +1000 lol

[Individualist]

156. Hear, hear!

[Sebastian Doyle]

314. Now that's really unfair to Satan

He doesn't deserve to be compared to Al From & Bruce Reed. :evilfrown:

[Lorien]

523. Zing!

:thumbsup:

[Odin2005]

124. WHAT!?! No they don't!

DLCers kissed Bush's ass. Skinner and Co. NEVER kissed their asses. DU originated BECAUSE of Bush's coup.

[villager]

142. I think the discussion, or the tension, is engendered by what DU started as, vs. what it may have...

...become, now that there's a Democratic "status quo" in D.C...

[Larry Ogg]

568. Great observation...

People of conscience create ideologies and laws in order to protect themselves from predators, and over time, as predators sneak their way in, it becomes a question of, do you support the ideology or do you support the person who claims to support the ideology. Note that ideologies are gutted from the inside out by persons who claim to support them. And research has shown that a large portion of the true supporters don't realize the gutting is taking place, and the ones who point out the improprieties of leaders are ridiculed as rabble rousers, and censored with disdain. The lesson learned is that when it's not OK to point out the culprits, rest assured predators have taken control of the ideology and bad times are coming. And in America we can say that the bad times are here for a lot of people, but I'm under the belief that we ain't seen nothing yet...

[truedelphi]

618. If you are under the belief that as far as bad economic times, we haven't seen anything yet -

Then perhaps it pains you that there are a number of websites that are very good at discussing the deeper meanings behind the "Wall Street recovery at expense of Main Street" but we are not allowed to mention those websites on DU.

And the Bilderberg people and their agenda doesn't exist either.

Very bewildering to me. It is as though we are allowed to discuss the trunk and tail of an elephant but not the torso or large ears.

[Larry Ogg]

749. I heard a lot about these elite organizations

where the predator class meets with the elected union stewards we the working class like to call politicians… And what they talk about, or what leaks out, is of the radar of most people who are uncomfortable with the premise that politicians are listening to them to the point of taking orders; that could mean we live in an oligarchy, and of course, we like to pretend that we live in a Democracy. So it’s more comfortable for most people to believe that laws that are filled with loopholes or stacked in the favor of, or inapplicable to the elite criminals or politicians, because it is good for everyone else, and somehow monolithic within democracies. But understanding the psychology and language of world leaders, their authoritarian followers and the cycles of history; offers even more insight as to what the future holds, it would be delusional to not consider some of the horrific possibilities, and though I can imagine the worst case scenario, doesn’t mean that sanity wont enter the picture before it’s to late, and censoring controversial opinion because it’s to uncomfortable, may be censoring the information people need to know to save their lives; it's throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[truedelphi]

801. Yep, most people want to be able to "pretend" that

We live in a democracy

[ima_sinnic]

148. things aren't always as they seem ... (nt)

[Hekate]

368. There's madness afoot here, Odin

[havocmom]

131. support or supported by?

sometimes I have to wonder.

[Boojatta]

21. "They will not answer questions like why won't Pres Obama fix the..."

Not only are there DU members who are "bad Democrats," but many of them fail to supply detailed inside information about President Obama's plans and motivations. Under the circumstances, constructive dialog seems impossible. Is that the idea or did I misunderstand?

[redqueen]

104. nice

[rhett o rick]

246. You did not misunderstand. Those that are lock-step Democrats will not

dialog. They seem to me to only attack those that might dare question our Pres. After all, he is a Democrat and apparently beyond criticism.

[rhett o rick]

842. Sorry I missed your reply. I think you understand. I admit I stumbled

some trying to say it. When someone posts questions re. the Presidents policies on the war, HCR, DADT, etc. they get attacked by a certain group here. Those that attack seem to say that we shouldnt question our Democratic President or Congress. But they never discuss issues. Do they favor the continuation of the Patriot Act, domestic spying, rendition, DADT, etc.? They wont say. Their complete argument seems to be that we need to support Democrats across the board.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Plus there is the Group Hijack Attack.

The strategy employed by what is obviously an organized faction here at DU is to engage in what I will call a Group Hijack Attack on a thread they find contrary to their interests. The goal of a Group Hijack Attack is to transform the thread into an off topic flame fest the consequence of which is the thread itself gets locked. The GHA is not discourse, civil or otherwise, as there is no attempt to actually discuss the topic of the thread. Instead it is a conscious effort to exploit The New Rules in order to suppress dissent.

[Catherina]

+1000 Thank you n/t

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[Moochy]

162. [phone]

[Ignis]

592. Thanks. Whatever I posted must have been pretty cool.

What was it, again?

[Moochy]

711. A wink is as good as a nod

I forgot. :+

[Ignis]

732. Fuck. There goes my beer AND my laptop screen.

Damn you, Python Referencer! Damn you.

:toast:

[Bobbie Jo]

121. Oh, like this thread for instance?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8662362&mesg_id=8662362

Looks pretty "Hijacky" to me.

[Bobbie Jo]

320. *crickets* As expected.

[Ignis]

127. "a conscious effort to exploit The New Rules in order to suppress dissent"

Jeez, man. Why not just cover yourself in honey and sit on an anthill?

[Warren Stupidity]

157. they are virtual ants

[Ignis]

699. I'd say that's a pretty generous comparison.

Real ants build as well as destroy.

[Odin2005]

130. +1,000,000,000,000

[MissDeeds]

237. Exactly right n/t

[havocmom]

761. There's a mess o projection going on too

:rofl:

[DevonRex]

24. I have some questions for you.

1. Do you have a list of these people who you would like to answer these questions?

2. Why do you think they would know the answers as to why Obama has or has not done anything?

3. Why do you think they have an agenda in regards to DU instead of just liking to post on a Democratic message board?

4. Why do you think they vote Republican?

5. And if they vote Republican, then wouldn't it still be appropriate to say Republicans bad/Democrats good?

[CBR]

29. One of the main problems here is that as soon as you disagree

with some on here and/or defend the President about something, you are labeled DLC aka "the enemy" etc... It is to an absurd extreme. So much so that there are dedicated voyeurs.

[MadBadger]

32. And thats exactly what the OP is doing

The OP sees the problems between the Progressives and Obama-defending-corporatists

[DevonRex]

33. The OP took it further and said that anyone

who defends the prez or disagrees with some here is actually a puke.

[rhett o rick]

253. Please give the quote from the OP that says that. nm

[DevonRex]

487. "There is a growing number of bad Democrats (DINO's) that vote Republican."

Since you're talking about DU and DU rules, and DU members having to explain why Obama does this or that or does not do this or that, you must be talking about DU members voting Republican. IMO, a person who votes Republican IS a puke.

While we're at it, I asked you several questions up thread. Could you answer those, please?

[dionysus]

517. well, you gotta feel pure somehow! CRUISE MISSLES!!11!!

:hi:

[DevonRex]

524. I'm still trying to figure out why anybody here should be forced to answer

questions about why Obama has or has not done this, that or the the other thing. Is this by threat of firing squad? And what if we get the answers wrong? And who decides if the answers are right or wrong?

:hi:

[dionysus]

527. in my opinion, what is being inferred is if you support obama you're not a True Liberal (tm) dammit!

unless you're enraged at everything and i mean everything, you're just another DINO conservadem... for some that's what it boils down to.

To me this is damaging, because there's no middle ground in that scenario.

there's plenty of constructive criticism that goes on here, but also a ton of stuff that is based on deeply personal grudges.

BTW, did you get the 4th of july truffle shipment from HQ?

they're in really nice diamond encrusted gift boxes this year!

:hi:

[DevonRex]

529. I think he's saying there should be a rule banning Obama supporters

or something like that since we're not True Progressives (TM), the word liberal being so last decade.

Hopefully the diamonds will be more than chips this year. I mean, I give little diamond chip kitty collars to my Sweetums. But, no, it hasn't arrived yet unless the butler hasn't brought it to my attention yet. :+

[tekisui]

91. The labels are tossed around by all sides and is always unproductive.

For every 'cheerleader' there is a 'hater'. For every 'apologist' there is a 'leftbagger'.

Trying to force everyone into factions and labels only distracts us and makes us fight among ourselves, personally, rather than actually discuss issues.

[DevonRex]

94. That was a very, very reasonable thing to say.

Lately I've noticed you saying a lot of things that I can agree with. And I appreciate it when I see someone who uses a calm voice.

I'm as guilty as anyone of getting my back up. Not trying to pretend otherwise. Maybe that's why I recognize the calm. Anyway, thanks.

[tekisui]

106. Thanks for the matched response.

I know that I have let emotion get the better of me many times. Trying to take a more measured approach. No matter the disagreement, name calling and ridicule doesn't bring anyone closer to agreement.

I see a repeated cycle. It doesn't matter who starts it, but all too often it ends with walls and insults. It is easy to get drawn, but we get nowhere and end up with fewer DUers.

[rhett o rick]

178. Ok, you tell me why the Pres doesnt fix the Bush DOJ? When I ask that, you guys always just attack

me as a person and wont answer.

[Individualist]

204. *crickets*

as expected.

[Enthusiast]

362. Sounds like a legitimate

question to me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

379. It's a pretty meaningless question

'Fix'? OK, so we know you want something done. You haven't specified what's wrong yet. And you call it the 'Bush DOJ'. So you think there's something Bush-like about it. But you haven't said what.

Is your question:

"Why hasn't the president fired more people from the DOJ who were employed under Bush"?

Well, as Boojatta pointed out in #21 (though it went right over your head), you are expecting ordinary internet posters to be able to explain the detailed private executive decisions of the administration. If you want an answer to that kind of question, then direct it to someone in the government. Or get a political representative to ask it on your behalf. But I advise you word it a bit more specifically than "why doesn't the President fix the Bush DOJ"? Even if your point is that some more people need to be fired, you'd stand a better chance of an answer from the government, or a discussion about it on DU, if you said which people need to be fired, and why.

[rhett o rick]

425. I could give you a list but not sure that would change anything.

It was widely discussed during the Bush administration how the DOJ was being packed with Bush cronies. And the US Attorneys were all replaced by Bush early in his admin and those that werent partisan enough were replaced again. I believe they are all still in office. And for sure Leura Canary should be replaced.

[Moochy]

485. Here was Clinton's fix for the first Bush "Justice" department

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy

Was he wrong?

[muriel_volestrangler]

494. Obama has been slightly slower, but had nominated 67 new ones by April this year

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8673473&mesg_id=8676285

[Moochy]

499. More from the wikipedia article I posted that bolsters your point

"However, at least six attorneys had recently received positive evaluations of their performance from the Department of Justice.<34> In September 2008, the Department of Justice Inspector General's investigation concluded that the dismissals were politically motivated and improper.<24>"

Sounds like the Clinton move was eventually judged to be improper by ... wait for it.. The Bush DOJ. So I don't know how noble these firings really were, but consider the source.

Kind of fun to try and imagine which justice department to believe. :crazy:

[Individualist]

497. Nonanswer.

[Hippo_Tron]

775. Possibly because the Senate won't confirm his nominees

[Mike 03]

30. Wow. A truly challenging post that confronts a lot of my conflicted feelings directly.

I don't find fault with DU, though.

Isn't this an issue for us to hash out among ourselves? It's kind of silly to blame DU for not handling new, complex and evolving issues in our party.

You make very good points, but I simply don't agree that this is a failure of DU, but confusion on our part.

[DevonRex]

31. Clearly you are outrage challenged.

:)

[Bonobo]

50. Outrage = pout= pony = lame. nt

[DevonRex]

57. That was a very desperate attempt to put words in my mouth. I pity you. nt

[HughMoran]

80. Was that supposed to be funny?

[SidDithers]

414. If it was, it failed miserably...nt

Sid

[rhett o rick]

182. I didnt say failure. But the conflict in DU is between the progressives and the DLC sympathizer,

corporatists. This causes a lot of conflict. The admins are trying with their rule clarifications, to smooth over some of these conflicts. IMHO they are not fixing the cause of the problems.

[Lint Head]

38. End corporate rights now!

We are living in a corporatly controlled neofascist theocratic country. Religion is cynically used to control the masses.
The religious lemmings go along with the fright wingers because GAWD is on their side. We are controlled by corporations that decide our choices of art, entertainment, the type of energy we will consume and when we go to war.
Something has to be done very soon. I fear for my children. This is not the world of hope I was born into many years ago. it has been hijacked by corporate fascists.

[Bitwit1234]

44. I still think we support President Obama and the Democrats BUT

I also think we are really frustrated that it seems President Obama does everything he can to appease the republicans and does not hold them accountable for what they have done. I think we want to see the cloture vote and the filibuster GONE so that congress = the Senate= can get some work done. If he would start the ball rolling on these two things we might pick up the pace. AND NOT CAVE TO REPUBLICANS TRYING TO GET BIPARTISANSHIP.

[muffin1]

52. K&R n/t

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Hekate]

371. "Reagan Democrats"?! and just who the hell are you, again?

:wtf:

[ProSense]

58. Have you read the statement from the "corporatist" group

Public Citizens?

[SunnySong]

59. I asked the same questions a few days ago... it is depressing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8660007

[malaise]

63. Nice post

Valid point re what they won't answer.

[johnaries]

64. Unrec for calling other Liberals "conservatives". nt

[laughingliberal]

78. It is confusing to know what to call a Democrat who is voting with the Republicans to block UI.

Some of what I'd call them should not be repeated in polite company.

[Warren Stupidity]

83. Conservative, rightwing, or asshole all work for me. nt.

[Ignis]

92. Why "or?" I say "and."

[Warren Stupidity]

97. 'or' is inclusive not exclusive.

Sorry, bad case of programmer brain here.

[Ignis]

103. Boolean logic fight, behind the computer lab. Be there.

;)

[SwampG8r]

318. i always bet

on the one with the tape on his glasses
sure sign of a scrapper!

[Ignis]

537. Don't MAKE me put on an MC Frontalot album!

I feel some nerd rage coming on!

:D

[Zhade]

824. Origin of the Species is one of my favorite songs ever!

I got to see him in concert -- he gave us a choice between "Special Delivery" and "I Heart Fags". I was so torn! (He did IHF.)

[Raineyb]

150. I call them what they are. Republicans.

If it quacks like a Republican, and votes like a Republican, it is a bloody Republicans despite having a D after its name.

[OregonBlue]

223. But I have not heard ONE person support Nelson. Maybe I missed it but I don't think anyone here

likes or supports him or the blue dogs. That's not the point of this post, it's possible to support the president and dems in general, even some that are more middle of the road without being called a DINO or RINO or whatever. It's sad to see all these good well-meaning dems arguing about who's a real dem. It looks and sounds just like all the posts we delight in when it's happening to the Repukes. The trolls reading this tonight are having a wonderful time and I suspect that was the point of this post to begin with.

[laughingliberal]

310. With all due respect, I could give a rodent's behind what trolls reading our site think.

My interest is in our party and our site. The RW trolls can bite me.


BTW, I don't necessarily 'delight' in seeing the Republicans infighting, either. My observation is their far right winds up winning. Then our moderates move further right and so on and on and on. The trajectory in the country has been to the right for 30 years. We have managed to put the brakes on the rightward move on occassion but we have never been able to get back to the left of Reagan.

[johnaries]

281. My problem is his suggestion that those here on DU that

support Obama are automatically DLC or Conserva-Dems.

There are a lot more views here than "two".

[Sebastian Doyle]

87. Unrec your unrec for lame attempt to redefine "Liberal"

The only place a "Liberal" would support the New "Democrat" agenda is Australia.

(Different meaning down there entirely. Old Rupert definitely IS a "Liberal" back home)

[johnaries]

358. Actually, I think it's the OP who's trying to redefine "Liberal".

And what do you consider the "New Democrat" agenda?

As for my own Liberalism, the best site I have found for testing is http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

My own score:
Economic Left/Right: -7.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74

That places me somewhere between Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama.

[fascisthunter]

739. "That places me somewhere between Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. "

me too... and I agree with the OP. I think the OP has accurately described liberals.

[Individualist]

101. IMO the only thing worse than a neocon is a neocon enabler.

Those who choose to hide behind the "liberal" label aren't fooling anyone.

[johnaries]

361. And how many of those neo-con enablers are here on DU?

[Individualist]

500. DLC is a stealth organization

Their supporters won't admit that they support DLC, but by their posts you shall know them.

[harun]

193. Blue Dog's, New Dem's and DLC'rs are not Liberals nor do they claim to be.

The good guys are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

[johnaries]

360. And none of those are here. At least not that I've seen. nt

[harun]

455. If they aren't then maybe the rules of the site should reflect that distinction?

[KonaKane]

65. Respectfully, you have mischaracterized some of the problems you see

with the current president. One that jumped out was "dump DADT". There have been several threads dedicated to getting people to understand that he does not have the power to "dump" that one by himself because it was an act of Congress instead of a simple policy practice (which he could do away with with a stroke of a pen). My understanding is that he has been working on getting Congress to ditch DADT and I applaud him in that. It hasn't happening fast enough or with the ease that some here want, but there it is nonetheless.

I do agree with your contention that there has been an ideologigical split though. The biggest problem I see with that is, how do Democrats hang on to their position of power if this split hits the voting booths in November.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[KonaKane]

116. I am acknowledging the way our system works (otherwise known as reality)

Meaning Obama cannot make DADT vanish with a stroke of his pen. I wish he could. I never supported such a stupid thing, and don't now.

I find your insinuation that I am in league with the Christian right to slime gays highly offensive, and evidence that you are not thinking clearly. I'll take your apology when you are ready.

[Zhade]

717. He COULD stop the discharges with a stroke of a pen. And this has been pointed out over and over.

NT!

[KonaKane]

776. Please explain how a president can single handedly reverse an act of Congress

Because before you start, I assure you that the president has no such power.

[rhett o rick]

258. You say he doesnt have the power to dump DADT. That says a lot. GWBush seemed to have the power to

do a tremendous amount but for some reason, Pres Obama doesnt. He has the power to tell the military to stop discharging individuals for being gay.

I beg you to tell me why he has chosen not to exercise that power.

[KonaKane]

841. Respectfully, you are wrong in this case. DADT is a congressional act

And as such, the president does not have the power to simply write it away with an executive order. The most he can do is to lean on congress to overturn it. Which, I understand, he is doing.

This isn't the same as with Truman and the end to racial segregation in the military. Back then it was simply a practice, something that was put in force as part of the general segregation trend of American society. Congress didn't get together and create an act out of it. Therefore it was withing Truman's power to simply write it away, and he did. Not without a real fight though, but he prevailed and I'm happy for it.

There is a lot of things to criticize Obama for, but this isn't one.

[rhett o rick]

691. I appreciate respectful discussion. I fully understand the limitations facing the Pres

re. DADT. Here is what I would have liked to see him do. Early in his presidency, he should have stated publicly that he did not support DADT and would give the military six months to study and provide a case either for or against. He also should have told the military to hold off all prosecutions and discharges related to DADT. After six months he should have told the status and what he needed Congress to do and follow up with pressure on Congress.

[Jakes Progress]

71. Some nice thinking there. Of course

it is too cogent and too on-the-money. It will have to be carefully nit-picked for split infinitives and multiple meaning words by those that don't like that light you shine their way. We have many congress critters with D's by their names that, by virtue of their voting and speaking record, would be tombstoned on DU.

[grantcart]

73. Really the patronizing air of this post is in a class by itself.

Who are you to demand people answer your questions?

Currently 90% of those that identify themselves as "liberal democrats" give the President a 90% approval rating:


http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx


Your POV doesn't simply isn't winning people over.

Not only are you not convincing the general population, independents or Democrats in general, you are not persuading liberal Democrats.

Part of the problem is that those carrying out uneven reflexive bashing of the President has trivialized the approach.

Today it was suggested that Bush had EVERYTHING he wanted passed.

When the details showed that Bush had, in fact a very poor legislative record it was admitted that while that may be the case it didn't matter because all that mattered was that it made Obama look bad.

You want to win arguments you have to come up with more than just bumper sticker slogans.

[HughMoran]

88. Patronizing is a good word.

"Insulting to our intelligence" works for me as well.

Good post :thumbsup:

[POAS]

117. I don't think the point was

about winning arguments or convincing anyone.

Nuff said. Rules is rules and if I go on I'll bend or break a few.

[amborin]

79. K&R only you forgot to mention an HCR bill that forces Americans to purchase a product from a priva

corporation, and which puts corporations in charge of our health; or the massive TARP +++ bailout, that candidate Obama pushed through in the fall of 2008 on the second vote.......

[tranche]

81. Why won't he dump DADT?

That's discussed endlessly here. We all know the arguments. We all know how the sides lineup as to "why won't he dump...". Does that mean "both sides" believe in different outcomes? Can't we all agree that DADT should and will be ended without calling one a "corporatist", or a "conservative", or a "dino"?

[Bluenorthwest]

108. The only thing that no one should be called is discharged

And every single time it happens it is a miscarriage of justice.

[KonaKane]

146. What? People are discharged from the services every day.

The difference is whether it is "honorably" or "dishonorably". I take it you meant to say "dishonorably discharged for being Gay in the military"?

[Bluenorthwest]

454. Obviously you understood exactly what I meant

And the snark is just another spotlight on your thinking. My family is filled with Veterans, my circle of friends as well. I personally attended uniformed, ranked educational institutions. I am familiar with the terms, as are you.
The fact that you felt compelled to split this hair is telling. What is your military background? Are you gay? That is, why exactly are you commenting on this? With a pointless parsing of an obviously clear statement? Why indeed.

[KonaKane]

644. Yes, I caught your attempt to redefine a term for your own ends.

And it failed. Regardless of your back peddling and "poor me, you knew what I meant anyway".

Although my sexual orientation is really none of your business, for the sake of this post I will tell you I am straight. I also come from a military family. All of them straight, who support gays in the military.

The very thought that no one is qualified to comment on this topic unless they are gay and in the military, is offensive on its face.

[ProSense]

96. This entire OP is confusing

You made a comment about supporting constructive discussion re. the DLC, yet I have found that the consera-Dems, blue dog DINO’s, and/or the DLC sympathizers here in DU will not discuss their agenda or their stands on issues. They will not answer questions like why wont Pres Obama fix the corrupt Bush DOJ? or why oh why wont he dump DADT? Or why not fix the Patriot Act? End domestic spying, end the horrible wars, stop rendition, close Guantanamo, prosecute war criminals, etc. They seem only capable of attacking those of us that are trying to hold our Pres accountable to core Democratic principles, and telling us that we shouldnt be attacking those in our own party.

Are you suggesting that liberals who support the President are DLC sympathizers, therefore the President is DLC? If that's what you believe, don't you already have your answer? As for why he will not fix something, why do you think anyone on DU has the answers?

So you think this OP is constructive?

[rhett o rick]

266. Does the OP mention "liberals"? The OP calls question to those that lock-step

defend the President even tho he continues many of the Bush policies.

I ask you, are you satisfied that Pres Obama embraces the Patriot Act, the MCA, domestic spying, the continuation of the wars, the re-appointment of Bush's economic hacks, the continuation of rendition, the failure of prosecution of Bush and Cheney war crimes, the continuation of DADT, etc.?

Seems by the rules, that if you support the continuation of the GW Bush policies and you are a Democrat, you are free from criticism.

[muriel_volestrangler]

380. You seem to be calling for anyone who always supports Obama to be thrown off DU

Your use of 'lock-step Democrat' appears highly critical. But a 'lock-step Democrat' is a loyal Democrat. Are you really saying that a loyal Democrat does not belong on DU? That you have to criticise Obama, or the Democratic leadership in general, to post here?

[HughMoran]

409. Seems to be the case

It's shocking that any DUer could say such a thing with a straight face.

[HughMoran]

408. Nobody here supports GWB policies

What an utterly disingenuous flaming piece of garbage post to say such a thing.

You're not helping anything here - and I think you realize that now.

[rhett o rick]

417. So you think the Pres is wrong to continue the Patriot Act, the MCA,

the wars, etc.?

[HughMoran]

438. Yes

(...edit, of course he said he'd wind down Iraq and is, and he said he'd do what it took to win in Afghanistan, and is, so that's that. It would be disingenuous to state that you supported him and disagree on these policies. Unless indeed you are the one who never supported him and are just 'pretending' to be a Democrat so you can stir things up here?)

[rhett o rick]

459. I was a Republican until Richard Nixon. Been a Democrat since.

I wasnt active until the SCOTUS appointed Bush to the Presidency. Obama wasnt my first choice for President in 2008, nor my second choice. But when he won the nomination I supported him very actively, phone banks, donations, emails, letters, etc. I am not ashamed to say I cried when he was inaugurated.

For eight years I watched Bush run our country off the tracks towards total destruction. I believe that Pres Obama has slowed the momentum but frustrated at the pace. I realize that some things will take time but think we must move faster. I see first hand people losing their homes and struggling to get food and shelter.

[geek tragedy]

461. Lots of people disagree with some of his stands but still

support him and his overall agenda?

Does that make us DLC-lite? Quasi-Republicans?

[Zhade]

725. Enablers of bad policy would be my take.

By not fighting against those policies, you acquiesce to them.

[geek tragedy]

728. How does one 'fight' against policies?

Signing petitions?

[Beetwasher]

105. Just Because Something Hasn't Happened YET Doesn't Mean It Never Will

So, there, I've answered all your questions. But then again, I'm as liberal as one can get and therefore not of the supposed group you insist won't answer your questions. But you have your answers anyway. Do they still count coming from a liberal?

[rhett o rick]

466. When GW Bush waged war, the liberals were in the streets protesting. Why arent we still protesting

the same wars? Because the Pres said he would scale back? And he is a Democrat so we cant hold him accountable?

[Name removed]

521. Deleted message

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

[Zhade]

726. You're far more trusting of public officials who don't even know you exist than I am.

NT!

[Tarheel_Dem]

107. How do we know you are who you say you are? For all we know, you

could be a GOP mole, sent here to stir up shit among Democrats. You've cast a very wide net...mind you don't get tangled up in it.;-)

[leftstreet]

110. Why hasn't Skinner posted? Has he been tombstoned?

:beer:

[Boojatta]

153. Here's my impression of Skinner reading this thread...

:popcorn:

Of course, that's just a guess.

[havocmom]

188. Holiday weekend.

Or making lists for the next purge? We're doomed ;)

[L0oniX]

112. Apparently you haven't figured it out yet that us lefty's are just along for the ride here.

[Moochy]

118. don't you mean 'miscreants'?

to quote someone in charge

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[Ignis]

123. "UnReKKK?"

Are you using this "KKK" suffix because you are an avowed neo-Nazi, or because you are claiming the OP is one?

[UTUSN]

129. You're new here, aren't you. n/t

[Catherina]

133. No answer? Just snark? n/t

[UTUSN]

136. Ah, it's a GROUP deal. Fine. Uh, I QUOTED your pal and THAT is snark?!1

[Catherina]

168. No you didn't. That poster asked you why you used KKK. Your answer was to ridicule and then snark.

You were the first to use it. How could you quote him or her? And by the way, that's not my pal, that's a fellow poster who deserved a better answer from you.

What you just did is a prime example of how discourse becomes stupid here. KKK? Followed by childish replies? Congratulations.

[UTUSN]

177. *I'm* YOUR fellow poster here, but THAT don't seem to be the same thing.

Anyway, I answered you in #168 and others many times before. Nighty NIGHT!1

[tekisui]

413. That post was deleted. Can you answer without violating a rule?

[Ignis]

135. Yeah, I've only been here 7 years. Mea fucking culpa.

So, I take it the first answer was the correct one? :shrug:

[UTUSN]

141. Well, I don't know what you're accusing me of - being KKK?!1 That's what I responded to. n/t

[Ignis]

147. I suggest you consult a dictionary re: "asking" vs. "accusing"

Happy hunting! :hi:

[UTUSN]

152. Oh, "happy hunting" is NOT an accusation/personal attack?!1 n/t

[Moochy]

154. ony if you are a deer and its hunting season

[UTUSN]

158. I guess your Profile slogan says it ALL!1 n/t

[Moochy]

166. the owner class is almost as lovable as chuckles

"UnreKKK!"

[Ignis]

541. Hmm, I didn't really mean it that way.

I usually alternate between saying "good luck" and "happy hunting" when suggesting that someone do further research into a topic.

If you found "happy hunting" to be offensive, would you accept a change (in spirit, because I'm past the edit window) to "good luck?"

[UTUSN]

149. Look, let's save EVERYBODY (you, me, your groupie, the Mods, Admin, the public) a lot of time and

CALL THIS *OFF*, O.K.?!1 (Unless you reply with something snotty.)

[Ignis]

159. Sure, edit the "KKK" out of your "Unrec."

Problem solved, no?

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

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

[donco6]

170. I see.

So you're simply accusing rhett of being a wingnut troll? Why didn't you just say so? It would have been a lot easier.

[Moochy]

174. That would not have had the desired effect: Locked Thread

[donco6]

186. What I can't figure out . . .

is how someone can have 27,000 posts and I've never heard of him.

[Moochy]

192. a hundred and twenty-two thousand miles of it to be exact

Wapcaplet: Aah. Now, I understand you want us to advertise your washing powder.
Mr. Simpson: String.
Wapcaplet: String, washing powder, what's the difference. We can sell anything.
Mr. Simpson: Good. Well I have this large quantity of string, a hundred and twenty-two thousand miles of it to be exact, which I inherited, and I thought if I advertised it--
Wapcaplet: Of course! A national campaign. Useful stuff, string, no trouble there.
Mr. Simpson: Ah, but there's a snag, you see. Due to bad planning, the hundred and twenty-two thousand miles is in three inch lengths. So it's not very useful.
Wapcaplet: Well, that's our selling point! "SIMPSON'S INDIVIDUAL STRINGETTES!"
Mr. Simpson: What?
Wapcaplet: "THE NOW STRING! READY CUT, EASY TO HANDLE, SIMPSON'S INDIVIDUAL EMPEROR STRINGETTES - JUST THE RIGHT LENGTH!"
Mr. Simpson: For what?
Wapcaplet: Uhmm... "A MILLION HOUSEHOLD USES!"
Mr. Simpson: Such as?
Wapcaplet: Uhmm...Tying up very small parcels, attatching notes to pigeons' legs, uh, destroying household pests...
Mr. Simpson: Destroying household pests?! How?
Wapcaplet: Well, if they're bigger than a mouse, you can strangle them with it, and if they're smaller than, you flog them to death with it!


http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/finalripoff.htm

[ima_sinnic]

198. oh, so you noticed that too?

not the first one like that lately either.

[QC]

202. That's been happening a lot lately. n/t

[Hutzpa]

263. You guys need to scale it back a bit

UTUSN have been here a long time, and I mean a long time, he probably doesn't post as much now because as with most long
term DUers he is disgusted with the stench.

As evidently displayed.

[ima_sinnic]

377. gee, hi -- speak of the devil and all ...

:eyes:

[Ignis]

582. Do you feel the same way about Helen Thomas?

After all, she was there a long time and did a lot of good for the Left while Shrub was in office.

Perhaps we should cut her some slack regarding diction, too? :shrug:

[Catherina]

180. Oh. So it's your way of calling the OP a racist. Very said. Another tactic

that needs to be addressed by the Admin.

I expected better than KKK from Democrats. I won't help you derail this thread any further.

[ima_sinnic]

207. I couldn't get much out of his "explanation," but I think that's what it means

I guess anybody he doesn't like, whose opinion bothers him, gets the "KKK treatment."

[ima_sinnic]

175. self-delete

[UTUSN]

179. You are breaking rules (again) by implying a motive that isn't there AND your lack of

knowing what's with the 1's (sic) SAYS IT ALL.

[ima_sinnic]

191. I don't know what you're talking about

Before I posted, my questions were asked by other posters, I realized after I'd refreshed. That is why I self-deleted. My question had become irrelevant.

1's are used to imitate freepers. It seemed curious to me you were acting like a mocking freeper.

on edit: in any event, I don't need you to police my posts for "breaking rules." gee, I wonder why anybody would suspect someone of spelling unrec "unreKKK" as having "motives"? it was a perfectly legitimate question. get over yourself--you're the one assigning motives--to me. You think you can blithely post "unreKKK" and nobody should say anything? sheesh.

[ima_sinnic]

200. oh, and btw, what's with the "again"?

I don't think I've ever engaged with you before, and I won't be doing so in the future.

[tekisui]

415. You have had at least three posts deleted in this thread.

I guess you would know about breaking the rules.

[A HERETIC I AM]

465. The poster has a long history of using that particular perjorative...

I questioned him about it on this thread and got the same sort of nonsense, dodgy, runaround answers he gives on this sub-thread.

A quick search shows dozens of times he has used that epithet.

Adding "KKK" to names is also a favorite. You might not agree with Glenn Beck, but that doesn't mean his name deserves to be spelled "BecKKK"

[Ignis]

544. Well, at least Beck is a RW stooge.

So perhaps we can all get behind a little tarring of Beck with the neo-Nazi brush. After all, he does most of the work for us. :D

But I do think using that suffix to refer to another DUer (however obliquely) is pretty awful.

[donco6]

151. Yeah, we all read the post.

What are you insinuating?

[UTUSN]

155. What part of my QUOTES of the O.P. did you miss?!1 (Let's not continue, O.K.?!1) n/t

[donco6]

164. Enlighten me.

You obviously see something there that I haven't. I'd love to hear what it is.

[UTUSN]

171. It's an impossible/futile undertaking, which I don't choose to continue. Nighty night!1 n/t

[Odin2005]

119. K&R. CRUSH THE DLC!

[Kalun D]

122. Kick and Rec

Conserva Dems, blue dog DINO's, DLC, DNC,

CORPORATE DEMOCRATS

all have nothing to do with what a real democrat is

[QC]

137. Écrasez l'Infâme!

:kick:

[USArmyParatrooper]

138. Ah, YES. Thank you for trying to open a civil discussion with

"consera-Dems, blue dog DINO’s, and/or the DLC sympathizers here in DU"

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

:eyes:

[Bobbie Jo]

169. Well..

It's like saying...Hey asshole, let's talk about all the reasons I think you suck.

Let's have a civil and open discussion...mkay?

:eyes:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZ indeed.

[moriah]

160. So if Obama hasn't fallen off of a pedestal for me, I'm a Republican?

For fuck's sake, listen to yourself.

I may not be the most liberal person on this forum. But I AM liberal. I never put Obama on a pedestal for him to fall from. No politician is perfect, and there are a lot of things I'm disappointed about. I wanted single payer. I'd like to see an amendment to the Constitution defining sexual orientation as deserving of equal protection under the law, including marriage equality, being discussed instead of simply a declaration from the President regarding medical care and granting of benefits to federal employees only. But I am happy that at least *some* progress has been made, and I'm firmly of the opinion that at least some progress is better than none or less than none.

I've identified as a Democrat since before I can remember -- and my parents were also Dems. I remember being teased by friends when I was 8 years old because I advocated for Dukakis (their families were Republican and sent their kids to private school, etc). They used the worst insult they could think of in their limited childhood vocabularies -- I was a *liberal*, and they said it like it was a horribly dirty word.

I've embraced that word, it describes my beliefs and my desires out of our government, and I'll be damned if I ever let someone get away with calling me a Republican because I'm a bit more of a moderate than they are.

Fuck that.

[rhett o rick]

401. I am not sure what the OP said that could have provoked your response.

I am trying to point out that it isnt productive to classify politicians as just Democrats or Republicans. IMHO there are a significant number of Democrats that vote consistently with the Republicans. Enough to nullify our majorities. That's why Pres Obama is having such a hard time. The Republicans wouldnt be a problem if the Democrats would only stick together and support Democratic principles. But this is Democratic Underground where we have to tread softly when talking about someone with a D behind their name regardless of whether or not they vote with our majority.

BTW, the OP never mentions liberal.

[moriah]

428. You said it was either "progressive" Democrats, or "conservative" Democrats....

And said that "conservative" Democrats are "Republicans in Democrat clothing"

"So your rules do not deal with the problem that we have progressive Democrats vs. conservative Democrats (Republicans in Democrat clothing)."

Then you classified people who will defend DLCers in public office as part of that group.

"You made a comment about supporting constructive discussion re. the DLC, yet I have found that the consera-Dems, blue dog DINO’s, and/or the DLC sympathizers here in DU will not discuss their agenda or their stands on issues.... They seem only capable of attacking those of us that are trying to hold our Pres accountable to core Democratic principles, and telling us that we shouldnt be attacking those in our own party."

I'm very well known for my opinion that a DLC Democrat is better than no Democrat at all, and that the games of trying to play "More Democrat than thou" bother me a great deal. I'm not ashamed of supporting, for example, Blanche Lincoln in my home state for the general election. I believe that the primaries are the times when as Democrats we have a responsibility to advocate strongly for whoever we think will be the best person to accomplish what we want government to do for us, but once the primaries are over, we should support the nominee. And I walk my talk -- I was a Hillary supporter in the 2008 primaries, but I didn't run off and pout when she lost and say I was going to sit out on the election or vote third party. I worked my ass off to help Obama get elected.

I admit I may be more of a moderate than some people on this board, but the "more Democrat than thou" games piss me off. To no end.

[Hekate]

768. Moriah speaks for me, every word

:fistbump:

[uponit7771]

838. AMEN!!!

[ozone_man]

161. What if there are Democrats that don't support "progressive ideals?"

"Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals".

Is supporting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan progressive? How about bailing out Wall Street? No Single Payer? Off shore drilling? ... Maybe this site should not be so concerned with defining what is a Democrat, but rather what is progressive. Certainly a broad definition, but one that is based on progressive ideals.

[unkachuck]

163. K&R....n/t

[BrentWil]

167. Maybe the DU is open to those who don't think in lockstep...

For example, I fully support repeal of DADT, drug legalization, redistribution of SOME wealth, the end of the wars, etc. However, I also see the benefits of capitalism and don't follow the party line on everything

[HughMoran]

172. .

:think:

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

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

[USArmyParatrooper]

213. Yep, 85% of Dems are "consera-Dems, blue dog DINO’s, and/or the DLC sympathizers"

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

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

[Skinner]

189. While I would disagree with most of the details, I agree with your main point.

No, the rule clarifications do not deal with the core problem. Here's why: Because they can't.

There are two distinct factions. There is nothing I can do to change that fact.

The rule clarifications are not going to change that fact. Indeed, the rule clarifications were not intended to change that fact. The point of the rule clarification is to set clear limits, and manage everyone's expectations, and most of all get everyone on the same page -- members, moderators, and administrators -- so we all have a similar understanding of what is expected of everyone.

But that's all we can do. Here's the big secret about the "new" rules: Our goal is to moderate *LESS* than we did before. We can deal with the worst excesses, but we can't possibly "fix" the core problem. We'd prefer that you all fight it out, rather than keep throwing ourselves in the middle.

The Admins have been through all five stages of grief, and we are now (finally) at "Acceptance." This is the way it's going to be for the next two-to-six years. Maybe longer. Get used to it.

Now, YOU ALL need to decide if you want to have a good-faith dialogue with each other, or if you want to keep talking past each other. The choice is yours.

[Turborama]

210. Your last 2 sentences say it all.

Thanks for the putting it so clearly.

[Hutzpa]

212. Wait a minute Skinner

If I understand the OP correctly, isn't he advocating openly that Democrats are being bought by corporate
and since corporate is buying democrats DU should be lenient on the fact. So in other words, if republicans are
fleeing their party democrats should look the other way and change our party to
accommodate the republicans. yes? no?

I thought those switching party should change their attitude, when in Rome do as the Romans do, right?

I thought these where the very same things we are fighting against? :shrug:

[Skinner]

217. My response was narrowly focused on the OP's observation that there are two broad factions on DU.

And his assertion that the recent rule clarification does not address this issue.

That part is true. There are two broad factions on DU. The rule clarification does not address this issue. Nor could it.

(For what it's worth, I completely disagree with most of the rest of the post, which I believe is a divisive and unfair characterization of the "other side." The moderators could have easily locked this thread -- and probably should have -- but we thought there might be some value in responding to the main point.)

[Hutzpa]

221. Thank you. n/t

[Catherina]

230. Thanks for your response. Would you please clarify the following?

"We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. "


I know what our shared goals were when Bush was in office but now that we have a Democrat in office, what are our shared goals? Mine are still what they were under Bush, like not supporting the wars, supporting equal rights, fighting corporate power, fighting poverty. It would help people like me if we knew what you mean now by shared goals.


Thank you in advance for your answer.

[Hutzpa]

240. Let me see if I can help Skinner

As Democrats, there are many factions within the party which is made for very enlighten discussion, I think the
problem is when one faction thinks their agenda is more than the other, it then becomes a-tit-for-tat battle
whereas everyone starts talking over each other.

Under Bush we all had a common goal, which is to see him out of office, today we have a democrat in office which
has made discussions a little bit harder because now, everyone has this feeling of having a voice, it's about who
will scream out the loudest, my agenda is mightier than yours so yours is irrelevant and should wait. We've all
completely lost track of where we came from and where we are going, this could have been an easier transition,
which is to give everyone a voice irregardless of what they are as long as it is not empowering the other side,
most of us have lost track of what our goals are and are instead being scandalous just because they felt that
Obama being a Democratic President is not adhering to their demands.

This is the end result having republican in our midst espousing acceptability because our house is not in order.

[defendandprotect]

606. Our overall problem is with corporate fascism . . .that's what the GOP has represented . . .

and the DLC is the "corporate-wing" of the Democratic Party.

Corporate money is the very thing undermining the stability of the nation -

and our elections. It is corporate control over our government which is blocking

citizen access to elected officials and any real representation for the people.

Our problems are not in "having a Democrat" in office. Our problems are that too

many of our Democratic officials are serving corporate interests rather than the

public interests.

[Skinner]

244. Everyone here is progressive. Everyone here is broadly supportive of progressive policies and ideals

The split on DU is NOT between people who are progressive and people who are conservative. The split here is, roughly speaking, idealistic progressives and pragmatic progressives.

We all want to move the country in the same general direction. We may disagree on details, but the big picture is the same. The real disagreements on DU are about how best to get there.

[Catherina]

277. What I'm trying to understand is what specific shared goals

Is it the Democratic Party platform? Is it supporting people just because they're Democrats? People like the turncoat Lieberman and the opportunist Specter come to mind. I'm trying to understand directly from you because I'm confused about what our shared goals are now. I disagree that we all want to move the country in the same general direction. An antiwar activist and a hawk on defense aren't even looking in the same direction. The same holds for differences on wealth distribution, privatization of social security, cuts to *entitlement* services, illegal wiretaps, assassination lists, illegal weapons on the battlefield...

It's important for me to understand what you mean by shared goals so I know what I'm doing here.

I'm sorry for the delay. I had to check the kids' homework.


P.S. To whoever was answering for Skinner above this post, I'm sorry but you're on my ignore list so I can't see it.

[Skinner]

391. This site has very few litmus tests.

The shared goals are support for broadly progressive change and support for Democrats for office.

I'm not going to give you a list of issues and insist that everyone agree.

[defendandprotect]

608. ... and when elected "Democrats" don't support progressive change . .. ????

DU'ers are supposed to support them nonetheless???

[Catherina]

701. Litmus tests are not goals, that's not what I was asking

The goals you stated is what I was looking for

1. support for broadly progressive change
2. support for Democrats for office

Thank you

[Zhade]

304. Everyone here is progressive? Are you kidding me?

You have self-professed CONSERVATIVES here. Hell, some of them use it in their names!

If you honestly think that everyone wants the same goals here... I really don't know what else to say.

[Skinner]

398. I am not kidding you.

I did not say that everyone wants the same goals. I said we disagree on the details, but we all want to move the country in the same general direction.

As for self-professed conservatives, there are very, very few here (and they all qualify the characterization in some way). There are certainly not enough self-professed conservatives to account for the large contingent of people who are generally supportive of President Obama. Those who do generally support him -- and I count myself among them -- almost always characterize themselves as progressives, liberals, or both. My understanding is that President Obama has better than 80% approval among self-described liberal Democrats.

[berni_mccoy]

406. Thank you for that clarification Skinner. For me, the most infuriating thing is being told

what I am and what I believe by people who know absolutely nothing about me but seek to marginalize what I have to say by labelling me as a conservative.

This is a very disheartening aspect of what is going on between the "two" sides (I personally believe there are more than just two, but it's easier to discuss it that way). When someone tells me I'm a conservative, I have a hard time believing they aren't conservative themselves. It breeds distrust of people who share 90% of the same goals but disagree on exactly how to get there.

Still, I'm human. I get caught up in this shit and end up getting emotional about it just the same. I end up leaving because I get so pissed off. Then when I think its safe to come back and I post something, even if it seems completely harmless, someone says something and shit gets out of hand very quickly. I don't expect the mods/admins to be able to do much about it, but it's just a very frustrating cycle.

[redqueen]

Thank you! (nt)

[DevonRex]

478. Thank you again. nt

[Fire1]

502. Bingo, Skinner! We have a winner!! n/t

[ConservativeDemocrat]

746. Ahem...

I am on the conservative end of the Democratic party. I generally prefer deference given to honest people trying to make an honest living, and not the automatic assumption that everyone is automatically guilty of being evil if they happen to be successful.

(Actually, at this point, that's probably mainstream Democratic thought, even if it's clearly not in the D.U.)

But on the other hand, I'm not at "war" with anyone. Disagree with me? Fine. That doesn't mean I think you're the Son of Satan. Keep talking, and maybe I'll get you to start seeing things my way. I've certainly done so with various Republicans friends of mine.

My point isn't any of this, however. Rather, it's this. The rule Skinner is asking you to follow isn't to change your opinion. He's just asking you to be effective in your argumentation. To argue to persuade.

To give you an example, please ask yourself if you are persuaded by the following rant. I've put in Mad-Lib type alterations to adjust to your political viewpoint:

YOU SH*T F**K ((CORPORATIST)(DEMONCRAP))! YOU'VE SOLD OUR COUNTRY OUT TO ((CORPORATE FASCISTS)(EVIL TEACHERS UNIONS)(MODERATE DEMOCRATS)(THE CHINESE)(ILLEGAL ALIENS)(AIPAC)(ARAB OIL PRINCES))! OBAMA, THE TRAITOR, IS OBVIOUSLY IN YOUR POCKET, BUT WE THE PEOPLE WILL BE TAKING IT BACK, SO THAT TRUE, REAL AND TRUE, MORE TRUE THAN TRUE ((PROGRESSIVES)(REAL AMERICANS WHO HAPPEN TO BE WHITE)(REAL PROGRESSIVE AMERICANS WHO HAPPEN TO BE WHITE)(PEOPLE WHO RANT LIKE ME)) ARE OKAY. IF WE THREW EVERY ONE OF YOUR ILK UP AGAINST THE WALL AND SHOT YOU, ALL THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS WOULD INSTANTLY STOP. WE'RE GOING TO WIN THE NEXT ELECTION TO DO THAT. ALL THE SHEEPLE NEED TO DO IS JUST WAKE UP!!! WAKE UP, SHEEPLE! WAKE UP!!!

Feeling convinced? No?

Then why the heck do you think you are convincing when you talk this way yourself?

It doesn't make any difference what your viewpoint is, if you say "Look, you asswipe, the sky is blue", then you won't be convincing many people. Even if the sky is blue when you look up at it. And that's true for messages from both large camps of thought in the D.U.: from the radical left crowd all the way over to the "Trotsky was a conservative" side. ;)

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Zhade]

752. I think you meant to reply to me, but somehow tagged Skinner's post.

I've got no problem with discussion. I have a problem with this board not being true to its original intent, which was to make liberals feel welcome and conservatives not.

I'm sure you're a nice guy. I still think conservatism is a dead-end collection of myopic, fuck-you-I-got-mine half-baked nonsense. And there's no chance you'd ever, EVER convince me otherwise. I know -- I once tried that philosophy on for size, and found it made my stomach turn.

It's extraordinarily difficult to argue to persuade when we don't even live in the same reality. When you suggest that people on the left are RACIST, I'm already fucking done with you.

(Oh, and that reminds me -- your cute assertion that yours is the reality-based community hardly makes it so. That's just as insulting as calling someone like you a teabagger.)

[Name removed]

795. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

825. Deleted message

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

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

799. One can easily proclaim themselves a progressive and or liberal here, and I've seen

some of the most IMHO conservative members do so. Perhaps they do believe they are liberal because of their own life experience/where they grew up and what era they cut their political teeth on.

I'm one of those Liberal Democrats that Reagan demonized and although my politics have never changed, the center of our party has. It made a big jump to the right with Clinton, and continues to travel in that direction, which now, according to our President, categorizes me as far left.

When I came to DU, almost 6 years ago, I felt this a haven for me, with people of like mindedness, open mindedness and similar goals. A community that you set forth in your "mission statement" At that time Shrub and his minions were the common enemy. Why? Policies. We recently lost several of our most valuable members either through elimination or by their leaving on their own accord, because this mission statement doesn't seem to apply any more to them. Although our President is a Democrat and we have "control" of the House, there are policies that are still continuing from the Bush era. Policies that most at DU fought against and now supported by many members of DU. Policies that were supported by "Conservative Idiots"

This has nothing to do with pragmatism or idealism, but it has to do with right and wrong.

Is it right to continue a war in Afghanistan that was based on lies?
Is it right to continue to support FISA?
Is it right to continue to prosecute Siegelman and allow Repukes to go free?
Is it right to defend DOMA in the courts?
Is it right to tear down the teacher's union in favor of corporate charter schools?
Is it right to still allow off-shore oil drilling and saying that it's being done because we need the oil, when in reality, that oil can be sold to the highest bidder?
Is it right that the President selected as a COS a man who made it his mission to get elected as many conservative Democrats that he could?
Is it right that the Health INSURANCE Reform bill puts billions of money into the pockets of the same insurance companies that rather save money than people's lives?
Is it right that Geitner was selected, a fox in the hen house?
Is it right that a Monsanto man was selected to head the FDA?
Is it right?


About Democratic Underground, LLC

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

Democratic Underground would not be possible without the participation of like-minded individuals from across the country and, indeed, from around the world. The content for the site is provided by people who feel that their views are not represented by the conservative "mainstream" media in the U.S. We accept article submissions from those on the left who wish to write, so that DU represents a variety of progressive viewpoints. We have a particular appreciation for satire and humor.

Visitors may also participate in our discussion forums, which have become one of the most popular places on the Web for members of the political left to share ideas and discuss the issues.

This website exists so our members and guests are assured that there are many others across the country who share their outrage at the unilateral, arrogant, and extreme right-wing approach taken by George W. Bush and his team, the conservative Republicans in Congress, and the five conservative partisans on the Supreme Court. We address the right in harsh terms, and we fully intend to make the word "conservative" absolutely radioactive. In that spirit, DU has already gained countrywide notoriety as the originator of the weekly Top Ten Conservative Idiots list, which is published (almost) every Monday.

Democratic Underground gets lots of visitors and we rely mostly on donations to pay our expenses. We therefore invite you to make a contribution to our efforts in whatever amount you can afford. Democratic Underground is legally a for-profit organization, therefore, you won't get a tax deduction for your contribution. However, you will get the satisfaction of knowing that as long as there are conservative idiots, Democratic Underground will be here to hold them accountable (and maybe even make fun of them).

[uponit7771]

839. AMEN!!

[depakid]

329. I beg to differ with that assessment

based on my own observations and discussions over the past 10 years.

There are substantial policy differences- and differences in policy choices that arise simply because one politician, leader or another advocates them, that can only be described as ideological at their core.

[grantcart]

350. Here is where it gets complicated

Some of the 'progressives' believe that the Democratic Party is a fundamental part of the problem and does not support the politicians it elects.

They coordinate elsewhere and come here narrowly staying within the rules, except for this OP which has been left open for demonstration purposes.

They do not support the President and hold him in as much contempt as some on the far right.

Now we are not talking about loyal Democrats who have serious questions and even conflicts of conscience about a particular point of policy but about people who openly and publicly in rebellion against the President, and this site.

The real dilemma for the Admins at this site is not how to moderate between the two factions you have described (because there are many on both sides that have respect for people on the other side) but what to do about those that embrace a nominal support for the party to gain access but in fact consider there to be little, if any, difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

It seems to me that a great deal would be gained if an additional rule is added. Any statements that indicate that there are no real difference between the two parties is not acceptable and any poster who makes that their standard line of argument should not be welcome here.



Thank you for your patience.

[Zhade]

356. So people who criticize the Dems for going right should be banned...

...but self-acknowledged conservatives aren't under that same rule?

[grantcart]

363. Lets be very clear here

We are not talking about people who criticize a policy about the party or the drift of the party.

We are talking about people who consider there to be no difference in the two parties.

They attacks against the President follow a similar vein including charges that he has been paid off and is a pawn of the corporations.

These are not people who have disagreements within the Democratic Party.

They stand outside of the party and piss on it.

[LatteLibertine]

595. This is what I've basically been saying for a while

A Democratic party with no power doesn't do a Democrat any good. Destroying party morale and returning the Republican party to a majority isn't going to help a Democrat realize desired reformations. Personally, I question anyone who does this sort of thing aggressively and consistently.

It is possible for us to work constructively towards what we desire. It is possible to object to specific policies in a positive manner yet still support the President and the party. I work for getting what I value implemented as well getting Democratic candidates elected. I prefer Progressive and Liberal candidates.

The bottom line is shockingly simple. A Republican majority is of no use to me. I know their agenda and how they will govern. Nothing they stand for aligns with what I value. In addition, I have zero chance of influencing them to implement democratic agendas. It's true it may not work with Blue Dogs and it's certain it will not with Republicans. Blue Dog = outside chance, Republican = zero chance.

A Democrat who gathers enough voices and points them in the right direction may indeed impact the decisions of a politician within our party. Remain active and engaged. Contact your Reps and Senators. Encourage others to do the same.

I plan on supporting President Obama for his entire term, then I will evaluate and decide if further support is warranted. Getting him elected then abandoning him this early is dreadfully mistaken. Again, offering respectful balanced criticism or dissent on specific issues you may find troubling is fine and there is a right and wrong way to go about it. Basically standing outside the party and helping to drag it down, is not it.

[MissDeeds]

412. Good question

And I think it goes right to the heart of the problem we're seeing on DU.

[defendandprotect]

621. I think you've just complicated this even more . . .

the underlying issue has to be what's best for the nation and small "d" democracy --

Some of the 'progressives' believe that the Democratic Party is a fundamental part of the problem and does not support the politicians it elects.

No -- that's not true --

What progressives are saying is wearing a "Democratic Party" label while voting with Republicans --

whether to stop universal health care or to privatize Social Security -- is a fundamental problem.

And that the DLC-corporate wing of the Democratic Party has co-opted the Democratic Party.



They coordinate elsewhere and come here narrowly staying within the rules, except for this OP which has been left open for demonstration purposes.

They do not support the President and hold him in as much contempt as some on the far right.

Now we are not talking about loyal Democrats who have serious questions and even conflicts of conscience about a particular point of policy but about people who openly and publicly in rebellion against the President, and this site.

The real dilemma for the Admins at this site is not how to moderate between the two factions you have described (because there are many on both sides that have respect for people on the other side) but what to do about those that embrace a nominal support for the party to gain access but in fact consider there to be little, if any, difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

There seem to also be people on the left here who are saying the exact same thing about the right

here -- but in reverse!

Meanwhile . . .

It seems to me that a great deal would be gained if an additional rule is added. Any statements that indicate that there are no real difference between the two parties is not acceptable and any poster who makes that their standard line of argument should not be welcome here.

You do realize that this kind of anti-free speech thinking is what will kill this website?

Maybe that is really what those on the right here want to do?

But also realize that in asking for such an anti-free speech rule that you are putting people

like Thom Hartmann and Michael Moore, Wm. Greider, Jane Hamsher, Dennis Kucinich, Grayson,

Ralph Nader -- down as the enemy because they will criticize the president and the party!


The surest way to protect democracy isn't by trying to cut off free speech and ideas --

it's thru honest debate and discussion.

And just as a reminder . . .

Free speech isn't about protecting the listener -- it's about protecting the speaker!





:)

[spoony]

375. Once again you insult posters with that framing.

By coming down on the side of that tired, obnoxious idea that critics of this administration's actions and policies are not sensible, not pragmatic, etc. By implication the other side, the 'pragmatists', live in the real world whereas critics are unrealistic.

You might as well have just said we haven't gotten our pony.

[Senator]

383. +1

[Skinner]

388. My intent was not to insult anyone.

I did not know that calling people idealists or pragmatists was insulting. If you have a better way of characterizing it, which is not insulting to either side, I would appreciate hearing it.

[YOY]

393. Just some advice. Stop characterizing and get rid of it.

It doesn't work. The favoritism is palpable to the point where I feel like I'm engaging Joe McCarthy and someone is standing behind me with a bag of duct tape in case I happen to use anything remotely resembling what they pile on.

I can't even be serious anymore as the favoritism (damn my lying eyes) takes down threads to the point where it looks like some poor little pseudo-progressive who was formerly against the ropes...is now RIGHT on top like O'Reiley or Limbaugh with their control of the mic.

[muriel_volestrangler]

397. Likening DUers 'Joe McCarthy' isn't characterizing as well?

When you say "get rid of it", do you mean "get rid of characterization by everyone"? If so, I can support that - and I'd say that's the direction Skinner wants DU to go. The idea is for us to stop saying "real Democrats wouldn't say ...", which is divisive. But I don't think this OP helps - it's listing things about DUers that the thread starter doesn't like.

[YOY]

423. No...when I say "get rid of it" I mean "get rid of it."

The decline in civility around here is proof enough of that. It has not brought harmony, just dancing around the rules.

When someone insinuates that I am a "communist" and an "extremist" I think I can "characterize" them as a McCarthyite.

[muriel_volestrangler]

427. Then it does seem to me it's the characterization you don't like

in which case, there's no disagreement. You didn't like being called a 'communist' and an 'extremist' by someone; and others won't like being called 'McCarthyite' or 'Republican'. The hope is that people will stop the name-calling if they lose the ability to comment further in a thread, after a post is deleted.

But I would say that 'idealist' and 'pragmatist' are not particularly insulting.

[YOY]

437. No. I dislike it because I am not really a "communist". Not by the faintest definition.

However, the accuser most certainly is a "McCarthyite" and obnoxiously on a witch-hunt. By the simplest definitions in the book.

I do not like people who redefine things. Change the goalposts. It is a fascists game.

I disagree and find "idealist" and "pragmatist" to be incredibly insulting.

[Skinner]

444. Honest question:

Is it possible that people on the "other side" of the divide also feel that they are being targeted by a witch hunt?

[YOY]

449. So who has been TSed from that camp?

Other than "WeDidIt"? Who seems to have come back...once at least unsuccessfully. Mostly, it seems, because people were all over him.

Really?

How many times has a certain DUer insinuated that those among us who have some pretty sane views are "communists" or "extremists" because we dare to question the wisdom of two ultra-expensive wars? How about the guy who wants to debate what the definition of "torture" is? The only person who talks that way is Cheney!

You TSed Lerkfish! CaptainHilts! Among several others. Really. Loyal progressive Dems to the end. You TSed them. You said "they know why." Some of them don't. They really don't.

I'm talking to you Skinner. Please don't delete this for daring to mention specific cases. We need to get things out in the open.

If you want civility back, let's talk about it in the open. Please!

[Skinner]

474. As you know, in general we prefer not to discuss why specific people get banned.

But I will say this: Every single one of them made it abundantly clear that they did not value this community, and were only coming here to tear it down. Now that they are gone, my understanding is that every one of them is glad to be rid of this place.

We can argue about various litmus tests for DU mebership. Personally, I prefer fewer litmus tests rather than more. But I think it is reasonable for me to expect, at a minimum, that our members not deliberately disrupt.

[Zhade]

710. Lerkfish a disruptor? That's about the silliest thing I've ever heard.

See, the thing is, unless they specifically stated it, it's YOUR OPINION that they "did not value this community" -- and who's to know why you hold that opinion. Maybe they criticized Obama one too many times for your taste. We can't know. There's no transparency, and given the strong impression that tombstones have recently gone decidedly one way here, people will wonder how unbiased this place is when someone like Lerkfish -- about the nicest poster ever -- gets banned as a "disruptor".

[YOY]

769. and a grandaddy gamer. For flips sake the man was in Fallout 2!

n/t

[Ignis]

820. I did not know that.

That info is awesome, albeit too late.

[YOY]

828. He was in an easter egg called "The Unwashed Villagers:" random wilderness encounter.

http://members.chello.at/theodor.lauppert/games/uv.htm

Look up his name there. Makes him a demigod by simply being attached to the greatest RPG to date.

[TK421]

773. huh? Lerkfish was banned? what the hell? and when did this happen?

[d_b]

669. WeDidIt was Tsed?

[conscious evolution]

694. Most excellent

[QC]

702. It only took 2+ years of constant stalking, bullying, and personal attacks. n/

[Ignis]

821. And those were the good days.

[DevonRex]

482. I notice that your question went unanswered.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

495. Deleted message

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

[DevonRex]

504. Oh the irony. nt

[Name removed]

506. Deleted message

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

[DevonRex]

593. Thank you.

[Name removed]

569. Deleted message

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

[stranger81]

591. In the same way that some Christians feel targeted and persecuted when other religions

aren't completely shunned and shut out of the conversation -- yes, that's possible.

FWIW, I'm another DUer who finds characterizing the split this way pejorative, as it falsely implies one side has a monopoly on what is realistically possible.

[Skinner]

404. I think the "pile-ons" go both ways.

I think it's obvious that folks on the "other side" feel the same way you do.

As for "favoritism" I have made clear that you can't call President Obama rude names, and you can't oppose Democrats for office. Yes, that favors one side. But you are welcome to offer any substantive criticism of the President that you like.

[YOY]

420. I'm afraid that's not true. So many folks here have noticed it that it's just not.

The TSing of long time DUers versus the virtual indestructible nature of several of those on "the other side" are proof of this.

I don't call Obama rude names. I praise him when it's due and criticize him when it's applicable. It's the standard that he told us to hold him to. Those who feel that criticism is all senseless attack need to be questioned not the critic.

Get rid of the new rules Skinner. They do not bring civility at all. They only polarize us further.

[muriel_volestrangler]

424. The new bit of the rules is that a deleted post will stop people posting again in a thread

and they haven't been implemented yet. How do you know they won't bring civility?

[YOY]

426. Because you cannot "force" civility.

And a single deleted post that stops people from posting again doesn't promote civil discourse. It only gags people.

I've had innocent posts deleted (and several not so innocent posts) for reasons which I am sure are not as cut and dry as the rules would like to seem.

Did I contact a mod? No. Why risk banning for questioning the rules or rulers? I've not seen many posts "undeleted".

Yeah...that's not civility. It's message control.

[muriel_volestrangler]

434. So what's your counter-proposal? A free-for-all?

No, we can't force civility. But neither can we sit each other down and redo our entire upbringing, which is where we learnt our current behaviour. However, 'gagging people' in one thread when they've shown they can't obey the rules is a little closer to forcing civility than current, and will cut down on the numbers of threads that end up locked as 'a flame war' or similar. Which will improve the freedom of expression, as long as the expression has content and isn't insulting.

[YOY]

442. I'm sure if the gagging weren't selective it would all work out.

n.t.

[Skinner]

433. Pssst: Here's a secret.

The "new" rules aren't new. Our intent is to clarify the rules we have had here for half a decade. None of them is particularly difficult to follow.

[YOY]

441. and you've just decided to enforce them now?

n/t

[Skinner]

445. No, we've been enforcing them for years.

Apparently some people didn't notice. Which is why we thought it might be useful to make it obvious.

[Senator]

755. Pssst: The Obama rule is new.

As is the UnReccing and the GD-P forum. And all have contributed in some way to the current condition.

Whether or not they favor any particular faction may be arguable, but not that they've been recent changes that effect some posters/lurkers more than others.

--

[HughMoran]

800. So you never read the rules before

It amazes me how many people claim stuff that's easily demonstrably wrong and takes 2 minutes to prove. Click ALL the way into the details of the current rules and

READ!

[Senator]

802. I think your post may be misplaced

I made no claim about the content of the rules -- simply the age of the Obama rule.

---

[HughMoran]

803. The language was there

...and posts that made such attacks were ALWAYS deleted, so you're wrong. Of course your reply admits you are wrong by not addressing the actual rules.

[Senator]

829. There was no language there

...about the content of "the actual rules" -- just the age. Of course your sig line admits that you may have been imagining something.

--

[Name removed]

505. Deleted message

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

[YOY]

508. You already are.

n.t.

[Ignis]

534. ^^^ GREAT example of how ONE side gets a pass on personal attacks.

"You are being self righteous"
"a self righteous individual"
"an authoritarian person"

These are not statements critiquing an argument; these are personal attacks on a DUer.

[YOY]

536. And from a DUer who actually KNOWS me.

And could pretty much tell anyone that I am none-of-the-above based on personal interaction without a second though.

[Ignis]

538. If you're an authoritarian, I'm a Chinese jet pilot.

[Skinner]

546. No. It's a great example of a post that wasn't alerted.

But I appreciate that you made the effort to alert on it *after you posted this public complaint.*

[Ignis]

554. No problem. It's distressing that no one else thought to alert on it.

Perhaps that's a sign of a problem, in and of itself? :shrug:

These days, I see so many personal attacks on DU that I can't recall on which I've alerted--some I'm sure I forget to alert on at all, while others I probably alert on twice. Since many of these obvious personal attacks aren't removed anyway, it's a bit hard to get excited over the exercise.

But I'll certainly be sure to hit alert before posting in the future, lest I leave myself open to the (ab)use of access to privileged information in the cause of a public shaming.

[Violet_Crumble]

693. I've alerted on these posts, and since then the mods deleted posts around it

But these two posts are now sitting there untouched amongst a bunch of posts from other posters that have been deleted. Not sure how this doesn't qualify as a post that's not against the DU rules.

'you are so beyond the pale and vicious and well,
out of control. You don't belong here if you're going to throw lying verbal bombs like this.'

and

'I stand by what I said. Seek help.
you are what you rail against. You spew hate. It's sick. Get help.'



That's some great rules enforcement happening there, Skinner!!


I'd link to the posts but I'm not sure if that'd be seen by the mods in the big forums as calling out another DUer or not.

[Skinner]

706. Please lay off the mods. Sometimes it takes a while.

I dont know the context, but they sound like clear-cut rule violations that will be deleted.

I'm guessing they were in the IP forum, because I don't see your alert in the mod forum.

[Violet_Crumble]

708. It didn't take a while for other posts in the thread to be deleted..

And yes, it was in the I/P forum, but it had been over 24hrs since I alerted so I guess it does take a while

[Ignis]

767. +1. The disparity in the speed of deletion leads to the impression of favoritism.

Note: Impression!

Edited because I can't spell on a Friday evening.

[TK421]

771. Hey Violet Crumble! love your new sig pic!

:hi:

[Violet_Crumble]

787. Thanks! I brought it back out of retirement...

Miffy's so cute...

:hi:

[Ignis]

750. Come to think of it...

Why not simply run a scheduled job that checks the posts database for the string "self righteous" and mails the results to a mod?

:D

[Senator]

439. This post of yours itself might be a helpful thread start.

Because this is the essence of the "divide." No one enjoys being "characterized" unfavorably. Discussing the words themselves might be of some benefit.

And I only say "helpful" because I wouldn't expect the problem to be "solved" or just go away anytime soon. The real problem is in our political culture/environment, not merely with the people who post/moderate here.

(And it's no surprise it seems so torturous, as torture is the cause.)

----

[noamnety]

515. One more chiming in on your framing being insulting.

One group believes it is pragmatic to make compromises with republicans in the interest of getting something passed.
Another group believes it is pragmatic NOT to make compromises with the republicans if the end result is moving the country further and further to the right, albeit in slower increments than republicans would do on their own.

One group feels it is pragmatic to keep troops in Afghanistan, and idealistic to think we can just leave.
One group feels it is pragmatic to pull them all the troops out, and idealistic to think we can "win" anything by staying.

One group feels it is pragmatic to bail out corporations to keep the economy going.
One group feels it is idealistic to think you can solve our economic problems by giving bailouts to corporations.

---------
I would suggest a more accurate framing that recognizes that both sides of the split incorporate pragmatism (about what the actual end results will be).

[Moochy]

519. great point about BOTH sides

[Skinner]

548. Fair enough. What do you suggest?

As I said, my intent was not to insult.

[noamnety]

590. something that is value neutral.

koochers and bammers?

shirts and skin(ners)?

boggers and deaniacs?

principles vs. principals?

[nashville_brook]

720. often what happens is we pick the label "we" want, and give the imagined others the opposite of that

which is exactly what the "pragmatist" / "idealist" binary does.

I think instead of "idealist," Realist is a much more constructive term. "idealism" implies that people are pointing to grand theoretical narratives, and the opposite is true.

those being called "idealists" are actually pointing life as they live it. they are wondering why so much care is taken to placate Wall Street, when the reality of Main Street is so bleak right now. those who are being called "idealists" are confused as to why there's so much effort being put into developing charter schools while the reality is, our public schools are crumbling.

The Realists ask that policy have some bearing on reality as it is lived by the non-"masters of the universe."

[DirkGently]

722. Beautifully said.

[Ignis]

822. Nicely stated.

:thumbsup:

[stranger81]

599. This reply should be its own OP.

Great explanation.

[Ignis]

532. Try this thought experiment:

How often have you heard the term "idealist" used in a pejorative fashion?
(I'm guessing the answer is 1+ for anyone who's ever been on a college campus. :D)

Now, how often have you heard the term "pragmatist" used in a pejorative fashion?

:shrug:

[Skinner]

549. Here on DU I've heard both used as a perjorative.

So, what do you suggest as an alternative?

[Ignis]

558. OK. You win.

But in the real world, outside of DU, how often have you heard someone pejoratively refer to another person or approach as "a pragmatist/pragmatic?"

If that resulting number is not smaller than the number for the same question asked for "an idealist/idealistic," I'll eat my hat.

[YOY]

563. and you've got a pretty sweet hat.

Sweet as in looks not in taste that is...I mean in other words it wouldn't taste sweet if someone tasted it but I can only wager that...what I really want to say it that your hat is cool and it would not taste good if you put it in your mouth.

-This message was brought to you by a Hugh Grant moment...

[Ignis]

566. OT: I always take out-of-town visitors to a local SF hat store.

Nothing says "forced group bonding exercise" like a picture of a group of people uncomfortably wearing ridiculous hats. :D

[Posteritatis]

777. That one's kind of bothered me for awhile

Specifically the bit about "idealist" as pejorative - I can't actually think of an antonym to "cynic" that isn't generally seen as pejorative, and not just around here. I mean, I consider myself an idealist - most of the time, anyway - but I also know full well the word's considered tainted by a lot of people, and that its polar opposite is seen as the only intelligent stance.

I raised the point in GD a couple of years ago and got a pretty disappointing set of responses over it. That was probably around the height of Dubya Despair, but if anything I imagine it would get a harsher response today.

That's bothered me, at a far broader level than Zomg What's Wrong With DU as well.

Probably a bit tangential to the main discussion here, but you just reminded me and I realized that's been rattling around my head again lately.

[Ignis]

807. Very good points

I consider myself an idealist for other reasons--e.g., I believe people are generally good (albeit selfish) and will do the right thing most of the time, given an equal opportunity to do so.

I don't consider myself an idealist because I voted for a party that published a HCR platform plank with "and a public option" right there in black and white--and then I expected the party to actually put forth a real effort to make that happen.

But the "oh well, gosh, good show; we gave it the old college try" attitude we saw from our party leaders regarding that plank once we got into the guts of beating HCR into law? Now that pushes me directly towards a deep cynicism.

[suffragette]

612. I've been thinking more and more that what is going on

mirrors to a large degree the divisions of New Labour vs Old Labour within the Labour party in the U.K.
That even extends to the idealist vs pragmatic comparison. I've used it myself and agree with you to some degree on that as a characterization, but at the same time agree with those who note that there can be valid disagreement over how directions and actions are defined or viewed as pragmatic or idealistic.
That doesn't mean there aren't differences from Labour between where we are and where we might be heading, but there's enough similarity there to make the comparision and also to look at what has occured across the pond because of this split.

[defendandprotect]

626. ... it is insulting, Skinner . . . because it pretty much frames the left here as

unrealistic idealists -- and the right as those who see the light!

Let's go beyond DU and discuss the wider world of Democrats . . .

Are Ed Schultz, Jon Stewart, Keith Olberemann and Rachel Maddow ... "idealists"????

Are they wrong for calling out Blue Dogs and Dino's?

These are people on the LEFT -- the liberal/progressive left -- are their views and ideas

to be banned here?

What most liberals and progressives see is a corporate GOP, a corporate MSM -- and a

corporate/DLC. And that's the underlying basis of the conflict here --

a corporate agenda -- and it doesn't matter whether it comes from the actual right/GOP

or whether it comes from the DLC-right.

I know you frequently say that DU'ers have to be protected from the outside world --

but in the long run and the short run that's going to do harm to this webiste.

[chimpymustgo]

735. Idealists vs pragmatists. or Truth-seekers vs lie-accepters?

Principles vs party loyalty.

Yes...insulting, Skinner.

[nashville_brook]

526. +1 -- What's the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive?

What's the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9140.html

(snip)

The answer, in my opinion, is no - there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional "liberals" in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A "progressive" are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.

(snip)

Let's be clear - most progressives are also liberals, and liberal goals in better funding America's social safety net are noble and critical. It's the other direction that's the problem. Many of today's liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today's Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America's middle-class.

(snip)

To be sure, Obama has solid motives in pushing his proposal, and it is a creative cross of issues (health care and energy/environment). But the general unwillingness of Democrats to consistently push for more sharp-edged progressive solutions is a big problem right now. The "free market" conservatives have so dominated the political debate over the last two decades that our side seems only comfortable proposing to pay off different economic players, instead of forcing those players to behave themselves. It's time for that to change. The government has a job to play in protecting Americans from being ripped off, and that doesn't mean just handing the economic bullies a bribe. It means pushing back - hard.

[Zhade]

760. Indeed. It's very arrogant and self-serving.

NT!

[LostinVA]

392. No, they most certainly aren't -- you must be reading another board

Or using a different definition of "Progressive."

[Skinner]

400. Since I am reading this board...

...it must be the latter.

[YOY]

395. Um...no.

Sorry Skinner. That's not factual. Some people here are definitely not into any form of "progress"...although they may call themselves such they are not.

[HughMoran]

410. According to some

...this is the 'political compass' of a 'conservative' (I am assuming I'm one of them based on the fact that I am generally supportive of President Obama.)

[MannyGoldstein]

411. I want an end to endless imprisonment with zero judicial recourse

An end to warrantless wiretapping, secret prisons, extrajudicial execution warrants, and "extraordinary rendition". I want a return of Glass-Steagall and other fundamental protections against fiscal predators. And I don't believe in trickle-down economics writ large through $12+ trillion in loan guarantees and other bailouts for bankers.

Is it idealistic to simply want those things that Americans had for so many years, until they were gutted by Republicans with Democrats as willing accomplices?

[DevonRex]

477. +a gazillion with thanks. nt

[OnyxCollie]

498. Constructive criticism

Marx, F. M. (1935). Propaganda and dictatorship. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 179, 211-218.

"It is to no avail," Dr. Goebbels reminded his partisans as early as in the fall of 1933, "that we merely make
speeches; we must try to convince through our accomplishments."26

~snip~

Obviously the citizen will not be able to judge these accomplishments with the desirable measure of
appreciation so long as he remains under the influence of any kind of counter-propaganda. His mind must be
"set right." Nothing may enter it that "contradicts" the purport of the officially sponsored ideology,27 so that
ultimately there will be "only one public opinion." 28 Such a commanding scheme requires governmental
primacy if not monopoly over all instrumentalities of opinion dissemination, particularly the press.

~snip~

Hitler himself felt impelled to complain: "It is no pleasure to read fifteen papers which have an almost identical
text." 38 And as recently as in January 1935, the Frankfurter Zeitung editorialized: "Indeed, what one misses most in
Germany is a serious objective discussion." 39

The reasons for this unsatisfactory state of affairs are patent. Nowhere has the government authoritatively
set forth to what extent it is actually interested in a "serious objective discussion" outside the waterproof
compartments of the party.

~snip~

How, then, can the "happy mean between destructive criticism and lapdog servility"45 be attained? What Dr.
Goebbels has to to say about it does not sound encouraging. "The right to criticize," he states, "belongs to the
National Socialist Party. I deny anybody else such a right. The right to criticize is exercised by the National
Socialist Party to a sufficient extent." 46 (p. 214 - 216).

You wrote:

We all want to move the country in the same general direction. We may disagree on details, but the big picture is the same. The real disagreements on DU are about how best to get there.

How can we determine how best to get there when we can't even determine what "constructive" criticism is?

[Skinner]

507. First of all, thanks for the Nazi reference. I felt like something was missing from this discussion.

Second: What qualifies as constructive criticism is irrelevant here. We do not intend to judge whether criticism is constructive or not.

Instead, we have identified a few specific behaviors that are inflammatory but completely unnecessary in order to criticize the president (whether it is constructive or not). For example, I don't think any reasonable person believes it is necessary to call the president rude names in order to criticize him. That is a clear line that us easy to follow and easy to enforce.

I have asked repeatedly what substantive criticism of the president is no longer permitted, and so far nobody has provided an example. Our intent is that DU remain open to any/all substantive criticism of the president and Democrats.

[Zhade]

718. Uh... you really don't see the contradiction in these two statements?

"We do not intend to judge whether criticism is constructive or not"

"Instead, we have identified a few specific behaviors that are inflammatory but completely unnecessary in order to criticize the president"

That, right there, IS judging whether the criticism is constructive or not.

[geek tragedy]

729. Namecalling isn't substantive criticism.

Calling him 'Barry' or an "uncle Tom" isn't policy criticism. It's hate speech.

[Zhade]

826. Sure, sure, I get that much, thanks.

I mean, that's a duh statement right there.

My point is, what some see as "unwarranted" could be pointing out that he lied about never running on a public option, for example.

[Jamastiene]

819. One recent example I do not understand is the Jon Stewart thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x350144

Yes, Jon Stewart did say "What happened to Barry on the block?" but the context was in reference to President Obama as a younger man, who was more hopeful about what can be accomplished. It was not meant in a racist or insulting way, in that context.

Yes, Jon Stewart was critical of President Obama, but he is a satirist. Most people understand that satirists are critical of every administration.

The fact still remains that it was humor.

Yes, there were rule violations in that thread, but most of them were deleted.

While it was definitely critical of President Obama, I don't understand how it could have been viewed as over the top. It was humor, just humor.


Also, you asked what other framing you could use beside "pragmatist vs. idealists." I have an answer for you: just admit that some Democrats are more conservative than others. Neither side of that divide consists of 100% pragmatists or 100% idealists.

One example of that is DADT.

Some of us believe DADT was a compromise with the Republicans during the Clinton administration, a compromise that failed. Our side believes DADT should go and gay people should be allowed to openly serve.

Some actually believe DADT should stay and that gay people, who are openly gay, would make some straight soldiers uncomfortable.

That is just one example where neither side could be considered "pragmatists" or "idealists."

It is a fact that gay people serve openly in lots of other countries. There is nothing idealist about believing maybe America needs to catch up with the times before we fall behind the rest of the world. There is nothing pragmatist about believing gay people should remain in the closet. Those of us who have military families already know that there are lots of gay people already serving. Most people at the soldier level know it and really could care less. It's the brass, the higher ups, the officers, that get all up in knots about it.

While there may be some in our military who are outright homophobic, to say that gay people are idealists for wanting the right to openly serve because of those certain members of our military who are homophobic is to write our ENTIRE military off as homophobic, which they most definitely are not. It also writes off gay rights to continually say wait, wait, wait, when this issue is NOT an issue in most of the free world.

That is only one example. There are tons of others. Calling one group that wants to compromise with the Republicans, "pragmatists" and calling the rest of us "idealists" really is insulting to those of us who disagree with giving in to the Republicans. DADT was pragmatism and we now see it wasn't a good idea.

If you want to call it as it really is, just admit that some Democrats are more conservative than others, take "the left," "liberals," and "progressives" out of the About DU page and be honest about the new direction DU is taking, because it is definitely a rightward direction.

[EFerrari]

602. I don't understand that statement given that progressives

were being beaten up here on a daily basis with very little intervention and for weeks, Skinner.

So, I guess I disagree with you that everyone here is a progressive. Unless people were posting OPs attacking themselves.

And I don't even care if everyone here is a progressive or not. It just seems destructive to have post after post go up and stay open attacking liberals or progressive or "leftbaggers".

And I also again disagree with the distinction you're making between "idealistic" progressives and "pragmatic" progressives. There is nothing "idealistic" about showing up with your values to a knife fight. It doesn't make your knife less sharp. And attacking members of your coalition is not "pragmatic", it's something else.


Whatever. I trust you guys. And I trust this will settle down.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

629. being called "firebagger" was especially good

that happened on numerous occasions to me and others.

[defendandprotect]

603. Liberals/progressives here are "idealistic" -- and DLC here are "pragmatic" . . .???

That kinda ignores the reality that the DLC are the "corporate-wing" of the Democratic

Party, doesn't it?

Are our problems with the GOP simply that they are "pragmatic" ... or that they are

corporate?

[muriel_volestrangler]

607. See, the thing is, it's about 6 years since someone said they were 'DLC' on DU

Once Lieberman was out of the 2004 primary, there have basically been no actual DLC supporters here. It's just an insult that some people use for "someone who is more centrist than I think they have a right to be".

But some of the fundamental disagreements on DU, between people who don't call themselves (or deserve to be called) any labels are 'idealistic' v. 'pragmatic'. As an example, health care. Idealists said it should be single payer, or it wasn't worth passing anything - and passing something in this Congress would make it look as if the probelm had been solved, when it hadn't; pragmatists said it was worth passing something because it would do some good now, rather than waiting for when there was a progressive Congress that could pass a far-reaching bill. I don't think either label is insulting. But the different attitudes were seen, and a lot of acrimony resulted in DU when people dug into their positions and regarded the other as 'the enemy'.

[Individualist]

614. That dog don't hunt

[Ignis]

616. "Idealists said it should be single payer" - No, those of us who read the Party Platform said that.

Remember way back in 2008, when we were electing a new president? Here's the 2008 party platform on that issue:

Covering All Americans and Providing Real Choices of Affordable Health Insurance Options.

Families and individuals should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan. Coverage should be made affordable for all Americans with subsidies provided through tax credits and other means.

-- http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

Now, believing that we'd actually follow through with the published party platform once in power might make me a sucker, but it doesn't make me an idealist.

[defendandprotect]

632. Agree -- and maybe we need to have politicians sign "PLEDGES" in future???

[Ignis]

763. At this point, I'd be happy with parliamentary block-building.

But I'm really not sure whether or not advocating for a shift from a two-party focus in the US is verboten.

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

765. According to the two parties it is -- !!

[muriel_volestrangler]

643. "many private health insurance options and a public plan" is not 'single payer'

In fact, I pointed out on DU once that single payer is not as far as you could go - you could have a national health service, in which the hospitals are publicly owned and all doctors, nurses etc. are public employees. But practically no-one on DU was calling for that. Single payer was held up a sthe ideal by many, and some thought a combination of private insurance and a public plan, ie the Democratic platform, was too much of a compromise.

[Ignis]

687. I'm not willing to parse the issue that finely.

The vast majority of my fellow "retarded" Liberals would have been just fine with a public option, once the Obama admin and the Senate refused to even consider the idea of single payer.

Frankly, Americans often don't understand the difference between a public plan and single payer, but that ignorance is understandable when one considers how the health care care debate has been framed by the Republicans and the MSM (as if those weren't the same thing, but...) since the early '90s here in the States.

[defendandprotect]

744. 76%+ of the country supported single payer - MEDICARE FOR ALL --

a government run health care program --

about as far from where we ended up as you could be!!

Everything but the Romney plan was off the table!!


In fact, even a larger percentage of Catholics -- despite the lies of the Bishops

who were attempting to influence this issue against reproductive/abortion care --

supported a government run health care plan --

[defendandprotect]

628. Not really ... and Hillary Clinton is part of DLC leadership . . .

DLC is always a subject here --

Obama, of course, distanced himself from the DLC until he eloped into the White House

with Rahm Emmanuel!

The conflict here is about small "d" democracy and a people's government vs DLC corporate

wing moving the party to the right --

Corporate = right wing

This is the largest and wealthiest nation in the world -- yet we had single payer

stopped here those most heavily supported by the corporate health care industry.

How is it that we couldn't do what so many other nations have done? And how is it that so

many here were willing to surrender to "No, we can't" -- ?

[EFerrari]

650. People were still here defending the DLC in the run up to 2006.

The DLC knew how to pick candidates, for example, and us cottonheaded dreamers, didn't.

[defendandprotect]

766. They . . .

seem to come and go out of the woodwork from time to time --

often in a group --

Too few to have so strongly moved Skinner to the new rule making, IMO --

[Zhade]

827. Um, noooooo. There's one running around in active threads RIGHT NOW.

Of course, I can't call out the asshole. Against the rules, you know. But the little dipshit knows who he is.

[saracat]

611. Actually , we do NOT all want to move the country in the same direction. Many of us do NOT support

Arne Duncan privatization of the public education system for one thing.And many of us do not care for the ideas coming out of the Social Security Commission! I do not merely believ it is a question of how we get there so much as it is actual ideology.

[defendandprotect]

633. +1000% . . . .

right the attacks on public education from within the Democratic Party is

another excellent example --

PLUS Obama's new GOP panel to privatize Social Security!!

[Mimosa]

789. ^ True ^ n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

834. +10000!

[Hippo_Tron]

772. I think those are goals shared by almost everybody here

And I think that many believe that the best way to achieve those goals is to keep the Republicans out of office at all costs.

[HughMoran]

249. "The moderators could have easily locked this thread -- and probably should have "

That would have been a wise choice.

This isn't going to end well.

[rhett o rick]

463. Why wont it "end well"?

I think there has been a lot of good discussions here. Maybe someone will get nasty and succeed at getting the thread locked. Is that what you want? Even if that happens you cant take away the good discussions here.

[HughMoran]

531. Read down

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8673473&mesg_id=8675728

[lumberjack_jeff]

340. You made the right choice IMHO

This stuff is worth airing.

[HughMoran]

405. You might be right

...so long as people are allowed to speak freely without reprisal.

[defendandprotect]

634. Agree--

[NuttyFluffers]

372. then do a "kill file" forum and be done with it...

most other websites have a space where people can vent their spleen in the ugliest terms imaginable -- but it stays there. sure, out yourself as a hypocritical bigot or an unbearable self-righteous prude, but it stays in the all-accessible free-for-all dungeon and cannot leave.

let there be an unmoderated slice of hell for everyone to let all their demons out. it is easier to legalize and channel vice into a sanctioned area than to legislate virtue. why fight human nature?

[patrice]

707. I support this with one condition which you probably take as a given: to exclude obscenity

[redqueen]

430. Glad to see you saw it as divisive, unfair, and worthy of a lock.

IMO it's sad that so many rec'd it, just the same.

[Spheric]

581. Mixed messages are difficult to process.

This:

But that's all we can do. Here's the big secret about the "new" rules: Our goal is to moderate *LESS* than we did before. We can deal with the worst excesses, but we can't possibly "fix" the core problem. We'd prefer that you all fight it out, rather than keep throwing ourselves in the middle.

The Admins have been through all five stages of grief, and we are now (finally) at "Acceptance." This is the way it's going to be for the next two-to-six years. Maybe longer. Get used to it.

followed by this:

(For what it's worth, I completely disagree with most of the rest of the post, which I believe is a divisive and unfair characterization of the "other side." The moderators could have easily locked this thread -- and probably should have -- but we thought there might be some value in responding to the main point.)

is confusing.


And, it leaves many of us unsure if you are actually clear in your own mind what it is you are trying to accomplish, or perhaps how committed you truly are to the "new" vision. It is difficult for many of us to follow, which is possibly also why many believe it to be so arbitrary.

IMHO

[Skinner]

598. The "new" vision isn't that complicated. And yes, we are committed to it.

When I say we are going to moderate less, that doesn't mean we are going to arbitrarily decide not to enforce the rules from time-to-time. It means we are going to have a clearer, more narrowly defined set of rules, which will be easier for members to follow and easier for moderators to enforce. The necessary consequence of that change is that the moderators will not be deleting as many posts or locking as many threads -- because fewer of them will run afoul if the rules.

Obviously, this thread was allowed to stay open, despite the fact that the OP violates a number of rules (the most obvious being to not refer to groups of DUers as conservatives, disruptors, or similar). So, yes, one could argue that this shows a lack of committment on the part of the DU Admins. I already stated that we allowed this to stay open because we thought there was some value in posting an admin response (after all, I was called out by name), in hopes that people will better understand what we are trying to do. All I can say is that my intentions were good.

[Spheric]

631. Thank you for attempting to clarify.

I'm not sure your response made it any clearer in mind, but I appreciate the effort.

It still seems to me that claiming "When I say we are going to moderate less, that doesn't mean we are going to arbitrarily decide not to enforce the rules from time-to-time." while simultaneously stating "Obviously, this thread was allowed to stay open, despite the fact that the OP violates a number of rules" is almost the very definition of a mixed message.

And, just to be clear, I am not questioning your intentions at all. I believe you have made it obvious that your intentions are to maintain and improve the reputation and integrity of this board.

Once again, thank you for the reply.

[Turborama]

774. You left out the reason he decided to keep it open

It's not a "mixed message" when the reasons for an exception to the rules is clearly given.

we allowed this to stay open because we thought there was some value in posting an admin response (after all, I was called out by name), in hopes that people will better understand what we are trying to do. All I can say is that my intentions were good.

What you did was the very definition of selective editing. Oh, and in plain English, Skinner was saying that "moderating less" is not the same as "not moderating at all".

BTW Skinner is not a moderator, he is an administrator and the owner of this website. Moderators are the ones who enforce the rules and the administrators rarely get involved (that means they sometimes get involved but not very often).

[defendandprotect]

635. Skinner -- you can't go wrong supporting free speech . . . it's the reverse that

causes problems --

Remember -- free speech isn't intended to protect the listener -- it's intended

to protect the speaker!

[BzaDem]

676. Free speech applied to this discussion is really a red herring.

Should Republicans be protected by free speech should they come here and openly advocate for Republican candidates?

[Zhade]

723. Of course not. So why are so many conservative-leaning Dems allowed to push their policies here?

Anti-choice, anti-union, pro-warrantless wiretapping, etc etc etc.

[defendandprotect]

742. Exactly . . .

You should read this -- everyone should . . . !!

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

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

835. Because it seems now that being a "pragmatic" Democrat rules first and foremost

on DU no matter how "pragmatic" they are. As long as they walk in "solidarity" with this administration, they will go unscathed. Keeping up appearances of a united Democratic front seems to trump important discourse here.

[defendandprotect]

736. "We fully intend to make the word "conservative" absolutely radioactive" . . .

You should read this -- everyone should . . . !!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8673473&mesg_id=8675029


we fully intend to make the word "conservative" absolutely radioactive.

[Turborama]

228. Democrats "being bought by corporate" isn't a new thing

And how can Skinner or any of the admins change that?

There's nothing I can see in the rules that stops DUers from discussing it, either.

If you have any evidence that Republicans have joined DU and are advocating Republican policies you should use the alert button.

[Hutzpa]

233. The OP made this statement

"As the Republican Party dies off, many conservatives are fleeing to the Democratic Party"

that did not come from me. I did not say I have evidence, not sure how you figure that out from

my response to Skinner, I was merely exhorting what the OP wrote.

[Turborama]

238. You interpreted what the OP said this way

If I understand the OP correctly, isn't he advocating openly that Democrats are being bought by corporate
and since corporate is buying democrats DU should be lenient on the fact

Democrats being bought by corporations is not a new thing and where does it say in the rules you can't call them out for it?

So in other words, if republicans are
fleeing their party democrats should look the other way and change our party to
accommodate the republicans. yes? no?

That's not Skinner's call. He's the owner of an internet forum, not the Democratic party.

Also, how do you interpret 'Democrats being bought by corporations and DU (supposedly) being lenient about it' into 'Republicans fleeing their party and Democrats "looking the other way" and changing our party to accommodate them'? That's two different issues, corporations have been buying politicians from both parties for probably longer than I've been alive.

I thought those switching party should change their attitude, when in Rome do as the Romans do, right?

Yes they should. Also, Republicans switching party is how we won the last election by a landslide. If they (former Republicans) haven't "changed their attitude" that implies they are advocating Republican policies and/or doctrine. If you come across examples of this (as I put it earlier, have evidence) you should alert them and they will hopefully be banned.

I thought these where the very same things we are fighting against?

What makes you think they aren't?

[Hutzpa]

252. What does this mean exactly

"Major corporations are smart enough to recognize that owning the Republican Party lock, stock and barrel is'nt enough to guarantee favorable legislation. The corporatist have turned to the Democratic Party for support and are being welcomed by quite a number with open arms (and hands out), especially by the New-Democrats (the conservatives)."

Now I don't have to explain to you further the repercussion of corporate owning organizations or having party affiliation, we've
all seen the result of that, that being said, my assimilation came from that thought process.

[Turborama]

293. I'll ask again, what's that got to do with DU's rules?

This is what you first quoted to explain what you were responding to:

"As the Republican Party dies off, many conservatives are fleeing to the Democratic Party"

And now you quote this to elaborate on what you were responding to:

"Major corporations are smart enough to recognize that owning the Republican Party lock, stock and barrel is'nt enough to guarantee favorable legislation. The corporatist have turned to the Democratic Party for support and are being welcomed by quite a number with open arms (and hands out), especially by the New-Democrats (the conservatives)."

Both your quotes from the OP are most likely true and, unfortunately, has been a normal part American politics for decades. What's that got to do with DU's rules, though?

----

This is what I added when I edited my earlier reply to you above (I've expanded on it to relate to this post).

Also, how do you interpret 'Democrats being bought by corporations and DU (supposedly) being lenient about it' into 'Republicans fleeing their party and Democrats "looking the other way" and changing our party to accommodate them'? That's two different issues and deserve two different responses:

Where is there anything in the rules that says we can't condemn Democrats for selling out? Corporations have been buying politicians from both parties for probably longer than I've been alive.

If you're saying that the Democratic party is changing to accommodate Republicans, what's that got to do with DU's rules? DU isn't the Democratic party, it's an internet forum.

[Hutzpa]

301. has a lot to do with DU rules

as the ultimate goal of this forum is to elect better and brighter progressives/liberal democrats into office.

Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

[Turborama]

307. Instead of giving a link, please quote the actual rules you are referring to.

It'll help me understand exactly what you are complaining about.

[Hutzpa]

319. Nope,

I'm sure you're well capable of reading and understanding the rules. Lest we forget, this is Skinner's house we are
all guest and we should play by the rules.

Again, I was not complaining but merely expressing my observation.

[Turborama]

337. I am, but are you capable of reading and understanding the rules?

This is what you said to Skinner:

"If I understand the OP correctly, isn't he advocating openly that Democrats are being bought by corporate
and since corporate is buying democrats DU should be lenient on the fact."

Where does it say in any of the rules that DUers should be lenient to Democrats being bought by corporations?

This is what you said when you posted the link:

"as the ultimate goal of this forum is to elect better and brighter progressives/liberal democrats into office."

The rules on the link you posted to say this:

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

"support progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office" isn't "to elect better and brighter progressives/liberal democrats into office". Electing "better and brighter progressive/liberal Democrats into office" is of course something that we should all be doing, but it isn't written in the rules as an "ultimate goal".

Further, the link that takes us to the broader definitions says this:

Who We Are

Who is Welcome on Democratic Underground, and Who is Not

Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned.

People who repeatedly and willfully break the rules, or who generally engage in rude, anti-social behavior, will be banned. It doesn't matter if you are a fellow progressive, a long-term member of this community, or a donor.

If you have been banned from Democratic Underground, you are not permitted to log on again using a different username. Previously banned members will be immediately banned, regardless of behavior.

Relationship to the Democratic Party

Democratic Underground is a completely independent organization. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party in any way, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

My only problem with those rules is that they are talking about Busch in the present tense.

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

Nope, can't see anything there about allowing leniency towards Democrats being bought by corporations.

[defendandprotect]

636. We are paying guests . . .btw . .

[Hutzpa]

651. You are NOT a paying guest

you are being asked to make a donation, you still have a choice, you can choose to make a donation or
not to, I don't think anyone is forcing you to.....

[defendandprotect]

734. Most members are "paying guests" ....

and usually also contribute to money raised by DU for Democrats . . .

The "donations" support the website -- help pay the expenses --

you're being obtuse --



Democratic Underground gets lots of visitors

and we rely mostly on donations to pay our expenses.

We therefore invite you to make a contribution to our efforts in whatever amount you can afford. Democratic Underground is legally a for-profit organization, therefore, you won't get a tax deduction for your contribution. However, you will get the satisfaction of knowing that as long as there are conservative idiots, Democratic Underground will be here to hold them accountable (and maybe even make fun of them)."





http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8673473&mesg_id=8675029

[Go2Peace]

216. Skinner, do you not recognize the part that those who are here to "message" play?

The "split" has been greatly amplified by this phenomenon? Do you feel like, as Democrats, it has to be allowed even though it breaks the rules of discussion and get's people arguing more? Just asking? I am just curious why, as this is fairly obvious, the subject has not been broached?

[Skinner]

229. I think you need to consider the possibility...

...that the people on the "other side" are actually acting in good faith. They are not here to "message" any more than you are.

[Go2Peace]

247. I respect your thoughts,

I don't see it as "other side" though. Most people on either side of the "divide" are open to some discussion and discovery. I am speaking of a very small minority. But thanks for responding. I guess I just wanted a chance to have you *hear* me out on this.

[Skinner]

248. Fair enough. I would add that the "very small minority" of which you speak...

...is not limited to only one side of the "divide."

[SwampG8r]

331. lol

i bet now you know why the wizard did not want to come out from behind the curtain

[Jennicut]

222. I accept that. Maybe it has to do with having right wing conservative parents. I am surprised when

anyone here agrees with me on any issue. Dems are a pretty diverse group too.
I am used to having to argue a point that no one in my family will agree with and it doesn't really bother me.

[Name removed]

254. Deleted message

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

[Tarheel_Dem]

283. +1. The gist of this thread seems to be that the president hasn't solved

all our ills, and people who recognize & appreciate what he has done, are undercover Republicans? Is that the gist? Talk about your broadbrush attacks, and it's still unlocked, with the apparent approval of an Admin. :shrug:

[Tailormyst]

545. No- that is just your very skewed interpretation of the OP

[defendandprotect]

637. IMO, the OP is arguing for free speech rather than denial of reality here . . .

And -- yet again -- we see another call for limiting free speech --

Why?

Do you think that free speech is about protecting the listener?

[Tarheel_Dem]

657. Have your "speech rights" been abridged on a privately held message board?

Egads. The nerve. Your free speech rights don't extend to privately held property, nor do mine. Do you really think that anything in the o.p. has any real effect on anyone or anything outside the relatively obscure DU community? Will it be covered on the 6 o'clock news? NO. Are lawyers lining up to sue Skinner on first amendment grounds? NO.

So save it.

[defendandprotect]

703. You've called for LOCKING THIS THREAD . . .!!

and I'm asking you what it is about free speech that you so fear -- ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8673473&mesg_id=8674994

The website may be "private" but it is member supported --

PLUS it raises money from members to support the Democratic Party -- !!

while at the same time claiming that --

"there is no affiliation between DU and the Democratic Party" -- !!


Do you really think that anything in the o.p. has any real effect on anyone or anything outside the relatively obscure DU community? Will it be covered on the 6 o'clock news? NO. Are lawyers lining up to sue Skinner on first amendment grounds? NO.

First, you'd be naive to think that the Democratic Party and/or the DLC find this

website "obscure." DU raises money for the Demoratic Party -- hundreds of thousands of dollars

for Obama, btw.

Secondly -- YOU are calling for a lock on this thread!

THEREFORE, your own behavior seems to indicate that YOU think DU has some influence in a negative

way on something YOU think is important -- !!

[havocmom]

292. Us? US? If some disagree, they are trolls and it is us v anyone who disagrees?

Disagreeing with some policies and priorities is NOT hatred of Obama. some of us know that. Some of us just seem to want anyone who disagrees with everything we personally opine to just be put out on the curb, it seems.

That is simply not a constructive way to discuss issues, educate, evolve our thinking. It sure is not a way to deal with real problems in the real world. Pragmatic? Or echo chamber? There is a big difference.

[Name removed]

334. Deleted message

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

[havocmom]

345. Yes, I did. And I read all the misrepresentations of what the OP said

So, if I don't agree with you, am I a troll or did I just not read? Might it just be possible that people do not always agree on everything without being hate filled trolls who fail to read?

Don't bother to answer. It's a rhetorical question, posted for the people who can actually accommodate that individuals can have opinions which vary without being some sort of demons.

[Zhade]

295. But you CAN change that fact. It's YOUR website. Allow me to quote your About section:

"We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

Democratic Underground would not be possible without the participation of like-minded individuals from across the country and, indeed, from around the world. The content for the site is provided by people who feel that their views are not represented by the conservative "mainstream" media in the U.S. We accept article submissions from those on the left who wish to write, so that DU represents a variety of progressive viewpoints. We have a particular appreciation for satire and humor.

Visitors may also participate in our discussion forums, which have become one of the most popular places on the Web for members of the political left to share ideas and discuss the issues.

This website exists so our members and guests are assured that there are many others across the country who share their outrage at the unilateral, arrogant, and extreme right-wing approach taken by George W. Bush and his team, the conservative Republicans in Congress, and the five conservative partisans on the Supreme Court. We address the right in harsh terms, and we fully intend to make the word "conservative" absolutely radioactive. In that spirit, DU has already gained countrywide notoriety as the originator of the weekly Top Ten Conservative Idiots list, which is published (almost) every Monday.

Democratic Underground gets lots of visitors and we rely mostly on donations to pay our expenses. We therefore invite you to make a contribution to our efforts in whatever amount you can afford. Democratic Underground is legally a for-profit organization, therefore, you won't get a tax deduction for your contribution. However, you will get the satisfaction of knowing that as long as there are conservative idiots, Democratic Underground will be here to hold them accountable (and maybe even make fun of them)."

DU was clearly intended from the very beginning to be a haven for THE LEFT, not a place where conservatives could come to attack the left. That much is evident from your own About section. How do you square DU's historical support of liberals, left-of-centers and their ideals with the kind of conservative anti-union/anti-choice/pro-corporate/etc nonsense a vocal minority are able to express here?

I get your goal for DUers to fight off the lies and ignorance with evidence -- I'm a rationalist after all -- but I think it's a bit confusing to proclaim this is a site for the left, then say you can't change anything about the faction that by all rights (in accordance with making the word conservative 'radioactive') shouldn't even bother posting here.

(Edited to change 'sight' to 'site'. Stupid spellcheck!)

[Turborama]

373. How many OPs have you seen lately that are "conservative, anti-union, anti-choice, pro-corporate"

and have managed to remain unlocked? The same question goes for replies that haven't been deleted...

If that's the main thrust of the argument that's going on here, then it's up to DUers to alert on any offending OPs/replies they see. Obvious trolls are instantly vaporized and less obvious but repeat offenders are banned.

[spoony]

374. quite a few, actually.

There's a prominent anti-union one up right now.

[Turborama]

378. Have you alerted?

I'm curious, any chance of a cryptic clue as to which post you're referring to?

[spoony]

381. yes

and I can't because it would just be deleted (because unlike being anti-union, linking as a "call out" is against the rules), but it's about autoworkers. It's a screamer.

[Zhade]

738. I do. They remain.

And please understand, this is not just about OPs. I'm also talking about posts on any thread involving those issues, and more.

The issue isn't contained to OPs. I'm talking about posters repeatedly posting the same kind of thing conservatives against liberal policies would post (unions are evil, for example) and not being taken to task for it, despite the assertion by the owners of this board that this is a site for the left.

[defendandprotect]

639. What's the date on that? A WOW declaration of what DU stands for -- !!

[defendandprotect]

709. EVERYONE here should read this ... interesting record of what DU stands for!!

[rhett o rick]

464. Thanks for responding.

I think there has been some good discussions here. Thanks for allowing it to continue.

[Zhade]

758. Could you please address my question about the About section?

I'm not trying to pressure you, but there is an apparent contradiction between what this site was founded on -- to give liberals and the left a haven -- and how this site now operates, and I think the disconnect needs to be examined, especially given that there is a non- and even anti-liberal faction present.

[Kind of Blue]

195. Your OP exhibits the core problem here at DU.

It does not even try to lend itself to civil discourse.

[ncteechur]

196. This post should be enough to get the poster BANNED for calling other democrats republicans because

in his opinion, they may not be progressive enough. Disagreement is one thing but calling fellow democrats republicans is over the line.

Criticism is one thing but there are plenty of democrats on this board who constantly attack President Obama. Attacking, IMO, is not acceptable.

I would ask that there be a separate forum for those who just sign in to DU to attack President Obama at every turn.

[HughMoran]

201. It was just said above by admin that it's every (wo)man for himself

I'm just going to put all of them on ignore if the rules aren't to be enforced. I've had it.

[ProSense]

203. "they may not be progressive enough. "

To tell you the truth, this post isn't about being progressive enough. The notion that somehow one is progressive because they scream "down with the DLC" is laughable. Hillary is in the DLC leadership, and some swear she's a liberal. Progressives supported Joe Sestak who supports the President's Afghanistan and Iraq policies, you know: "the horrible wars."

So this isn't about who is progressive enough, it's about complaining that if you don't agree with me, you're a Republican.

I was going to start a thread complaining that if anyone doesn't agree with me, they don't know what they're talking about. That seems so trivial now in light of the concept that if someone doesn't agree with you, s/he is a Republican.

[donco6]

206. 65 recs and ban the poster.

Yeah, that makes sense.

[Bobbie Jo]

214. What does that even mean?

[POAS]

218. I think it means that if you can

rally enough people around a bad idea it becomes a good idea. Popularity rules.

[Tarheel_Dem]

321. That's two threads now that you've observed the number of recs.

Does the number of recs on an obscure website really have any real world implications?

[Political Tiger]

342. In their world it does. It makes them feel important. Sad, really.

Makes you wonder what they are lacking in their lives that having their post recommended by nameless message board posters is so important to them?

[donco6]

435. No, not really.

Just defending someone against unfair calls for tombstoning, simply because he expresses a popular sentiment.

[Name removed]

510. Deleted message

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

[DevonRex]

573. Good grief. The conspiracies never stop coming from you guys.

:tinfoilhat:

[donco6]

429. It does when someone is calling for someone else's head.

Otherwise, not so much.

[Political Tiger]

242. Damn right!

Who the fuck do these people think they are, that they, and only they, get to decide who is worthy of being called a Democrat or a liberal or a progressive and who is not?

Who they hell are they to tell the rest of us what the goals of this administration should be, and if Obama doesn't become their personal puppet he is to be attacked day in and day out?

If they are not going to be banned, then at least set up an anti-Obama group for them, where they can spout their hate to their selfish little hearts content, It'd probably be the most popular group on this board.

Meanwhile, the rest of us who are not guided by hate can get on with what should be the business of this forum, which is to discuss Democratic politics like grown ups!

[firedupdem]

305. You summed it up perfectly. n/t

[Raineyb]

359. Not all Democrats are progressives and not all progressives are Democrats

And last I checked the board was for discussing progressive ideas. So now you have to kiss the ass of the Democratic party to be welcomed here?

Fuck that shit! I don't owe the party shit! I damn sure want to discuss left leaning policy which the Democratic party only seems to pretend to be interested in when it's time for elections.

[defendandprotect]

642. Allegedly, no connection between DU and Democratic Party ....???

According to this --

this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8673473&mesg_id=8675029

[Raineyb]

674. Indeed. Foolish me for believing it. n/t

[defendandprotect]

698. Except DU raises money for the Democratic Party .. . . . eh . . ????

[Zhade]

741. THANK YOU.

It seems, based on my reading of DU's own About section, that this website is not currently dedicated to the viewpoint it once held.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

836. I had a post deleted a couple of days ago because gasp! I

criticized our side of the aisle....

BTW...I criticized both sides in that post.

[Bobbie Jo]

265. I couldn't agree more.

[Tailormyst]

547. You fail at reading comprehension

[Ignis]

823. Pitchforks $5! Torches $10 for 3!

I'm very grateful that the site administrators have a much more level-headed approach than banning a poster for a single OP that would have fit just fine in an "Ask the Admins" forum.

Some DUers are going to be critical of President Obama's performance. That's just how it is.

:shrug:

But that opinion doesn't make them bad DUers, nor does it make them bad Democrats--just as DUers who criticize Rep. Kucinich are neither of the above.

[piedmont]

197. So if I'm not with you, I'm against you?

Dividing everyone into two diametrically opposed groups is not what I think of when I think of progressives.

[Yuugal]

211. DU stopped being progressive a long time ago

They have bounced most of the great long time progressive voices in favor of spam threads straight off of Rahm's printer. Not even original stuff, just the company line over and over and over and over. If one tries to fight back, they are shut down by people who alert in groups and are guilty of far worse, usually on the same thread they had the person deleted from. If Skinner truly means it when he says we all have to put our big girl panties on and deal with each other, I for one would like to salute that.

This site was alot better when the majority was able to say how they felt. My only request would be to PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE bring back the anti-spam 3 thread a day limit. Edited to say: Even if that limit is just on reposting someone else's writing.

[ProSense]

215. " in favor of spam threads straight off of Rahm's printer"

Are you're referring to articles or pieces that put the President in a positive light?

Well, the phenomenon you're referring to that supposed to be indicative of what's not progressive isn't really indicative of that. It's really about people's expectations and inflexibility. For example, here is a piece by Richard Kirsch who was with Health Care for America Now and just became a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

The second comment in response:

This article has all the substance of a pep rally. I’m not sure it should have a place on this website.

The fourth:

While progressives have many valid complaints about the Affordable Care Act, I always find it strange that so many are so quick to dismiss a bill that provides upwards of $800 billion in health insurance subsidies, covers over 30 million more people, and represents the greatest progressive redistribution since the 1960s. Accomplishments aren’t meaningless because they’re not everything you had hoped for.

See, this debate isn't unique, but it does show that simply referring positive articles about the President as being "straight off of Rahm's printer" isn't taking what's really going on into account.

[Yuugal]

219. You misunderstand me

I'm talking about just spamming the same news feed all day. Its boring and pushes threads that have actual original content to the bottom. That is why we are degenerating into nasty one-liners to each other. Why write anything original when ten minutes later there are 14 new threads of cnn type crapola flooding every group? How many times today did we see that some obscure college ranked the presidents? 10? More? ENOUGH. Why can't people write something themselves and not spam 50 "news" threads all day. Save that crap for latest breaking news.

[ProSense]

235. "I'm talking about just spamming the same news feed all day. "

"How many times today did we see that some obscure college ranked the presidents? 10?"

How many times was the Jon Stewart piece slamming the President posted? How many times did we see the Tom Tomorrow cartoon.

"Why can't people write something themselves and not spam 50 "news" threads all day."

I see plenty of original writing, but why should someone spend time writing original posts that will sink because they're considered "right off Rahm's printer" and typically sink?

The fact is that the complaints are rooted in not wanting to see anything positive.

[Yuugal]

236. I guess you still don't understand

I'll try again: A spam post to me is one in which the poster has contributed 1% and their news source has contributed 99%. Great for latest breaking news and padding post counts, disaster for GD GDP and anywhere else people want to actually discuss issues and not just hear the echoes of talking heads.

[ProSense]

241. Don't agree

"A spam post to me is one in which the poster has contributed 1% and their news source has contributed 99%."

There are numerous pieces that do not qualify for posting in LBN, for example announcements, blog posts and older news that may have been missed.

People post things for discussion, but there have alway been a few people who post only sourced material. That doesn't prevent anyone from discussing the information.

[Yuugal]

257. Look at your own threads from GDP

Have you ever wondered why so many have only a few replies? Most of those threads are just retreads of some "news" with zero added. That is the kind of thread that pushes thoughtful stuff actually written by DUers right off the page. I would like to see more user generated content and less of people seeing how many threads they can post a day.

How about this thread? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x361992

2 replies, 0 recs and already posted all over DU multiple times. How is the spamming helping us? We end up with 10 threads about the same thing all with under 10 replies each.

[ProSense]

264. I see the problem

You don't like to see positive stuff.

You think the number of recs are an indication of whether or not the piece is of value?

There are a lot of discussions ongoing in threads with zero recs.

[Bobbie Jo]

269. ...and there you have it.

[Yuugal]

278. Vital posts with 2 replies

to something posted 10 times already. OK. I'll let Go2Peace handle it from here.

[Hutzpa]

285. Both of you are on the same path

but the disagreement is on technicalities.

[ProSense]

287. You seem hung up on

how many replies and recs a thread gets. That isn't the reason for posting, you know?

Some threads don't get a single response and make it to the greatest page, others get dozens of responses and zero recs.

[Yuugal]

298. And others get posted 40 times

Why can't people follow the hint that they see before they post which says: Check first and make sure you aren't reposting something over and over?

[Bobbie Jo]

324. Psssst.

Don't read it. Problem solved. Life goes on.

[Yuugal]

330. Try paying attention before getting cute

The problem is the spam is crowding out the discussion. Threads with replies head right off the pages to make room for 100 new threads about the same 10 subjects. A simple thread limit for each poster would suffice.

[Bobbie Jo]

335. Actually, I can get cute *while* paying attention.

Paying attention enough to see where you're going with nit-picking, and to whom it was directed.

I was only suggesting that you deal with it, that's all.

[ProSense]

336. This is a strawman. Why is it

impossible to ignore a thread or hide it?

No one is forcing you to read, comment on or care about a thread.

[conscious evolution]

712. quite often copycat threads

are being used as forum sliders.Their only purpose is to ensure that an unwanted OP disappears or at least gets dumped from the top of the forum page.

[Go2Peace]

267. You make a good point.

But I don't think you recognize the dynamic. People who do this kind of posting beget others who do the same.

[ProSense]

276. There is absolutely no dynamic

This board is a mix of posts varying from news to opinions to announcements and press releases.

During the health care debate the same three PNHP press releases were posted over and over, had to be more than a hundred times.

[Go2Peace]

296. By how many different people?

This is useless to argue about though. Go ahead and continue to post (or support such posters) as you feel. You are not going to change my opinion about participating in information manipulation on that scale. I believe it is part of our problems. I don't like it when Republicans do it, nor do I think we should counter their fire with the same values or tactics. Just my opinion.

[Mimosa]

788. Prosense you've posted 3 topics on the same thing in 2 days

You've posted 3 times that I've seen links and excerpts about the Governments health insurance program. It was interesting to go there and learn there was nothing which would help me escape from oppressive unaffordable premiums. Not unless I drop health insurance for 6 months. Then I have to hope my state will have a pool available, and not filled up, to which I can apply!

[Go2Peace]

255. I don't think anyone is opposed to positive articles

as long as they are not heavily spun, as liberals tend to appreciate more factual basis. They are (of course) entirely appropriate and informing.

It is more the prolific, multiple posting of the same point in multiple OPs stating the same case over and over and all day long. Whether it is the case or not, for a liberal that has the taste of manipulation and the sport of disinformation.

That kind of thing works well in the shallow space that Republicans populate, but most liberals are very aware of the art of manipulation and have a strong bias of wanting to have open discussion. It just doesn't play well here.

[Yuugal]

261. Bless you

Better put than I can do it.

[ProSense]

268. "as long as they are not heavily spun" What does that mean?

Who determine what is spin? Do you think negative articles aren't spun?

"It is more the prolific, multiple posting of the same point in multiple OPs stating the same case over and over and all day long."

You mean like calling out the DLC, referring to Dems as coporatists, denouncing the war?

Is there a quota for posting articles or pieces that express those sentiments?

[Go2Peace]

275. Well, sure it can be spin too, so that justifies more spin?

and where do we end up? And do you really think that on a progressive board, it is effective? Or does it just lead to two groups of people who prefer to fight each other going at it?

I can see this being a little more effective on different sites. But on DU it just seems to do nothing but get everyone's backs up. So why participate in it?

[ProSense]

280. The problem is that

you are not the arbiter of spin.

[Go2Peace]

288. no, but I also do not participate in it

I rarely even post OPs anymore on this site.

[Zhade]

322. Ah, but then -- neither are you. Yet you act as such.

Consider your own reflection when making such statements.

[ProSense]

325. I do no such thing

I have an opinion, I do not insist it should be yours.

[Go2Peace]

286. "as long as they are not heavily spun"

I find that to be a fairly straighforward comment? Do you really not understand what I meant?

You know, we can argue about how far an article has to misrepresent, overrepresent, underrepresent, or whatever. But why? We both know what the answer to that is.

If I am talking to a child and he/she avoids telling me the truth about something even when I have asked for the truth. We can argue day and night and not get anywhere. That is the nature of ethical vs unethical behavior. At some point spinning, when people are asking to get the truth, is simply unethical. Ultimately it becomes obstructive. If we can't agree about that than we have different values and it will be difficult for us to find common ground on it.

[ProSense]

289. No it's not straightfoward.

It's a statement without context. What spin? Opinions vary as to what is or isn't spin.

[Go2Peace]

303. "Opinions vary as to what is or isn't spin."

why do I feel like this is not a transparent discussion? Shall we agree to disagree?

[Go2Peace]

227. Actually, the majority are progressive, but a minority is very forceful and prolific

in posting. It is a testament to their effectiveness that they have many convinced they are the majority.

[Yuugal]

234. I agree

I'm just saying we don't get treated like a majority. How many of the other side have ever gotten a pizza? Only 1 that I can remember and a minor one at that. Our side? Too many to count. Same goes for deleted posts because they work as a team to alert and the mods don't ever seem to read the rest of the thread to make sure they are being fair. Just happened to me today.

[ProSense]

446. If you agree, that it's a minority, why is everyone complaining so frequently?

You want everyone who disagrees, even if it's a minority, to go away?

[defendandprotect]

646. When free speech is curtailed here because of a squeaky minority wheel . . .

I see there should be complaints--!!

And, it does lead to questions of where this small minority has gotten its

power to so influence this website? Not from their own numbers, shirley?

[Bryn]

209. K&R

I am speechless, but you're right. It's just not fair that I have to be stuck with Blanche Lincoln. She's too blue dog for me. And too corporatist as well. I cannot hold my nose to vote for her. That'd be like beating a dead horse. She's already gone because so many of progressive dems are pissed with her. We had a very good chance with Bill Halter, but that blue big Dawg named Bill Clinton had to, had to come and back her. So did Obama. Because of that, we are going to be stuck with that big dumb asshole named John Boozman.

[Frank Booth]

220. "As the Republican Party dies off"

Talk about wishful thinking. I don't know why so many Democrats think that people just won't vote for Republicans, but it's a constant problem. Many people told me Dubya wouldn't win in 2000 because he was an obvious idiot. And maybe he didn't win, but he came close enough to let the Supreme Court throw it to him.

I guarantee we'll have future Republican presidents, and Sarah Palin will probably be one of them (maybe the last, since she'll destroy the country, if not the world). Most people aren't real bright, and the media, which is the propaganda wing of the moneyed class, constantly promotes the Republican party. It's a stacked deck, and there's no reason to expect that will change anytime soon.

[KonaKane]

239. Ohhhhhh, if only.

[HughMoran]

273. 'Bout time somebody pointed out that the entire post was built on a false assumption

There's so much wrong with this thread.

[defendandprotect]

652. The GOP is now a minority running our House and Senate . . .!!!

Something Democrats have refused to do when they have been the minority -- !!

And something the Democrats are failing to stop now by permiting the farce of the

filibuster to go on and on -- without actually making the GOP perform!

Our elections have been in question since the mid and late 1960's when the large computers

used by MSM and small computers used for voting began to come in.

That goes back to Nixon/Humphrey -- another 100,000 vote difference.

The popular vote for Gore was huge -- and the only reason that Bush got into the White House

was because of the GOP-sponsored fascist rally to stop the vote counting in Miami-Dade county

-- and the Gang of 5 on the Supreme Court.

What you're basically saying is that corporate fascism has overtaken the nation -- and I certainly

agree! They also countrol the voting machine -- and absentee ballots are counted on computers!


Before the MSM had large computers, they were only able to report actual vote tallies.

The large computers gave them new powers to PREDICT and CALL elections -- to PREDICT and

CALL Electoral College votes and to PROCLAIM a new president! What we saw in 2000 was simply

a reversal of those new powers!

[nadinbrzezinski]

224. Proud to recommend

and history is showing you to be right... albeit some of the conservadems have been around since before this started, in obvious manner that is.

But many these days who call themselves dems were republicans but a generation ago. A few serve in Congress these days.

[GeorgeGist]

225. Big D Democratic principles ...

are a compromise, Greed is the core.

[quaker bill]

226. The problem for liberals is the same

as it has always been. On a good day, we comprise roughly 20 percent of the voters. This is a large number of people, but not nearly enough to win elections. To win elections, we have to ally with folks who do not self-identify as "liberals".

Howard Dean got this.

You do not form alliances by making the demand for full an unerring support for "liberalism". It is a path one can choose, but losing elections on principle is losing elections. One can also elections without principle, in either case you get the same result, the other side runs the country.

All the principles in the world, as high minded and laudable as they might well be, without the power to implement them, are precisely not relevant.

As liberals we have a choice, make compromises and implement what we can, or refuse compromise and watch the country head in a very different direction.

I prefer alliance and compromise to defeat. I have seen defeat and it is not pretty.

[MannyGoldstein]

231. 17 Years of compromise and "victory"... and here we are

The middle class is destroyed.

We need to go on the offensive.

[KonaKane]

243. I have a conservative in law who says liberals cannot hold and manage power.

I badly want to say he's wrong.

But as things stand, I'm not sure I can.

[MannyGoldstein]

300. Liberals owned the US 1933-1969. 36 years!

Even Eisenhower had a top tax rate of 91% on the wealthy. Nixon was far, far to the left of Obama.

Liberals can hold power just fine.

[ProSense]

306. "Nixon was far, far to the left of Obama."

If that's the case, shouldn't your statement be edit to: "Liberals owned the US 1933-1973." That is unless you believe President Obama is a teabagger?

[Name removed]

316. Deleted message

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

[defendandprotect]

653. And then came the large computers used by MSM ... and the voting computers ...

mid-and-late 1960's . . .

just about the time that America was passing the Voting Rights Act!

Before the MSM had large computers, they were only able to report actual vote tallies.

The large computers gave them new powers to PREDICT and CALL elections -- to PREDICT and

CALL Electoral College votes and to PROCLAIM a new president! What we saw in 2000 was simply

a reversal of those new powers!

[KonaKane]

721. I think he was referring to recent liberal trends, as in AC (After Clinton)

And you cannot seriously say Richard antisemite bigot Nixon was far far to the left of Obama.

[ProSense]

245. Compromise didn't destroy the middle class

Corporate greed and corporate sympathizers did.

Every Congress and President compromises.

[spoony]

251. Fascinating that you don't see the connection between those two sentences.

The compromises are almost always in favour of the corporations.

[ProSense]

259. "The compromises are almost always in favour of the corporations."

Every Congress and President compromises. It happened 70 years ago too.

It's facinating that you think corporations/corporate sympathizers and compromise are one in the same.

For example: There are currently 14 members of Congress who Senator Kerry had to compromise with on the climate bill because they are from coal states. They include Senators Brown, Feingold and Franken. I'm sure you wouldn't consider any of these Senators corporate sympathizers.

[defendandprotect]

655. Right . . . . corporate government ... corporate government officials . . .

we're voting for the leadereship which TPB want us to have!!

[MannyGoldstein]

308. You're actually correct.

While people like to say that Clinton, Obama, and the rest of that crowd compromised away the middle class, history shows that their corporatism and evisceration of the middle class was actually their goal. For example, Clinton pushed job-obliterating almost-free trade with China - he didn't just give in to it. Rubin and Summers pushed for total bank deregulation - it wasn't just a compromise. Obama pushed for enormous banker bailouts with zero new regulation, while ignoring people like Paul Krugman who told him that he needed to take far more action in order to save the middle class.

[Raineyb]

365. With Democrats who claim to be the party of the people capitulating at every turn.

And when you don't have to compromise and you give up shit to appease the other side its not compromise it's capitulation, so don't get it twisted.

[defendandprotect]

656. Another example was Kerry announcing the other day Dems were ready to compromise more...

on the climate bill!

[quaker bill]

390. Where do you get 17?

The most I can come up with is 3.5 out of 30. I would count '93 to '95 and '09 to date.

Then there is the obvious question raised by my post: Go on the offensive with what army?

The unfortunate bit is the only way to gather an army large enough to go effectively on the offensive is to ally with some folks you and I probably don't agree with. More unfortunately yet, the only way to keep them in alliance is to give them some measure of power and control over the direction of the offensive.

If you read history, you will find smart commanders only starting battles they think they can win. Losing this battle is less than worthless, it is counter productive as it advances the cause of those we truly oppose.

[defendandprotect]

654. Agree . . . the compromise began with our schizophrenic Constitution . . .!!

[Scurrilous]

232. + 1

:thumbsup:

[Hutzpa]

279. Where has that gotten us?

I might asked. Isn't it the very same thing we are fighting against with the blue dogs standing in the way
of every legislation proposed by this President, and here you are advocating the very same thing we fought
hard to eradicate, well not completely.

[quaker bill]

399. It has gotten us

very modest levels of control in congress and the Whitehouse. Failure to compromise lost us the Supreme Court for likely a generation and has filled the bench with a lifetime of conservative jurists. Failure to compromise got us Bush and republican control of congress, two wars, massive deficits, torture, and a deeply damaged economy.

Defeat is the ultimate compromise and should not be accepted under any terms.

[defendandprotect]

659. Could you explain which compromises you're talking about here . . .

Supreme Court -- ? Which compromises are you talking about?

And on W gaining White House . . . which compromises are you suggesting there?

And which compromise lost us greater levels of control in Congress and White House?


Keep in mind that our own Constitution is a very flawed document because of the

compromise with slavery -- and the failure to actuall proclaim "all are created equal" --

It's a schizophrenic document at best --

leaving women and native Americans and Africans enslaved here to less than equal status!

THAT compromise also led to the Civil War from which we still haven't recovered --

a war which enriched elites and created corrupt corporate power.

[quaker bill]

715. It was the lack of compromise

Or the old fashioned "18 state" strategy, run over and over again to defeat. Gore ran the 18 state stragegy better than most, so he probably, truth ever be told, squeaked one out in FL.

However, best case scenario, he'd of barely won and had a republican congress to deal with.

[defendandprotect]

733. Obviously, the 50 State/Howard Dean plan is what we need . . .

is that what you're saying?

I don't know where you've been, but Gore WON the popular vote -- by way more than

500,000+ -- and the journalists who did the recount say that Gore won overall, including

in Florida ---!! And it probably wasn't a "squeaker" -- considering that there were

3,000+ votes which went to Buchanan on the ILLEGAL "butterfly ballot" --

and the need for the GOP to run a GOP-sponsored fascist rally to stop the vote counting in

Miami Dade County -- and then going even further to call on the right wing Gang of 5 to

put Bush in the White House --

My concerns about Gore is the man himself -- and his VP -- Lieberman . . . quite a Trojan

Horse there!

[Zhade]

You know, just once I'd like to see them compromise with US.

One-way "compromises" don't fit the bill -- that's called "capitulation".

I'm not compromising my values. Not on torture. Not on the rule of law. Or human rights. Or holding criminals accountable. PERIOD.

[quaker bill]

394. I do negotiation for a living

Specifically, I negotiate settlement of environmental enforcement cases.

People compromise at your request when they know you hold the winning hand. When they know that you don't, they stand their ground and demand further compromise from you.

One does not need to compromise one's values to choose a course that results in victory. Defeat is the ultimate compromise and defeat should never be accepted in the service of one's sense of ego-purity.

Without alliances, we don't hold the winning hand.

I do agree with the sentiment, I would love to see compromise coming our way. The way to get this to happen is to win elections, not an election every once in a great while, but consistently, by large margins, over and over. In short, make it clear you have the winning hand.

[defendandprotect]

664. And to win elections we need to rid ourselves of this computer based system ....

the large computers used by MSM and the smaller voting computers began to come in

during the mid-late-1960's . . . just about the time America was passing The Voting

Rights Act!

Until then, MSM could only report actual vote tallies --

the large computers gave them new powers to PREDICT and CALL elections --

to PREDICT and CALL the Electoral College and DECLARE a candidate the new president!

We simply saw a reversal of that in 2000 --

Even absentee ballots are counted by computer now --

I'd question every election back to Nixon/Humphrey!



AND needless to say to bar corporations from any participation whatsoever in our elections!

[Zhade]

748. I'm not allying myself with anyone who excuses torture, indefinite detention without trial...

...or any other authoritarian mindset. I have to sleep at night.

We HAVE the winning hand. A majority of Americans hold liberal positions. Check the polls. For example, UHC/Single Payer/Public Option. Every single one of these are supported by a majority of Americans. Yet despite their popularity with the American public, we didn't get anything close to that in the end.

We hold the hand, but our elected officials keep pulling aces from their sleeves to trump us.

[defendandprotect]

660. +1000%

[Political Tiger]

343. A common sense post! THANK YOU! n/t

[HughMoran]

416. "I have seen defeat and it is not pretty."

Tell me about it - all too many elections lost that could have been won. Working for defeat seems to be more Republican that not in my humble opinion. Good post.

[txlibdem]

272. This may not help DU but

For every step dems take toward the right, the pubbies take two steps farther away. Repeat about a thousand times and here we are. If you transplanted a group of ultra conservative politicians from Europe to our congress they would be championing every social program the left in America feels is too much of a leap. We are inches away from fascism as it is.

"When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out."
- Martin Niemoller
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller

The Communists were routed from America in the 1930s, as were the social democrats. The trade unions have all but vanished.

What is the next step?

[Jakes Progress]

453. Shhhh. You will impede our "progress" backwards.

Who will speak out for you? That is the basis of the union movement. It is not simple solidarity. It is solidarity to an end. We do not back down. We do not give in. We do not give up.

"What is the next step?" It's the political "Time Warp" Just a step to the right. Then a step to the right.

[truedelphi]

600. What you are saying resonates totally with me.

Our PBS station out of San Francisco has had two different shows over the last 18 months that examined what went down in Chile.

It was the Progressives that were disappeared - the people fighting for living wages, environmental reforms, justice in the courts, who the secret police took off to the torture chambers, and then killed, often by being thrown from a plane to the depths of the Ocean.

Neither of the two main parties there cared, and the "official" word was - no one was being disappeared.

It took a long time to resolve the matter.

As far as I can tell, this could happen here.

[Warren DeMontague]

284. Were you here for the 2004 primaries?

The Democratic Party, if you recall, nominated a man who voted for the Iraq War Resolution. This place was a mess. Eventually, then, as now, the folks in charge here established that, yes, we may not all agree on everything (for one, I sure as hell didn't like the IWR) but the rules stipulate supporting the Democratic Party, Democratic Candidates, Democratic Nominees, etc. etc. Or at the very least not openly opposing them or supporting other Parties.

Lots of people couldn't hack that, then, either. And left.

My point is, if you honestly think that you have a monopoly on "Core Democratic Principles", or that everyone who doesn't agree with you on everything isn't a "real Democrat", or that this fight is even somehow something new.... you haven't been paying attention.

[Yuugal]

294. Speaking of paying attention

Those people who think a real progressive is for either war we are fighting right now OR EVER WILL BE, no matter how much browbeating we get, just doesn't know anything about being a progressive. You can't be a progressive and be for wars of empire.

[Warren DeMontague]

297. Drawing a line in the sand as to what constitutes a "real progressive" has nothing to do with it.

Speaking of browbeating, go take it up with someone who fits the description of whatever off-topic axe you're trying to grind, because
a) it's not me, and
b) the OP is about the Democratic Party and the allegedly "new" problems on DU.

[Yuugal]

311. Guess I hit a nerve

I wasn't even referring to you.

[Warren DeMontague]

369. Oh, yeah, you got my number. Either that, or you should work on your communications skills.

Don't know, but there are probably an infinite of unrelated things we could ramble on about, and vague implied insults we could make, that still wouldn't have anything to do with the

...uh, what's it called? Oh, yeah. Topic of the thread.

[HughMoran]

432. The "you can't be for this and be a progressive" posters

...define the problem here at DU IMO.

I can disagree with any poster on any of a number of topics, I may even put them on ignore if I disagree with them on everything (ie.e, why I'm responding to you and not the one above), but you'll never see me state that someone is not 'progressive' or 'liberal' enough unless they post thoughts that are clearly right-wing or that would tend to lead to Republicans being elected.

[Warren DeMontague]

570. That's pretty much the raison d'etre of the entire OP.

Basically, "everyone who pisses me off or doesn't agree with me on the following laundry list is a stealth Republican who just showed up and is fucking up the Democratic Party".

Not only is that divisive and empirically, provably wrong, I have to wonder where these folks have been for, well, as long as *I* have been alive. There hasn't been a single Democratic President in my lifetime; shit, in anybody here's lifetime- who hasn't pissed off or disappointed a certain segment of "the left".

Whatever it is, it's not "new".

[Zhade]

759. Sure, but that also doesn't mean it's acceptable.

Which I assume you also understand.

[Warren DeMontague]

779. Define "acceptable". I'm not 100% thrilled with everything Obama has or hasn't done.

Some of it, I'm disappointed about, some of it, I expected. I did not, for instance, expect him to pull all our troops out of Afghanistan, whether or not I personally think that's a good idea. I did not, for instance, genuinely expect a Single Payer Health Care system, despite the fact that it remains my ideal for a whole long list of reasons. And, I expected to be disappointed on various unforeseen fronts, much as I was by Bill Clinton.

Yet, Bill Clinton was a far superior President to all the others that had come before in my lifetime, and certainly to the one that followed. And no, that does not mean that I give up working and pushing for the things I believe in~ but I can support Obama, and the Democratic Party, while still being disappointed or frustrated on several fronts.

So I guess the question is, as far as 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable' goes- what then?

[defendandprotect]

668. Yes . . . seems pretty clear to me!!

[KonaKane]

309. I wasn't here but I heard it was a bloodbath.

The friend who turned me on to this place was sort of "asked to leave" (tombstoned?) because of his support of Howard Dean. It doesnt seem as if the same type of split exists here on that note, but is instead ideological and being exacerbated by a couple of single issue groups who do not like that Obama has not given them everything they want.

At least that's the way it looks from this perch.

[Warren DeMontague]

370. Yeah, it was a mess.

And in retrospect, I'm of the opinion Dean would have made the better nominee, far and away. But who knows.

No matter how you slice it, this "situation" is hardly unprecedented for DU.

[faceit]

302. Dead on.

This endless defense of indefensible policy, appointments, and corporate sell outs is obscene.

POLICY OVER POLITICIAN

Letter after a name does not tell the story.

[Tsiyu]

312. You know what I think?

I think most of you spend way too much time on DU.

It's a freaking message board, and people are going to disagree.

Skinner was wise enough to let this post stay for discussion's sake. To let it be aired out.

But the bottom line is: people are going to be very unhappy with Obama, and the Obama supporters will have to deal with that. we are not free republic. we allow disagreement

And there have ALWAYS been rightwing Dems on this site since I joined. What else is new?

Skinner isn't going to make one side go away for you.

So just say what you feel - as respectfully as is merited - and if this site isn't working for you, find another.

I'm as left as they get, and I just don't let myself be dismayed by those more moderate.

And I'm still here.....

[KonaKane]

317. Stop making sense.

Next thing you know, we may be cutting each other more slack!

[Tsiyu]

513. This is one of those times when I really, really, really

wish i was still on the radio...

and this will have to be my last post on this gargantuan thread!

Dialup sucks!

PS. still thinking about our ideas...suddenly got a lot on my plate and have had to focus on more mundane issues, but I'm still brewing over it.

Hope you are well :)

[KonaKane]

648. Thanks, comrade.

I'm ready to roll if you get to a point where you are too.

[rhett o rick]

447. If you got from my post that I want Skinner to "make one side go away", then I did a bad

job of making my point. And I am not surprised. I am not a scholar and struggle to get my posts to present my thoughts. I learn from discussion and am only trying to point out that it seems to me that criticism of the Democratic Party or the Pres is met here with attacks and not discussion. These attackers seem to be immune while I see posters from the left get TS. I welcome disagreement but get frustrated by the hit and run, attack posts.

Question, if I may. Has Pres Obama replaced any of the Bush partisan, Rove hand picked, US Attorneys? If not, isnt anyone curious as to why?

I have been to other site and I'm still here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

470. He's nominated at least 67 US attorneys

April 14, 2010

Obama has now made 67 U.S. Attorney nominations, 36 of whom have already won Senate confirmation.

On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder called on panel members to move “more expeditiously” on U.S. Attorney nominees. He said the number of would-be U.S. Attorneys stalled in the Senate is “unusual.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the committee’s ranking Republican, responded Wednesday that the panel shouldn’t be faulted for failing to get more U.S. Attorneys through the Senate. He said there is a “lack of nominations” coming out of the White House.

http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/04/14/obama-taps-seven-u-s-attorneys/

[rhett o rick]

473. Thank you. I did not have that information and apparently not

good at searching to find it. I appreciate the information and glad that we are proceeding, even if slowly. I know the Republicans in the Senate arent helping.

[defendandprotect]

671. This is true . . . and when Democrats as minority held up even a few . . . GOP exploded ...

This has been more than a year of nominations being stalled by GOP --

and the public isn't even aware of it, as best I can tell --

Meanwhile, the original Kagan/Holder reinvestigation of the Siegelman case

was seemingly conducted by Bush hold-overs . . . the very people who put

Siegelman in this difficulty!

[Tsiyu]

511. I was responding to all on this thread who are really upset

Believe me, I understand your frustration. I really do.

As far as DADT, I am not happy, but I have to tell you a story.

Last week, trying to find NPR on the radio, i heard Obama's voice. I stopped to listen. it was him talking about hospitals having to recognize LGBT partners as having a right to be involved in their partners' health care.

I guess he was at a GBLT conference or something.

He was uncompromising, and showed great compassion in his words.

THE FUNDIES were playing this crap on their religious station so all the other fundies could be OUTRAGED I tell ya! TEH GAY are getting rights from the (insert evil invective about Obama here.)

I, too, want Obama to break tho chains of politics and despair. But I've been paying attention to politics since I cast my first ever vote - for Carter. And I know that politics move slowly.

* was able to railroad his agenda because he had support from many, many other evil politicians. Obama does not, and he has to use the corrupt, crappy system he's got.

but I was impressed at how he did not compromise on the LGBT patients' rights issue. If he was as bad as some say, he would not have even gone out on a limb as far as he did. And even the patients' rights issue is burning the rightie-tighties panties off them.

Keep bitching and complaining, I do not blame you. And just don't get upset over those who disagree with you. I always hope that they will absorb some of the progressive ideals and change their minds.

that won't happen without discussion. Hold firm to your ideals, and hold Obama's feet to the fire. I sure have. You never know who will suddenly see the light!

:hug:

[rhett o rick]

719. Thanks for the thoughtful post. I truly want Pres Obama to succeed.

Even though there are those that equate my failure to follow the President lock-step and question some of his decisions, means I am a Republican. I get frustrated when I ask legitimate questions and just get attacks from those that support corporatists.

[Dawgs]

584. How about 'he has a really hard job, and some things just take time'.

Do you really think he sits around all day with nothing to do?

Here's a question for you. Is President Obama the only person in government responsible for making change?

It drives me nuts when I constantly see DUers criticize Obama for not doing something that is someone else's (Congress) responsibility. There is more than one branch of government and all are responsible for approving and ending wars, creating law, and implementing change.

You should now that by now.

[defendandprotect]

670. Think you did quite well . . . and this post even clearer . . .

The DOJ should have been the first thing overturned!!

[spoony]

782. You're too hard on yourself

I think your points are good and come across just fine.

[rhett o rick]

792. Thank you. nm

[SemperEadem]

483. wish I could recommend your post because I would

thank you.

[Tsiyu]

512. Thank you

Hope your day is going well, Semper Eadem.

:hi:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

328. K&R

[grahamhgreen]

338. Here is the core problem

Progressive, FDR style solutions are poo-pooed by DLC'ers and 'not politically feasible' (single-payer off the table, advocates arrested, etc.), yet these are the only real solutions to our countries problems.

We need to have legitimate discourse on these things.

(such as: out of iraqistan & the so called free trade agreements, prosecution for war crimes\ending rendition and torture, repealing the financial services modernization act, taxing the ultra rich, etc)

[pnwmom]

346. Here is another core problem.

Only a small minority of Democrats even talk about "corporatists" or the "DLC" -- not enough to carry a general election on their own. The way we achieved the majorities we had in 2008 was by being a party with a larger umbrella than the Republicans.

[grahamhgreen]

624. But that's what I mean, instead of talking about our real solutions,

the discussion is quickly moved away from the core structural changes that need to take place to solve our counties problems.

[defendandprotect]

672. Absolutely . . restore New Deal rules/restrictions on corporate America --

end "too big to fail" corporatism --

and bail outs --

Knocking out Reagan/Bush tax cuts for rich --

Overturning the trade agreements -- etal --

We've lost our best chance yet for single payer because of corporate money influencing

government -- and sadly the Democratic Party!

[Enthusiast]

348. K&R

The Republican solution is to take over the Democratic Party.

[onehandle]

351. There are some at DU who promote Blue Dogs every day as the second coming.

They also see themselves as the second coming of MLK.

And DU's owners just accept it.

[johnaries]

355. REALLY! I have been here since 2004 and have NEVER seen

a single post supporting Blue Dogs. Can you point me to any threads?

[defendandprotect]

675. You must have missed ....

the poster with the HUGE BLUE DOG permanently displayed on his posts?

May have removed it recently?


But my experience with the DLC supporters is that they come out sporatically

to attack -- generally keep their affiliation quiet.

But, certainly trying to influence administration and to curtail the free speech

here they don't like -- i.e., anti DLC speech -- anti-corproate speech -- etal.

[leveymg]

353. If only you were right about the die-off of the GOP.

I'm afraid November will show us the beast, though wounded, is still very much alive and capable of mobilizing its zombie followers. Like the Cloverfield Monster, you can't be sure whether they actually killed the thing.

[defendandprotect]

677. The only way the GOP/right wing can rise or stay in power ...

is thru violence -- and we've seen 50+ years of blatant right wing political violence

in America!

The rest of it is also all bought twith right wing wealth --

from GOP giving start-up funding to the Christian Coalition to Richard Scaife fiancing

Dobson's organization -- and other wealthy financing Bauer's organization.

After violence, right wing religion is their first tool out of the box.

That also applies to creation of the Taliban/Al Qaeda to lure Russians into Afghanistan ...

in hopes of giving them a Vietnam type experience!

Those notoriously violent Islamic textbooks were also created by US . . . written, and printed

here and shipped into ME to create a violent form of Islam!

See my journal on these points, if you're interested --

T-baggers are also created by right wing wealthy --

Every right wing organization is similarly created --



I would add however, that offering "bipartisanship" kept them in business --

permitting them to "filibuster" without doing so also allows the minority to control

USHR and Congress and the agenda!

Further, had we actually passed a MEDICARE FOR ALL, the Demcoratic Party would have been

set for the next 40 years!

[leveymg]

786. "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half." Jay Gould, banker, tycoon

Same philosophy, same tactics. Local and global. Still works, doesn't it?

[defendandprotect]

804. Yep ... and as FDR put it more or less ... "you can't sell democracy to hungry people" ....

Elites are very busy profiting from "harvesting slave labor all over the globe" --

and I'd suggest that so much destruction has been done in America that it's all

downhill for them from here on!

[Name removed]

364. Deleted message

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

[spoony]

367. You dare speak of irony after that subject line? nt

[JoeyT]

382. A lot of my argument with the people that call themselves pragmatists was obvious

during the voting on Health Insurance Reform.

They were pissed right along with us when Blue Dogs held up the process to move the bill to the right. Then they were just as pissed at the people on the left that held it up trying to move it back to the left. It didn't matter what was in the bill, just so long as the bill made it through. In the end it was about beating the other side, not reforming health care. And THAT is why I refuse to refer to myself as a "pragmatist". Because it's not about pragmatism, it's about chalking up wins for the team, even if those wins kill any hope of real progress in the future. Of course it's claimed we'll go back and fix it. Probably right after we get around to fixing NAFTA.

[defendandprotect]

678. Well said . . . agree --

[FrenchieCat]

385. I'm going where and doing what I need to do to win this upcoming election.....

y'all just keep on discussing and rediscussing the DU rules, hear?

:boring:

[MineralMan]

436. +1

Precisely.

[Jakes Progress]

457. I would suggest that would mean

garnering votes for the president. I would suggest that antagonizing those who are disenchanted with his policies is not a good way to do that. It might be personally satisfying and ego boosting, but if your goal is to win an election, you must subjugate your anger and desire to to good of the party. You don't do that by pissing people off.

[Kind of Blue]

480. Where in that response did you see antagonizing

and pissing people off? Even more clarity in the sig line: "SINCE THERE IS ONLY SO MANY HOURS IN A DAY AND AN ELECTION COMING UP, I'M GONNA USE MY TIME PRODUCTIVELY TO KICK REPUBLICAN ASS.....EVERYTHING ELSE IS NOW BULLSHIT, IMO" - FrenchieCat 6-30-2010"

Really, does kicking Republican ass antagonize and piss you off?

[Jakes Progress]

770. Wasn't talking to you.

Stick around for a while and read more posts by the person I was discussing this issue with. Frenchie knows what I mean.

What does piss me off are people who pop off without knowing what the hell they are talking about. Welcome to DU. Read for a while. Learn what is going on.

[Kind of Blue]

785. Gotcha, kicking republican ass does not

piss you off as much as asking for clarity on your cryptic post :rofl: Thanks for the late welcome, but no thanks on the offer to follow you or any other poster in your seemingly personal vendetta.

[Jakes Progress]

790. No. You still don't get it.

But that's okay. Some people just can't follow what is going on. They pick a single post to respond to out of a two hundred response thread and think they are somehow worth listening to. I know that for some, reading a whole lot of words is difficult. My suggestion is that you stick to the shorter threads. They are easier to follow. When someone jumps in on a long thread without knowing what is going on, without bothering to do the work to follow, he or she sure to see a post as cryptic, when the only one it is cryptic to is the one who isn't working at the same level.

I see you have already learned to use emoticons instead of actually having something to say. Nice intermediate step to actually contributing.

[Kind of Blue]

794. Sure do get it. In an over 200-response thread

yours stuck out to me because I see nothing wrong with kicking republican asses but the question is popping off to you, then an invite to follow your personal battle, not in this thread, to figure out what you're talking about - well, that's just funny and the emoticon was a good way to show this, since you can't hear me laughing.

But insults aside, you did answer my question though. Here's another one :)

[Jakes Progress]

796. Are you new?

What on earth would make you think that a post on DU would be against kicking republican asses? To a person who wasn't laughing to himself, that post would suggest further thinking. Most who don't bother to read the thread would at least have known there was something else going on. But not you. You kick in with a pointless question and then take umbrage at being asked to keep up with the forum. You do this again here by saying that I invited you to follow a personal battle. You would take it that way. I didn't invite you to follow a personal battle but to try to keep up with the issues being discussed in the thread. If you need background, tough. I'll let others school you.

Enjoy the emoticons. Shiny.

[Kind of Blue]

797. I haven't taken umbrage with anything you've

said. Just think you're funny. In your words, "...read more posts by the person I was discussing this issue with." Where? I looked, and surely not in this thread, which leads one to go find out what you're talking about in other threads and that's just silly.

If you can't explain your response to a post that suggests concentrating on kicking republican asses other than by being annoyed, pissed off and taking umbrage by a question than you are indeed laughable :rofl:

[Jakes Progress]

812. Glad you are amused

with yourself.

[Bluzmann57]

462. Absolutely!

Sometimes it seems like people (including me sometimes) don't have priorities straight. But you are correct in saying that maybe it's more important to get Dems elected. The alternative is entirely too scary. Two words. Joe Barton. That should be enough to scare anyone from voting republican and insure that we work hard to get Dems. elected.

[aikoaiko]

386. IMHO, there are not disctinct factions -- there is diversity of viewpoints and its not a problem

The manner in which some people communicate their disagreements is the problem.

[Dinger]

396. K & R

Excellent post.

[mochajava666]

402. Very well said

Rec

[Recursion]

431. That's a bit disingenuous

There is a cleft here, but it's about incrementalism vs. non-incrementalism. You probably do sincerely believe those who are more incrementalist than you are in the pockets of corporations, but that don't make it so.

[ProSense]

450. Exactly, it's the

difference between trying to kick 100-yard field goals and trying to get as far down the field as possible with the team you have.

[Bobbie Jo]

762. This is the bottom line.

"the difference between trying to kick 100-yard field goals and trying to get as far down the field as possible with the team you have."

I would add...neither of which is possible if you don't have possession of the ball.

[Javaman]

440. Probably the best mud sling fest thread in the history of DU EVER! n

Most definately bookmarking!

[lonestarnot]

443. Ha cha cha cha!

:applause:

[geek tragedy]

458. Self-serving bullshit post.

"Skinner, the problem is between us saintly progressives and the evil Obama-supporting Republicans"

[FSogol]

490. A lot of people are only happy if they can say, "I'm more liberal than you."

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

472. I don't completely agree but I'm Rec'cing it anyway

I think the issue isn't so much DINOism as authoritarianism. The Democratic Party should expand its respect for personal choices and liberty.

[rhett o rick]

476. I also dont completely agree. I am not good at stating my case clearly. nm

[earcandle]

475. Sticks and stones may break my bones.... Lets ignore the fake Dems, and keep building a strong party

There are more of us then there are them.  So don't ask them
for anything, just move forward without them. Recruit new
people into our cause.  As soon as you smell an irritant
posing as a rose, close your nostrils and walk. 

[SemperEadem]

479. the time probably has come for there to be a seperate website

that deals with what you ask.

In other words: it's time for you to put your money where your mouth (or typing fingers) is. Start your own site.

[Raineyb]

489. Where do you get off telling someone to leave? n/t

[defendandprotect]

679. If that's what you think . . .

perhaps it's time for you to leave -- !

Try debate and decussion -- it's what the websites about --

[Name removed]

486. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

488. Deleted message

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

[DirkGently]

501. Is it possible that instead of focusing on labeling

people and arguing over the meaning of terms of "liberal" and "progressive," let alone, "Democrat," and instead of relying just on forum rules, which seem like they should outline just the extremes of what behavior is permitted, we try to find a common ground as to what kind of discussion is constructive?

In other words -- and I happen to think this is a "progressive" value -- can we focus not on who people (allegedly) "are," but on what we do? How we argue? Yelling back and forth about who the "real" Dems or libs or progressives are just seems pretty unsolveable.

So does suggesting an entire group of people who have been here a while should leave because their point of view is unacceptable.

I know, pretty obvious, but obvious sometimes gets lost.

What are the problematic behaviors that de-rail discussion? Under what terms can we discuss policy (if that's a goal?) and Democratic leaders without devolving into warfare?

For example, I see a mutual accusation here that someone or another wants to "silence" or quash someone else. Other than the limits imposed by the forum rules, no one should be doing that, right? So jumping into any kind of thread with comments that amount to "You shouldn't be saying this," isn't helpful, short of stuff that really is violating the rules. Likewise, stretching to re-frame or re-characterize something to try to call it a rules violation seems like bad faith.

Does anyone think it's possible to propose a few basic principles that would fit within forum rules, and permit better discussion?

The first thing that occurs to me is an acknowledgement that both people who prioritize critiqueing Democrats and the administration (in the constructive way outlined in the rules) and those who find most criticism unwarranted, either because they have none, or because they prioritize the need to support all Democrats politically, BOTH have a place in the forum? The rules seem to suggest this is the case.

What concessions or acknowledgments is anyone seeking that would mitigate what seems to keep getting characterized as diametrically opposed views?

Can staunch supporters acknowledge that there IS such a thing as constructive criticism, that even sharp critique is not only not destructive or disloyal, but actually NECESSARY to advance liberal / progresive political goals? That WE, and not just people already elected are supposed to push and pull and complain, because that's actually how "change" occurs?

Can critics avoid dismissing those who feel the type of "compromise" we've seen from the administration and other Democratic leaders is the best possible approach as blind partisans, or not liberal enough?

Is there any way to talk about this stuff without non-productive, toxic hostility?

[nashville_brook]

522. the labels "pragmatic" and "idealistic" were bestowed by skinner -- so, really, the pragmatists win

by default, b/c really, so-called "idealists" (hitherto known as progressives, but now The Pragmatists would like to have that term too) are just blowing golden smoke rings at windmills or some such.

progressive (read: idealistic!) critique of Gitmo (b/c ANY critique is "idealistic" and what exists is "pragmatic") = i want my pony!
progressive critique of DADT = you're hurting the party
progressive critique of the hands-off approach in the Gulf = you just want Obama to plug the hole with his big toe

Skinner has laid out this "idealistic" vs "pragmatic" tension upthread. So, really -- what ARE the "problematic behaviors" other than disagreeing with the "pragmatists"?

[DirkGently]

533. Well, here's what bothers me

And this is from the expressly, "idealist," if that's what we're calling it point of view. I'll use "pragmatic" and "idealist" as terminology just for the sake of discussion here, with the hope that no one considers those terms perjorative.

1. - Suggesting that an entire group "start its own website" or leave the forum, or that the new forum rules were intended to grant ownership of the site to one "side" of the pragmatic / idealist divide. My *perception* is that "pragmatic" group does this more, but I could be wrong.

A monolithic viewpoint does not a discussion forum make. I don't want to purport to any superior understanding of the forum rules, but my reading is that universal agreement is not the intention of the site, and that a "wide diversity of views" is welcomed here, outside of specified behavior like name-calling.

Can we agree that neither "side" needs to go away, or not?

2. - Hinting darkly at having an inside track to banning posters from the site. In childish code, no less. This is not constructive in my view. Again, my perception is that this comes more from a small faction within the "pragmatic" side, but I wouldn't support that type of "The fix is in ... for US" mentality from anyone. It comes off, fairly or not, as vindictive and desperate. For political discussion to be productive, the better ideas should win, not the (claimed) inside track to power.

Can we all agree that purporting to have the ability to "fix" posters from one point of view or another is foul play?

3. - Labelling. As soon as you go to "us" and "them," you're at impasse. Someone upthread suggested there is a continuum of views, which is undoubtedly the truth. No one is here honestly who is not in favor of liberal / progressive / democratic / Democratic views. And even if they were, making that allegation doesn't get us any where. Everyone does this.

Can we all agree that we are who we say we are, and that no one is out to sabotage the President or liberalism, or the Democratic Party?

4. - Dissent is not disloyalty. I think the "all or nothing" point of view is widespread, but again my *perception* is that while critique of the administration and its leaders comes in all shapes and colors, the notion that any criticism is the same as unbridled condemnation of Democrats or Obama, violates the rules, and should be banned, comes more from the "pragmatic" side of this particular discussion. The rules simply don't go that far.

Can we agree that things like the level of compromise with the Republican party or monied interests, the degree to which Bush-era policies have / have not been reversed, etc. at least CAN be constructive conversation aimed at improving the Democratic Party and making the policy positions of liberals of various stripes known to the public?

Seems like there's a way to be reasonable if people are willing.

[nashville_brook]

543. i woud like to see this as an OP for larger discussion b/c i think you're *mediating* this very well

that's a quality that some of us might be a little low on. i know i'm i'm mighty disappointed to see the labeling dichotomy used by the board leadership b/c there's no "right" or "wrong" side of this and come November the Prags and the 'Deals are going to want each other to work for their campaigns...so, that should be interesting. i'm sure not going to want to walk a precinct with someone who thinks their "more pragmatic" than i am.

see...labels...just...piss...me...off. and it's really a shame what happened upthread b/c i don't know if it can be taken back.

[DirkGently]

564. Thanks. Could be it's gotten too ugly already.

[Starry Messenger]

627. I'm handing you this shiny internet

Would you like it wrapped? :D

[defendandprotect]

680. Agree with you . . . !

... and in turn, progressives are obviously not fighting back strongly enough

because we now have a minority "squeaky wheel" succeeding in having Skinner shutting

down debate and discussion in their favor!

We need more free speech on DU -- not less!

[smoogatz]

503. The majority of the voting population

is more progressive than either of the major political parties right now, on issue after issue. Healthcare, the war(s), global warming, the economy--you name it, the majority is WAY out in front of the government, which seems increasingly unable, or unwilling, to act in the actual best interests of the country. As Upton Sinclair reminds us, it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. And in our current system, we don't pay our representatives' salaries--corporations do. You can fight for the soul of DU or the Democratic party all you want, but unless you can change the current, corrupt electoral system, or come up with billions of dollars in donations/bribes, you're really just chasing your tail. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[newtothegame]

509. I stopped reading on the 4th sentence...if you really believe the Republican Party is dying off...

that's pretty naive.

[branders seine]

525. Skinner's problem is not our problem,

and it is not the Democratic party's problem. Your post states both our (progressive's) and our party's problems quite well.

Skinner's solution addresses *his* problem. Trying to interpret his solution in terms of our problem is nonsensical. Our problem lives on and gets worse by the hour.

The new rules mean we have to tap dance slightly more elaborately around key aspects of our problem. Given that the rapublican/corporate takeover of the Democratic party is the central issue facing Democrats for the next generation or so, either DU will find a way to remain relevant, or it won't. So far, it's not looking good, but the jury is still out.

[defendandprotect]

683. Agree with your summation . . . and it would quite well suit the Repugs to kill DU website ...

killing free speech here is certainly one way to do it --

Obviously this is a small group here succeeding in influencing Skinner beyond their

numbers.

[wtmusic]

528. In other words, don't use their labels, use mine

What's your idea of a Republican in Democrat clothing? A blue dog DINO? A "bad Democrat"? "core Democratic principles"?

Wouldn't it be nice if we all agreed with you on every issue. :eyes:

[Renew Deal]

530. Another 500+ posts on this?

People here are too self involved.

[defendandprotect]

684. No -- it shows the need for much more discussion on this . ..

especially given Skinner's views of the conflict being "idealists" vs "pragmatists" -- !!

[Aramchek]

535. so, everyone who supports Obama is now a DINO/DLC/RepukeAgent, right???

[dionysus]

540. apparently.

[SunsetDreams]

559. it would seem so

according to the OP anyway.

[Dawgs]

585. That's what I read. And, apparently many agree.

It's gotten really sad here on DU.

[DevonRex]

617. That's the gist of it. And they'd like all Obama supporters to have to answer a list of questions.

And take an oath. Or something like that.

"Have you now, or have you ever been..."

[defendandprotect]

686. How about an example of the issue . . . ????

Your is another presumption that this is about personalities --

it's not -- it's about issues --

[patrice]

539. I would agree with the dynamic described in OP, no matter how you label the

factions, if I could see a little more of a sense of reality about these laundry lists of stuff that President is supposed to "fix". NO! that doesn't mean that I am a double-crossing corporatist in disguise, it means that, at this point, ALL of the issues are being held hostage by Republicans who COUNT on Democrats being problems to other Democrats, this creates gridlock in the myriad details of negotiating policy and legislation, putting the double-crossers in control of our agenda.

I want to see the President held accountable in specific strategic ways that enhance and facilitate the process toward our goals. I know that's a LOT more work, but it's smarter than just kicking the walls down and letting the corporate raiders continue to run the ruins.

[defendandprotect]

688. And you don't question HOW and WHY the minority is controlling the Congress ...

when Democrats are the majority in both parties and have the White House?

[patrice]

704. Those question, the right ones, are part of the "LOT more work" needed to be effective

in this situation. My personal preference is for "Socratic" questioning that reveals the pattern of things I need to know in order to make any given strategic choice, a goal that I may or may not reveal, depending upon what the context of that effort is, and which context, or factors relevant within or to the context, is/are part of the objective of questioning. None of that works if all you have is armed factions, or if it does work, the product is warped by hostility.

[defendandprotect]

731. The Minority controlling the Majority is a HUGE question . . ..

the results of which are HUGE as you can see -- ALL of the issues are being held hostage by Republicans who COUNT on Democrats being problems to other Democrats, this creates gridlock in the myriad details of negotiating policy and legislation, putting the double-crossers in control of our agenda.


including appointees to courts/DOJ to

move out Bush rightwinger and move in more liberal candidates -- we hope!


The "pattern" is clear -- this isn't the first time the GOP minority has controlled the

Democratic majority --

In fact, I watched as George Mitchell turned the Majority Democratic Senate over to Bob Dole!

This is just more of this -- the Dems have to make the GOP filibuster -- and any thought of

"bipartisianship" with this corporate party is inane!

[quiet.american]

542. My main issue with this OP:

First, why label those who push back against your perspectives as ""conserva-Dems, blue dog DINOs/DLC"? And according to your own words, why do you label them this way? Because they are not willing to write treatise answers to your most pressing questions. The short answer to your question is, that often those who ask these kind of "why isn't he doing so-and-so" questions are spending more time at sites that support a negative view of Obama than where you can actually read about what *is* being done. Ever spend some time at whitehouse.gov going through the signed legislation/pending legislation links or the blog or the budget? Or at speaker.gov doing the same? There is an assumption that because some of the efforts being made are not worn on Obama's sleeve, then nothing is being done. While the LGBT community in general spent the first year of Obama's presidency calling him a "coward" etc, he was meeting on a regular basis throughout the year with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Robert Gates, Sec. of State, etc. to create the way forward to end DADT. And, when the President makes a statement like this:

I have long advocated that we repeal ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’, and I am pleased that both the House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee took important bipartisan steps toward repeal tonight. Key to successful repeal will be the ongoing Defense Department review, and as such I am grateful that the amendments offered by Representative Patrick Murphy and Senators Joseph Lieberman and Carl Levin that passed today will ensure that the Department of Defense can complete that comprehensive review that will allow our military and their families the opportunity to inform and shape the implementation process. Our military is made up of the best and bravest men and women in our nation, and my greatest honor is leading them as Commander-in-Chief. This legislation will help make our Armed Forces even stronger and more inclusive by allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve honestly and with integrity.

-- it's ignored, and even now you're still asking, "why won't he dump DADT?" -- when he has been working since early in his presidency to do just that.

Another part of the answer is that there's a contingent that call themselves "progressives" who hold the view that if the thing isn't done in a single bound, it must be because there has been a sellout to the DLC (????). Almost nothing works that way in life, and it certainly doesn't work that way in politics, but that is a reality many seem to refuse to acknowledge.

Last part of my answer to this is that not EVERYTHING can be done in full public view all at once, especially given the batpoop-crazy collective of Republicans who lurk like vultures ready to pounce on and distort the President's every word and action. Many of the items you mention would be taken up by the Republicans and trumpeted as a sign of his "weakness on national security." God forbid there's another event like 9/11 -- that would be the first thing they'd point to. That still doesn't mean nothing's being done about them -- you may hold the view nothing's being done, when the groundwork is actually being laid for it.

My other issue is a strong disagreement of your implication that Obama has forgotten "core Democratic principles." You're focused like a laser on issues that largely have to do with the DoJ or have to be taken up by Congress, and seem to be ignoring the larger picture of all the progressive items he has championed and accomplished. Now, the first reply to my post will no doubt be: "Such as what? Link, please."

But that's a lazy answer in my view. Just as one can search out every single thing that supports one's position that Obama still needs to be reminded of "core Democratic principles," one can use that skill to look up what he *has* done.

whitehouse.gov
healthcare.gov
recovery.gov
omb.gov

-- are good places to start.

[SunsetDreams]

552. excellent post!

It's too bad there isn't a rec for a reply to an OP.

I don't take issue with constructive criticism at all, I think it is needed. My issue is with those people that post nothing but negative, day in and day out, while seemingly refusing to look at anything good that has been accomplished. I also take issue, to the same people "dumping" on something positive the President has done, for example a Duer posts an OP about Progress that is being made, and you get one liner or two liner responses that say...but he hasn't done such and such yet. What does that have to do with the OP? Nothing, it to me, is just an attempt to shut down discussion of that OP. I also will never understand a few people around here, on and OP about Obama making such and such speech saying "talk is cheap, I want action" "he makes a pretty speech, but that's not good enough". Then those same people say "he should be using the bully pulpit, why isn't he doing it?" Those two arguments do not make any sense to me at all. When he is giving a speech, he is using the bully pulpit.

[great white snark]

553. Outstanding post quiet.american

A voice of reason in a thread of the unreasonable.

:applause:

[SunsetDreams]

555. absolutely, this should be an OP

[Dawgs]

+1. The ignorance in the OP can be found throughout DU, and that's very disappointing.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

605. The reason for the label is because the same proponents

have been vigorously attacking liberals and progressives here for weeks if not months. What would you label people who attack liberals and progressives? (Yes, I know that's a leading question. lol)

[fascisthunter]

625. thank you for keeping it real

[defendandprotect]

689. ... and defending pro-corporate decision making by Democrats . . .

agree with your view --

[sinkingfeeling]

620. +10000

[Dinger]

665. Well Skinner, I Do Have to Say I Appreciate That You Didn't Lock This Thread

I like it.:)

[defendandprotect]

690. +1000% . . . proves that more free speech is the answer ... airing issues... not burying them...

:)

[uponit7771]

840. *****OP ADDRESSED FULLY IN THIS POST***** Great go

[NeedleCast]

550. Best Circular Firing Squad Thread Ever!!

[EFerrari]

576. Two hundred posters disagree with you. nt

[Lone_Star_Dem]

586. Actually, I rec'd it for the discussion in the thread

Some of which touches on the perceptions of people here from different angles. I feel it's important for everyone to get a chance to say their piece and hopefully feel listened to.

I still believe the vast majority of posters here are more the same than different. My strategy is to try and respect the differences as much as I enjoy the similarities.

[EFerrari]

594. Right. And calling this a circular firing squad is only meant to shut down

discussion.

/oops

[Lone_Star_Dem]

597. Yes

I was backing up what you said by explaining my specific reason for recommending.

[EFerrari]

604. Gotcha. Thanks.

:hi:

[Dawgs]

587. 200 out of 10,000+ is not much.

Nice try though.

[EFerrari]

596. That doesn't even make sense.

[fascisthunter]

737. 10,000: are they all active accounts...

wouldn't use that number as a rebuttal. What I see see is a thread making it to the front page. Where are the 9,800 members' unreccs?

[TZ]

556. I think the core problem is accusing people who don't agree with your stance

to be "not real democrats". I despise the Republican party for many things..One of them is the way they treat moderates in their own party- either agree with the Conservatives or shut the hell up. I don't enjoy seeing people here behave the same way. I'm also not going to accuse anyone who might be to the left of me as being "troublemakers" either or tell them to shut up. Insulting liberals, progressives, centrists or even conservative democrats isn't productive. How the bleep is telling other party members they are stupid corrupt or troublemakers going to solve ANY goddamn problem.
I have no problem having a rationale discussion with someone who truly disagree with me. The problem is--too many people here can't seem to do that.

[DirkGently]

565. Yep. No purity test for liberals / Dems. Or shouldn't be.

[LynneSin]

557. So you're going to own the DU Yardstick to judge who is progressive enough to post here

:grr:

The fact that 177 people recommended this shows the real problem with DU. This is the Democratic Underground, not the liberal undergrond, blue-dog underground, green underground, etc. etc. etc.

Thank you

[SunsetDreams]

560. Lynne

I don't think all the recs are for agreement with the OP, some people rec just to show the sheer (insert description) of an OP.

[LynneSin]

561. I hope so

The fact that this thread is on the DU Homepage is an embarassment.

There are democrats out there that piss me off to no end. But to me, even on a Democrats absolutely worst day ever they are still a far cry better than any republican out there.

[SunsetDreams]

567. yes it is

an embarrassment. I totally agree, I think we are better than any Republican on their best day.

[Number23]

756. "The fact that this thread is on the DU Homepage is an embarassment."

It's getting to the point where I'm saying that exact same thing almost every day these days.

Some of the stuff that's getting rec'd to death on this site lately should not only be an affront to Democrats but to anyone who considers themselves even moderately intelligent.

[DevonRex]

619. Don't forget the list of questions we all have to answer for him.

We don't know who gets to judge teh answers, though.

[midnight]

562. rhett o rick this is a clear problem that you have thoughtfully

taken the time to post about-thanks.

[Nothing Without Hope]

572. Agree completely. n/t

[Laelth]

574. k&r for the truth. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Deep13]

575. Frankly, I haven't noticed any problems. nt

[MellowDem]

578. The core problem are posts like yours...

that seek to divide DU into two simple camps. You are creating a "problem" that isn't there. Yeah, there are more conservative democrats, but the vast majority of disagreement here isn't over policy as much as how to implement it. You ask why people don't answer why President Obama isn't more liberal. But the answer is quite obvious. It's because it's politics. If Obama thinks that dumping DADT will hurt him in the coming election, he won't touch it.... yet. It's politics. Yeah, it kinda sucks from an ideological point of view, but it is the reality we live in. As long as the electorate is still pretty conservative/misinformed/mainpulated, politicians will bend to that, no matter what party they are in.

[OmahaBlueDog]

579. Many conservatives are fleeing to the Democratic Party?

I'm curious to know how you are defining conservative and how you figure we're getting this wave of new supporters? I do see a Republican party that is now putting forth candidates who are so far to the right as to be distasteful to "Country Club" Republicans (which I'd define as fiscal conservatives, but social moderates). "Distasteful" does not mean "repugnant." Those moderate Republicans will vote for Tea Partiers because they are both fearful and angry with President Obama.

To your basic points:

- I don't think DU should be having a "whose party is it anyway" litmus test. That's what Republicans have done since 1980.

- I have no problems with Dems arguing among ourselves, as long as we can all walk away realizing that defeating Republicans (as opposed to running purges within our own party) needs to be our top priority. If one is looking for a more rigidly progressive website, Democrats.com is an excellent choice.

- My agenda is getting workable healthcare for all Americans and generating enough alternative (read: non fossil based) energy so that we no longer feel the Middle East is of strategic interest. I am also for anything that keeps jobs in America and punishes foreign outsourcing. None of that is on your laundry list of issues that are high priorities for me...and note that I do not hide from the Blue Dog label. That said, the items mentioned above put me somewhere between Mao and Trotsky in the eyes of most Republicans I know.

[USArmyParatrooper]

700. The whole OP was the mantra of "real" Democrats vs. fake Dems

Because apparently the 85% of Dems who approve of Obama's job performance are fakes, "conserva-dems" and the like.

[DainBramaged]

588. IBTL

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :patriot: :patriot:


(I usually have that happen to me)

[Dawgs]

589. It's a sad day on DU when so many support a Democratic 'litmus test', and cons fleeing to dem party.

WTF!!

:cry:

[polichick]

601. Pretty good deal corporations have going, isn't it - one whole party...

...and a significant chunk of the other! (PLUS the Supreme Court.)

It's true that Dems who seriously believe in liberal values see this infiltration of corporate sympathizers/enablers into the party as a major threat - perhaps even more of a threat than Republicans, who much more obviously undermine liberal values but perhaps don't do it as effectively as this new brand of Dems.

[radhika]

610. Let's just be small-d Democracy - forget the 'Party'

That would include mainstream Dems, union folk, populists, Progressives, the unemployed, socialists, PDA, Greens etc. That's a big pool to be tapped and would leave the Blue Dogs and ConservaDems high and dry. Like they left US.

[Ignis]

622. With 217 Recs, I'd say more than a few DUers agree with your framing of the debate.

Thanks for having the courage to start this thread.

[Bobbie Jo]

663. The rec system as become too manipulated to be

considered meaningful. When there are posters openly bragging off site about the number of sock puppet and dummy accounts they're maintaining for rec/unrec purposes, its hard to take these numbers seriously anymore.

[Ignis]

692. Hey, I'm just a peon--er, user.

You should raise that issue with the admins if you think it's a problem. I have absolutely no ability to see "under the hood" at DU and compare the IP addresses of poll respondents. (Given that the admins have been banning people for their responses to polls, however, I'm inclined to think that they wouldn't be shy about banning sock puppets who exploit this mechanism.)

But until they say otherwise, I'm going to assume that the Recs/Unrec score of an OP contains valid data that is relevant to the meta-discussion of that OP.

:shrug:

That being said, I do think that an anonymous rec/unrec mechanism is less useful than one that publicly ties each vote to a specific user account. But I don't make the rules, and I'm disinclined to think that any DU admin/mod gives a toss about my opinion.

[defendandprotect]

697. Agree . . . and yes it does look like a lot of

dummy accounts here --

[Bobbie Jo]

806. It certainly does.

The pun wasn't lost on me, but perhaps you got the point just the same.

[defendandprotect]

818. Yes -- and ....

I don't usually look at posters' names as I reply -- I just go down the line

and reply to the comment --

but at least twice now I've found that a subject and particular comments seemed

very repetitive -- and that in both cases it reminded me of a past discussion

with someone I could only presume had this new identity.

Don't know how they do this -- but obviously for their own dishonest purposes.

[rhett o rick]

685. Thanks for the comments. My framing need work as my frustration often shows thru.

I am glad the mods allowed this discussion to go on.

[fascisthunter]

623. You Get a Rec from me

it's pretty obvious to alot of us and you aren't alone.

[Catherina]

630. You got an early rec from me too. n/t

[judesedit]

645. One little addition to your well taken point.. It should be about the person,not the party...

There is little distinction between the two parties anymore. Like you said, the GOP has basically infiltrated the democratic party to try to squash any citizen-oriented initiatives, with the help of Mr Emmanuel unfortunately. He may have thought his tactics smart at the time, but they've worked against them. These candidates have no loyalty to the true principles of either party. They just choose the party they think will help them win the election for a variety of reasons. None admirable.

A major point I want to make is the fact that republicans can tell whatever lies and propaganda they can possibly think of, much which has no base in reality, very loudly, while actually threatening violence. For some reason this is acceptable. Then you have some democrats with conviction, and balls, trying to make the truth hit home so people aren't so fast to buy into the GOP bullshit. But instead of being patted on the back for having guts, like Grayson, we are told "you can't say this, you can't say that". No wonder the dems come off as having no spines. It also goes against the First Amendment, which is Freedom of Speech. Who cares if "some" people get offended. Maybe they need to be shocked into reality finally. I object to the new rules. Totally unproductive.

[rhett o rick]

682. Agree. Well written. nm

[defendandprotect]

696. Sadly true -- too true ... !!

[Ozymanithrax]

666. One of the issues you discuss is policy discussions... but you use attack language.

You cast you questions towards DINO, Consera-dems (conserva-dems), blue-dog Dinos, and DLC Sympathizers are blanket attacks on vaguly defined groups. Can a person disagree on one policy and reamain a loyal DU'er, or is absolute agreement necessary? Isn't it possible to adress people with whom you disagree as individuals rather than with group attacks?

[rhett o rick]

681. I absolutely agree. My frustration and poor ability to articulate get the best of me.

I am a strong progressive Democrat and I am disappointed that the president hasnt done more to stem the movement toward corporatism. I appreciate that it is hard but that's no excuse. And of course the Republicans are trying their best to derail the president. But my biggest frustration is with Democrats that should be helping "We the People", but instead are supporting big business.

I also get frustrated with DU posters that attack every criticism of the Pres and the Democrats in Congress but refuse to discuss the issues.

[Ozymanithrax]

757. We became so used to treating Republicans with disdain...

that we now treat each other that way.

[bobburgster]

667. Big Tent, no more?

By the sounds of this thread it seems that's what a lot of people want. I have always looked at the democratic party as the inclusive one. We take all shapes, sizes, and viewpoints. If we walk and talk in lockstep, we are no better than "them".

There is no reason, here on DU, we should not be able to have civil discussions on policies, whether they lead to agreements or disagreements. Labeling...Old-Democratic, New-Democrat, DINO's, progressive Democrats, conservative Democrats only adds fuel to the fire of dissension...and THAT makes the corporations clap their hands.

Divide et impera


I do not believe Skinner and company need to add anything to the rules. We just need to follow them.

[defendandprotect]

695. Do you really want . . .

a DLC-corporate-wing of the Democratic Party in the party to move it to the right?

How much Republican party/corporate influence on the Democratic Party are you willing

to tolerate?

[bobburgster]

808. The DLC isn't much different then the old conservative democrats.

I do not believe it is a vast conspiracy to turn us all into corporate puppets. Some of what they say is a reality in this day and age. Some, I do not agree with. I read about issues, weigh the pros and cons, and contact the appropriate politicians with my views. If I feel very strongly, I do more...whether it be donating for a specific cause, donating to Move-On, or actively protesting.

I do not berate fellow democrats for their beliefs if they differ from mine....may try to convince them differently though.

[defendandprotect]

810. Are you suggesting those "old conservative Democrats" weren't harmful to the nation?

They supported Segregation --

They're against human rights -- gender equality --

usually anti-homosexuality --

and Anti-abortion and family planning ...

just to name a few issues --

[bobburgster]

830. No, but the democratic party didn't crumble because of them.

You work to change their views, and if that doesn't work, support someone who will challenge them in a primary.

[Individualist]

753. What does the big tent need with DLCers who are pulling up the tent pegs

and working toward a total collapse of the big tent?

[bobburgster]

809. I don't agree with you on that.

:)

[defendandprotect]

813. So you support the DLC-corporate wing?

[bobburgster]

831. Reread my post.....

"The DLC isn't much different then the old conservative democrats."

It explains my thoughts.

[defendandprotect]

811. The purpose is obviously to destroy any Democratic Party activism re liberal issues ...

to destroy any opposition to the GOP corporate agenda --

Also these new conflicts at DU directed at free speech also have enough

poison in them to destroy the website as a tool for activism and liberal

issues!

[DailyGrind51]

705. Conservatives are not headed "our" way, they are becoming teabaggers!

The problem for Republicans is that their base no longer find the Party conservative enough and is ditching it for something uglier and more malignant.

[howaboutme]

793. Do the Parties really want the masses involved?

If the truth was known the political and the elite see any major movement that increases the involvement of and by "THE PEOPLE" as a potential threat to their control of the masses. Populism is a dirty word in their vernacular. The two Party, red /blue binary system is much more manageable as it ultimately pigeon holes what are many diverse viewpoints into one of two Parties. Many will end up aligning with what they refer to as a lesser of two evils.

Republicans really want the Tea Party movement controlled and brought under their tent. I actually believe that many there are still pissed at the Bush Republican establishment and its Congress, but it took them time to come up to speed. If McCain would have been elected they would be there harping on his policies.

The real battle in America is between those whose policies have hurt most of the people, and those elite who control international global corporations, the banks and have pilfered our country to benefit of a select few. Because of global trade and tax policies that benefited only the rich capitalists, our economy was decimated and middle class tax revenues reduced and that has created our debtor status.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

[Divine Discontent]

714. perfect. it is a sad fact that some don't want to follow Democratic principles and instead want to

comment non-stop about the amazing story that is "Barack Obama". For it is a great story, indeed, but what we stand for as a party is more important, and frankly, our party is more liberal than the WH admin.

[pleah]

730. +1000

[MissDeeds]

740. The party is bigger than one individual

even if that individual is the president. Obama won the WH in 2008 by virtue of intense activism on the part of Democrats. If he has alienated a wing of that party, he has cut his support in half. Independents are no longer firmly in his camp; who exactly is he going to rely on for votes?

[pleah]

716. K & R ! ! ! ! !

[Name removed]

724. Deleted message

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

[howaboutme]

754. Just a thought, but when a political Party

becomes compromised by making a big priority the interests of the elite, the bankers, the lobbyists, the corporations and war mongers, instead of making its priority the betterment of the American people, the outcome will be very bad and long lasting for the people.

If the Democratic Party was unambiguously in total support of the American people, the American people would be unambiguously in total support of the Democratic Party.

[defendandprotect]

814. +1000% . . . thanks for clarity!

[Divine Discontent]

764. there are those that will mock this thread, and those discussing how we're disgusted with being

attacked for bringing up how frustrating specific policy failures have made us, but they really need to get over themselves. This is a healthy discussion of problems that a vast majority are in agreement with - there's nothing wrong with complaining, discussing, or whatever you want to call it - just as long as we follow some very clear rules.

I feel things are getting much better at DU, already.

[Posteritatis]

778. Any thread with 0.75 kilocomments on something like this that's unlocked is a win for all involved

So hooray on that, IMO!

[Divine Discontent]

781. good point. three cheers for whatever we wanna call it!

[QC]

784. This thread certainly touched a nerve, didn't it? n/t

[rhett o rick]

791. I agree. nm

[Name removed]

805. Deleted message

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

[chillspike]

816. Well, I don't think the gap is that huge

And I wouldn't call us "distinct factions"...I am totally willing to try it your way first. So, to me, there is no problem between either "faction". We both want us to win. We are just questioning our ideas on how to win. But I don't think if we try it one way and it doesn't work, that will completely eliminate the possibility of trying the other direction.

You want to go with your way, let's go with your way. I'm not going to be an asshole and stamp my foot about it.

I think, ultimately, we all want the same results and, ultimately, we will win one way or the other.

[Rage for Order]

833. Replying

Just so I can be in on the 850 post (and counting) thread!