The Democratic Party as Seen on this website, March 2005

[hollywood926]

Oh boy...I really feel like I'm in the wrong party these days. Here's what I've read in the last week or so.

1. Raping an unconscious girl and spitting and writing on her is OK. Why ruin a guy's life for one fuck? She was the one who went to the party and drank too much.

2. A man who beats his pregnant wife to death and throws her in the bay should not get the death penalty. What if a Satanic cult did it?

3. The parents of the pregnant woman murdered (see #2) are "just trying to get attention" and "making it all about them."

4. A husband's rights supercede those of the parents. They have offered to take care of her and give him zero responsibility so he could re-marry and the court would have granted him a divorce (he declined - he wouldn't gotten the insurance money). But HE is a good guy. The parents are EVIL. Starving your child to death is clearly the noble thing to do.

So what party should I switch to? Republican? Libertarian? Should I have voted for Bush? Because this Party ain't the one I signed up for.

On edit - there were several guys who did not think that girl deserved to be raped/wasn't raped at all. It's an overall sense of misogyny that I'm referring to.

[MuseRider]

1. Pretty selective

don't you think? For every one of those statements there have been hundreds of other statements to argue against them.

[crispini]

2. Eh, don't confuse

posters on some message board with reality. It's right in the rules: "Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates."

[hollywood926]

3. you're right...

but these are presumably people who call themselves Democrats. Many had stars by their names and high post counts, indicating that they were not freepers. It's just very disheartening.

[crispini]

4. DU can be a depressing place

(for a variety of reasons) and spending too much time talking about and thinking about politics will twist you up. I recommend finding a meeting of local Dems who are actually doing some *real work* and joining them. Every time I get mad I just do some organizational work and I feel better. By the end of 2005 we hope to have every precinct chair trained to use Demzilla! :)

[StephanieRocks]

6. interesting

GOOD STUFF

[crispini]

17. Hi, StephanieRocks!

Welcome to DU :hi:

Denton eh? make sure you drop by the Texas forum, we post all the fun events and good stuff there. We do a meetup every few months too!

[Eloriel]

25. Good stuff?

I thought it was dismissive and a tad patronizing. No indication that the point the OP poster made registered at all, just a shrug and a "so what?" and a "get busy and you'll get over it."

Yeah, kinda patronizing.

[crispini]

44. I refer you to my post #2

wherein I address the point that the OP was making, my response being that DU has nothing to do with the Democratic party, and quite often very little to do with reality. :hi:

[Eloriel]

70. It's reality enough when people write and support and defend

rape and other violence against women and other misogyny. I don't know how you can call that having very little to do with "reality." It's VERY real.

[crispini]

72. How do you know who those people REALLY are...

what their agendas are, etc? Mostly, on here, you don't. There are about 30 or 40 posters here whom I have some idea about who they "really" are ... the rest, who knows? That is what I mean by having very little to do with reality.

[K-W]

9. No it isnt even remotely disheartening.

The only way it could be disheartening is if you went into DU with unrealistic expectations.

Meanwhile some of the points on your original post were spun #4 particularly.

It doesnt look to me like you have made any attempt to put things in proper prospective and have just jumped to the conclusion that democrats are nuts.

[Eloriel]

37. I agree. It's not at all disheartening if you agree with the

sexism and flagrant misogynism that exists here. Apparently you do.

And I think calling what she wrote "spin" is a little over the top. It's her opinion, her assessment of the situation, and I happen to agree with it entirely. I understand fully why YOU don't.

[K-W]

46. I hope drawing foolish conclusions about me makes you feel good.

Of course I dont agree with sexism and misogynism, where on earth did you get that idea?

I think calling what she wrote spin shows that I know what spin is and apprently you dont.

Yes they are her opinions, that is what spin is. that you agree with the opinions is completely irrelevent, my problem is the way she phrased the facts of the situation, thus spinning them, to support her view

You dont understand anything about me, that much is entirely clear as in this thread and in many others before you have drawn bogus and often comically flawed conclusions about who I am and what I think.

Edit: And considering how dishonestly you spun my post... I guess you know more about spin than you let on.

[Eloriel]

68. Oh, I know and understand plenty about you

unless, of course, you don't want to stand by your own words. Is that the case? Your own words mean nothing?

And another thing I now know about you is that -- LOL -- you seriously overuse the word spin, and inaccurately to boot.

[seito]

10. Post count and donor status

does not indicate political affiliation, or motivation.

Disputers come in every shape and size.

[ultraist]

18. That's true, it's a wide tent too and there are moles on DU

[oneighty]

16. Many a high count poster

has been granted a special DU stone because he was a fisherman dangling artificial baits.

One can only guess what is truth.

180

[Eloriel]

40. Some have even served as moderators

And I think ... well, nevermind.

[K-W]

5. How about instead of switching parties you get a rational perspective.

This is a forum where individual people from around the world can post. Each individual comment represents the opinions of that individual person, nothing more. Thinking that the most outrageous posters on an annonomous message board represent the party is silly.

[hollywood926]

21. You're right...I shouldn't have worded it that way...

It's definitely not representative of the Democratic Party, but I do make the assumption that most posters here are Democrats and when the majority of those posters cry about giving the death penalty to a murderer, but can't wait to starve a woman to death against her parents' wishes...it's just really...ODD.

It's the same on the other side. They cry about abortion and then are the first ones to wave the flag for WAR.

I guess I'm a demlican. Maybe we all are.

[K-W]

29. I guess if you like republican spin that much,

then you are probably just a plain republican.

"starve a woman to death against her parents' wishes"

If you feel the need to throw your opinion into a statement of facts to create that wonderful brew known as spin, then yes, please do find another party.

And it has nothing to do with the death penalty unless you spin it all into a black and white pro-life myth.

[Eloriel]

51. Just for the record

I am not at all comfortable personally with what I know about this case. It's true I've been TRYING to avoid it these past few days (unsuccessfully because you still have to click to hide the damn threads and there have been hundreds of them, it seems), but what I've been forced to hear fromt he get-go on this case doesn't set all that well with me.

In short, I'm not all that certain "we" are on the right side on this issue. I've never trusted her husband. I haven't entered into any of these discussions because I don't KNOW -- but I'm not sure.

And the point is: NEITHER ARE YOU. You have no way of knowing. None of us do. You're certainly entitled to your opininon, but so is the poster. So am I. But let's not any of us imagine that we know the facts on this case, we simply do NOT.

I am all for right to die issues. I myself faced a similar situation with my own mother's death. I have no illusions about it and also no romantic notions about it.

But in Terry Schiavo's case, I'm. just. not. sure.

And again -- neither are you.

[WyLoochka]

69. "You have no way of knowing"

This has been to court over a dozen times, through long agonizing years, and every time the results are the same. So, it is all out there to "know."

You are entitled to your opinion that the courts have been wrong every single time, but you are not basing that opinion on any facts whatsoever.

I'm a little surprised, you have some reknown around here as researcher. So go get the court transcripts and read the facts before casting doubt on the rulings with uninformed opinion.

[Eloriel]

71. Sorry, but you're making some inaccurate assumptions

This has been to court over a dozen times, through long agonizing years, and every time the results are the same. So, it is all out there to "know."

Not to my mind. If you're satisfied, terrific. That's all that matters to/for you, isn't it?

You are entitled to your opinion that the courts have been wrong every single time, but you are not basing that opinion on any facts whatsoever.

I said nothing of the sort -- and in fact, don't hold that opinion at all. My ONLY "opinion" is that I don't KNOW for sure one way or the other, but that I'm not entirely comfortable about the case. Please read my posts a little more carefully if you intend to take issue with what I've said about something.

I'm a little surprised, you have some reknown around here as researcher. So go get the court transcripts and read the facts before casting doubt on the rulings with uninformed opinion.

Two things -- First, I don't really trust our courts any more. Do you? If so, great. I don't. Second, I fear it still wouldn't offer me what I was looking for even if I DID trust the courts -- I think (but I'm not sure) that only a personal examination myself would convince me one way or the other. That ain't gonna happen.

Second, even if I trusted the courts, this case just isn't important enough to me to wade thru all the court documents.

There's actually another issue still, and that is that the law doesn't always support what's right and just and best for the individuals involved. That may be an issue in this case, or not. I dunno, but it's another way I don't trust the courts (and our legal system in general, not to mention certain types of lawyers).

And one more thing, while I'm at it. Isn't it just a little pushy to demand that I do whatever work is required to get over my uncertainty on this case, just so you (and others) feel better? I'm just as entitled to my UNcertainty as the rest of you are to your dog-sure certainty.

[WyLoochka]

78. You can start informing

yourself here:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf

and move to the rest of the well organized documents on the same cite:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

If the case isn't "important enough" for you to wade through the court documents, then please spare us your "opinion" (actually it was more your "gut feelings" that you shared) in which you cast aspersions on Mr Shiavo, Judge Greer and the other jurists involved in the case when you admittedly know zilch about any of them or any of the facts.

I was also "uncertain" so, before proffering any opinion here, I waded through the documents and it has become clear to me that Mr Shiavo and Judge Greer are heroes.

I realize that might be difficult for you to even entertain the thought that they may be right, especially if you continue to refuse to check the facts. Over months and months your mind set that men are misogynistic from the get go has become obvious.

[hollywood926]

52. You keep mentioning "spin."

What spin?

I'm merely asking why one would be against the murder of a murderer, but in favor of the murder of non-murderer?

I can understand why you'd have throw out nonsense words like spin. What rational person could actually answer that question?

[sonicx]

53. because the Terri case is not about murder...

the parents had no credible info to refute the husband's case. did you read the court docs?

[Walt Starr]

7. MAn have you bought into the REichwing propaganda!

Seriously, if you believe all that crap, don;t let the door hit you in the ass!

[RetroLounge]

8. 66,000 posters on DU and you picked 4 that pissed you off?

Get some thicker skin.

66,000 vs. Millions who voted for Kerry.

Kind of a small sample to base your leaving the party upon, wouldn't you think?

RL

[Renew Deal]

13. I see at least 4 in this thread that piss me off. RetroLounge, WaltStarr

OK, JUST KIDDING!!! :pals:

[RetroLounge]

41. Ohhh, you bad!

:spank:

:hi:

RL

[ultraist]

20. At least one of those 4 quotes, was a freeper who was tombstoned

The one about the boys raping the girl.

[hollywood926]

30. Oh good...well that makes me feel better. n/t

[sonicx]

11. "A husband's rights supercede those of the parents."

Yes, that's one of the benefits of marriage. That's one of many reasons why gay couples want to marry. So they can make medical decisions for each other.

Also, most DUers are against the death penalty (me too), so i think most are not going to change their mind because of how bad the crime was (life in prison no perole is my personal position).

[hollywood926]

26. There's nothing wrong with being against the death penalty,

but then why would you be in favor of starving a woman to death (a woman who didn't murder anyone) because her husband claims she "would have wanted it that way."

Poking a murderer in the arm with a needle, causing immediate death, is wrong....but slowly starving a woman to death is perfectly humane.

This is the Democratic mindset? Where was I when that memo was handed out?

[K-W]

34. Because unlike you, they can see more than just black and white spin. EOM

[sonicx]

35. she will not feel pain after the tub is removed

did you know that?

[hollywood926]

47. Scott Peterson won't feel pain, either....

So I guess murder is OK when it's convenient.

[sonicx]

49. Good thing it is not murder.

[Just Me]

57. If you or any politico or control freak usurped power from my husband,....

,...to fulfill my wishes to be LET GO in the event I am in a terminal vegetative state,...I'd cold-cock the whole bunch (if I were able to do so)!!!!

IT'S NOT YOUR LIFE!!!!!
If you prefer to be kept in a vegetative state until the day YOU die,...so be it,...that IS your life. But, no one gave you authority to impose your preference upon others. No one gave you authority to impose your judgment on another's partner.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[ultraist]

14. Husband's rights do supercede the parent of an adult married child

I agree that #1-3 are demented. But #4 is about the State taking control over our bodies. Democrats oppose that and support civil rights, including right to privacy.

Why should the State have the right to interfere? Are you willing to turn over your body to the state and allow them to make all of your medical decisions for you?

[hollywood926]

22. The State is only interfering because of HIM

If he would leave her in peace with her parents, who love her, the State would mind their own business.

[sonicx]

24. so you are saying you don't believe in marriage?

[hollywood926]

27. Why should I if my husband is going to be my owner

and my parents are going to be irrelevant - in a case where I can't speak for myself?

They were married 5 years. 5 years.

[sonicx]

32. Many gay people would love for their partner to be able to make medical

decisions for each other. Sorry you want to throw it away.

[K-W]

39. Owner? Are you nuts?

Why do you feel the need to use clearly inaccurate words that push your opinion on others?

If you think your parents are better apt to make such decisions, you can create a living will to give them that power. In most situations, spouses are the most intimate relative, and are assumed to be best able to carry out the will of the person unable to make the decision themselves.

[mondo joe]

42. The beauty of being an adult is YOU choose your representative,

Your parents don't supercede YOUR choice.

[Eloriel]

55. Oh, let's not pretend there's a MARRIAGE there any longer

Please. You can talk about this in a lot of different ways, but let's NOT pretend he's fulfilling his marriage vows or contract.

Ptooey, ptooey... ick.

[mondo joe]

65. He is absolutely fulfilling his final obligation to his wife

Just as I'd want my spouse to do the same for me.

[annabanana]

31. She ws married to him..

The State is interfering ecause of THEM..

ps: She is already dead and has been for years. Most of her brain cavity is filled with spinal fluid.

[mondo joe]

38. You mean him, the one person she chose to represent her?

How dare he carry out his responsibility to represent her?

[ultraist]

43. No, the State is only interferring because the parents

have brought in the fundie guns. Otherwise, this would have stayed under the radar.

16 different courts have heard this case in some capacity. Not one, terminated his legal guardianship. The parents are not the legal guardians.

If my mother tried to step in and tell me what medical care I could or could not give my child, what would would be the difference between that and the Terri case? Should the State have the right to intefere with next of kin? Absolutely not. Not unless they proved I was an unfit mother and I was given due process.

Next of kin should not be trompled on by the State.

[msongs]

15. regarding item 2 - many believe 'thou shalt not kill' - so you

wanna do to the convicted wife/child killer what he did to others, which of course brings up "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." are you sure your view is reflective of the majority of people?

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[ultraist]

19. Those selected quotes of his (1-3) do not reflect most DUers

In fact, the one about the boys raping the girl, were quotes from a freeper who was tombstoned.

[hollywood926]

28. That's fine but you're missing my point...

Why does "thou shalt not kill" apply to Scott Peterson, but not to Terri Schiavo?

And I don't care if my views are reflective of the majority of people - MOST people voted for George W. Bush. That doesn't make it right.

[K-W]

50. because the situations are completely diffferent

Why do you feel the need to equate the two obviously different situations, cant your opinion hold its own without the rhetorical tricks?

[ultraist]

56. Death penalty &. civil rights

What is the difference between opposing the death penalty and supporting civil rights? None, really. In both instances, civil rights come before a State's power over people's bodies.

The State does not have the right to force medical treatment on an adult to keep them alive nor do they have the right to impose medical treatment on someone to euthanize them.

I am opposed to the death penalty and opposed to allowing the State to make medical decisions for an adult or against the wishes of a legal guardian.

[mondo joe]

23. Not the rights of the husband - the rights of the WOMAN supercede

the rights of the parents.

[hollywood926]

33. You don't know what her wishes were, so that's irrelevant. n/t

[mondo joe]

45. That's why HER chosen representative matters - he is the one SHE chose

to be her voice when she has none.

Furthermore there are multiple witnesses to her expressing her wishes on this matter.

[Eloriel]

58. And there would be NO divorces if women made the right choices

about who they married 100% of the time.

They don't always. They later "regret" the judgment (or lack of it) that they exercised at the time.

I am unconvinced that this is what Terry would have wanted, and that her "husband" has her best interests at heart. Maybe he does; maybe he doesn't.

[mondo joe]

66. But Terri didn't seek a divorce.

I think you've got a lot of man-hating going on.

Don't project your issues on everyone else please.

[hollywood926]

76. By your logic...her parents could assume what her wishes might be...

Her husband is cheating on her, and has been for years, so the parents could safely assume that she would want a divorce. Just as he is assuming that she would want to be starved to death.

[mattclearing]

48. Wouldn't you think her husband would know?

Give me a break. Like anyone discusses the vegetable scenario with their parents. Or parents could be objective about it.

Your original post is pure flamebait. You seem to have cherry-picked random comments from all over this board to fit into your own pre-conceived notion.

And you're turning on DU'ers and Democrats in general over something that you wouldn't even know about if it weren't for Jeb Bush's grandstanding.

If individual comments and open discussion of disparate ideas make you that uncomfortable, then yes, maybe you don't belong here, or on any other message board.


edited for typo

[hollywood926]

54. It was not at all flamebait...

but yes, I did cherrypick, but only from the last few days. I've been a member of the board for several months and I didn't go back and cherrypick from everything I've ever read. I was merely pointing out how disturbing many of these recent threads have been and also that they are overtly anti-woman.

As for Jeb Bush, I have no idea what you're talking about. I do not listen to anything he says and I do not watch the mainstream media.

[mattclearing]

61. Jeb Bush intervened in the case. It wasn't national news before that.

And of course it was flamebait.

You said that this wasn't the Democratic Party that you signed up for, and took several comments out of their context to make a point about all Democrats.

The fact that you got flamed by a great number of people on a pro-female rights board should tell you something about your faux-outrage on behalf of your gender.

And the amount of flames also confirms the obviousness of your flamebait, regardless of your intent.

Lots of flaming = you said something a lot of people aren't going to like.

Who could have looked at your original post and not have predicted that before hitting the "Post Message" button?

Oh wait, it was you.


edited for typo again.

editing again to add, if you don't watch the mainstream media, then how do you even know about this case?

Both Scott Peterson and Terry Schiavo are prime examples of the mass media making a huge deal out of some particularly titilating situations that aren't newsworthy beyond their shock value.

I don't watch a lot of mainstream media, but when I do, it's talking about the same unimportant, divisive, and distracting bs that you are.

I don't believe you. You watch mainstream media.

[hollywood926]

75. Ummm, this case has been news since long before Jeb was governor!

You were probably in diapers when I started following this case. No, it hasn't been on the front page, like today, but it most certainly has been news and I have been following it for over a decade. Some of us read past the front page.

I know what is on CNN by logging on to the DU. That's the only way.

[mattclearing]

77. So you don't watch the mainstream media, but you read past the first page?

Hmmm.

An attempt to condescend to me about age? And you contradicted your own mainstream news claim.

You are just making it up as you go along.

Edit: And you said this recently too:

"FIFTEEN YEARS of poking another woman, refusing a divorce and jumping in front of every camera he can find. He's so fake, too. It makes me sick to even see his phony expressions of grief. Ick."

I wonder where you "saw" those phony expressions.

And you posted on Robert Blake, Martha Stewart, and Scott Petersen threads.

Zero credibility.

[toymachines]

36. i think this is all ridiculous

these are individual opinions which do not accurately reflect the general democratic populace. it is horrible logic backed up by "posts" which are twisted by you or obvious freeper action. it is a waste of time to argue these points amongst us. fighting with in the faction is no good.

[ultraist]

60. I agree, those are freeper type posts and don't reflect Dem views

Even #4 because of the loaded language used.

[jdots]

62. absolutely I am hurt that all here can't see leading questions

This is the internet and it isn't real life where you can see and know where someone is at the time of thier typing into a computer.

[Lorien]

59. Boy, you do likle to cherry pick those threads

don't you? :eyes:

[mandyky]

63. None of the issues you mention are party related

They are news related. And not all people at DU have the views you put in your post.

We have trolls and we have a large immature bunch of posters. Sometimes I think they say the sky is orange if you told em it was blue. Some people like to shock people and some like to argue.

But please don't hold the Democratic Party responsible for a few threads with comments like these. Democrats disagree amongst themselves on some issues.

[sakabatou]

64. To #2:

Real Santanic cults despise murder or any physical violence.

[Susang]

67. Perhaps you are in the wrong party

If those points are the only things you got out of this website so far this month, then perhaps you require a party that sees things a little more black and white. Or didn't you notice all the arguments surrounding those points you listed in such an inflammatory manner?

Being a public forum, you are going to encounter many differing points of view here on DU. Not everyone thinks the same way, even in the same party. You do realize that you have the right to argue your point as well? If you see read a post you disagree with, dispute it. Posting flamebait like this thread is counterproductive, unless the flames were actually what you were looking for all along.

[mondo joe]

73. Misogyny: Terri is the property of her parents and HER choice of legal

guardian is irrelevant.

That's misogyny if I ever saw it.

[LittleClarkie]

74. On 4

He's been offered millions, and still he continues. I don't think it's the money somehow.

She has no brain activity. Her cerebral cortex is filled with fluid. There's a picture of her brain scan somewhere showing how bad the damage is.

But I would personally prefer that she be euthanized. We're kinder to folks on death row apparently. Perhaps we should starve them to death too. But no, that would be cruel and unusual.

G'head. Vote for Bush if the life of one woman is worth more to you than over 1500 troops and countless Iraqis.

[da_chimperor]

79. This is the INTERNET. If you take every thing you see

or read on the Internet seriously, you're a doofus. Near total anonymity means people can get away saying thing they don't mean or wouldn't talk about otherwise. That and there's quite a few disruptors on the site as well. My suggestion: if someone says crazy stuff you don't agree with, ignore them and continue on. If there's a thread you find offensive, just hide it and continue on. Don't get bent out of shape so much, life will be easier if you can ignore the annoying and/or crazy stuff. Oh, and judging the democratic party based on the left-wing discussion site is a bad idea. EOM.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

80. it's like we have one of these posts a week.

listen, not every poster comments on every thread. to assume that the majority of DU falls in line with the opinion of a few of the most vocal posters is absurd. welcome to the internet, put your broad brush down.