Has the DU Changed? Or Is It Just Me?

[David Zephyr]

It seems from reading the DU threads lately that:

A lot more of DU'ers are now opposed to a woman's right to choose and suggest that Democrats should back away from our defending women's reproductive rights than the community did in the past. I wish that wasn't so.

A lot more of DU'ers believe institutionalizing the insurance cartel's health care monopoly is somehow a "victory" for the people than the community did in the past. I wish that wasn't so.

A lot more of DU'ers believe that the death penalty is a good thing than the community did in the past. I wish that wasn't so.

A lot more of DU'ers believe that physical violence against children under the euphemism of 'spanking' is OK than the community did in the past. I wish that wasn't so.

A lot more of DU'ers don't see any connection between the proliferation of guns and the weakening of gun laws and the continued violence in America than the community did in the past. I wish that wasn't so.

A lot more of DU'ers believe that GLBT Americans need to still cool it and be 'patient' for their civil rights than the community did in the past. I wish that wasn't so.

A lot more of DU'ers believe that continuing to make war in Afghanistan, to continue Bush's folly is a good thing to do than the community did in the past. I wish that wasn't so.

A lot more of DU'ers believe that Democrats like Dennis Kucinich are a hindrance -- instead of an asset -- to our Party than the community did in the past. I wish that wasn't so.

I've been here since 2001, I'm sticking around 'cuz this is like family now. Still, things have seemed to have changed since we "won".

[Texasgal]

1. "perfect" Libs don't exist

apparently. :shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

316. There's no "liberal" in denying rights to women and minorities. Nor for state sponsored execution.

Far too many people here have become "true believers" for every single thing the power elite of OUR PARTY decides to do. No matter how seemingly BACKWARD. If a democrat presented it, it's Peachy-Keen.

If there's a D behind their name ... well save for Lieberman and DK (for different reasons), one DARE not criticize them based on perceived DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES. :(

[timeforpeace]

388. DU likes war now since it's Obama doing it.

[C_Lawyer09]

399. Havent seen many in here banging the war drums

I would like to compliment you on your Jack Handyism, I'm a big fan. "It takes a big man to cry, it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."

[imdjh]

2. I haven't been here forever, but if there weren't a range of opinions, then what pleasure...

.... in intellectual exercise could be found here? Agreement?

[Political Heretic]

373. I don't want "range of opinions" on human rights.

Some things, sure.

Human rights? No.

[Bonobo]

3. Everything changes. nt

[Go2Peace]

47. I wonder if it isn't a lot of younger members brought in by the election

Some who grew up in a very conservative era, others who are still learning about what got us here.

It took some of us a lot of years to determine our understanding of what works and what doesn't. Those of us who are older also know, from personal experience, some of the more subtle ways the nation has changed over the years.

I see a difference in the level of discourse as well.

[Echo In Light]

205. Many of the more belligerent posters don't sound young at all

At least to my 'ears' as I read their posts.

[QC]

229. The most relentlessly, unceasingly nasty posters,

the ones who do little or nothing besides bully and attack and browbeat, day in and day out, have been here for years and have gold stars and thousands of posts.

The problem is not some recent influx of new people, but the presence of longtime trolls who are apparently, for some inexplicable reason, bulletproof.

[Echo In Light]

231. Exactly! "Bulletproof," for supposedly 'inexplicable' reasons, indeed!

Well stated. And this is something that I've only recently experienced, starting over this past summer, where all of a sudden one of my posts will be violently attacked by a poster I've never seen before, yet when you check their profile, it's just as you said: been here for many yrs, w/a 1000+ posts.

And as to the current dozen or so who are little more than hate-spewing machines here, why they're mysteriously allowed to flame on and on and on as they do is a bit of a puzzler ... and leads one to begin surmising that perhaps there's some behind the scenes want of those blustery name-callers doing what they do?

[QC]

232. I can't figure it out either.

90% of the nastiness here is the work of no more than eight or ten serial offenders, yet nothing is ever done about them.

[Echo In Light]

233. Occam's razor would point toward collusion of some sort

???

[QC]

235. It's hard not to wonder. n/t

[bvar22]

383. Wouldn't you just LOVE to name them.

I agree.
It is less than 10, but they are very LOUD and CRUDE, and all have the current talking points.
I hope they are getting paid, because anyone who works that hard for FREE is an idiot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-scahill/rahm-emanuels-think-tanke_b_185203.html

[QC]

444. There's no need to name them--everyone knows who they are. n/t

[murielm99]

412. I have noticed that, too.

I began noticing it during the primaries.

We expect people to argue passionately during the primaries. But this was downright nasty and personal. I still have four or five of them on ignore. I took a few off just to see what they were saying after the election. Most of them, with 1,000+ posts are saying NOTHING. I expect to see them back during the next primary.

The thing that dismays me the most is that long time posters were banned while trying to defend themselves. I felt that if they crossed a line, they should have been given a time out. But they were banned outright, while many of the troll-like creatures are still here.

I found myself being too cautious, afraid to express an honest opinion. I was sure that there would have been a mass-alert against me.

I wish I could name names. But I have a feeling we are talking about the same people.

[QC]

424. You have said it all. n/t

[paulk]

419. at any website where revenue is generated by advertisement

and the amount increases with the number of "hits", it becomes a lot easier to understand why "nothing is ever done about them".

Quantity has become more important to the owners of this forum than quality, and that is the major differnce I see at DU.

ps - it's also why I no longer donate.

[QC]

422. And there is the answer. n/t

[rudy23]

266. Sadly, I believe you're barking up the right tree.

See my post down thread.

[Joe the Revelator]

4. Big tent

[Chulanowa]

5. We have a big tent...

And inside that tent is a fucking three-ring circus.

DU's definitely changed.

[Oregone]

25. When I lurked so long ago, I didn't think DU was representative of the tent

Maybe I interpreted "underground" as being dissenting factions of the Democratic Party, the same one that rubber stamped quite a bit of Bush's terrible policies. DU seemed to have gone from anti-establishment and anti-DLC to a staunch defender of whatever the establishment is doing (now with a Democrat in the white house). Not only has the Democratic Party gotten larger with anti-choice, anti-tax and pro-war "centrists" disaffected by the Republican abomination, it seems that DU has grown to incorporate more of whatever the mainstream of the party represents.

Long ago it was a place for information, learning, and dissenting opinion. Now, it seems to be a place where centrists and progressives use one-liners and undermine the other's credibility.

Honestly, I like it more now. Instead of hanging out in a library, its more like Fox News. Who doesn't like watching that train wreck? Who needs public television when reality TV is on? This is the current course of society. Crossfire may be over, but now DU has become our personal one.

I'm not sure how much Id listen to me anymore, so don't take anything I post too seriously

[Lorien]

103. I'll take PBS over "reality" TV any day

I live in the South. I'm confronted by angry knuckle draggers on a regular basis. The intelligent conversation that once occurred here was a breath of fresh air. I miss it.

[BeHereNow]

130. Me too...

I think we need to discuss the situation and formulating new rules with Admins.
The current format isn't working when it comes to the idiot hate posters.

BHN

[ChiciB1]

347. I'll Second & Third You "Lorien" Because I Too Live In The South *

in a Ruby Red County in Florida! Democrats here are even VERY LIGHT and I've often felt like a fish out of water with them.

Frustration is one of the best words I can use. There WAS a time when I came here for "discussion" but can't say I've been attacked all that much. I DO SEE some long time Du'ers being relentlessly attacked by several groups. And I too am seeing much more of a RIGHT LEANING place!

I have begun to check out more liberal places to blog because I'm distressed by what I'm seeing. And I need to add that there are some here who seem to literally "bow down" to any and everything this administration does! This has been disturbing to me!
JMHO!

[Enthusiast]

357. Good post, Oregone.

[Nite Owl]

6. Sadly, yes

to me it has.

[Mari333]

7. uh duh, yeah

I never thought Id be arguing on DU about whether we should escalate war.

Its blind party loyalists. so boring, actually.

if it was Bush screaming about escalating war, people would be up in arms.

evidently Obama can do no wrong.

Its weird. I never thought Id see so many people who cannot think for themselves.

[NoUsername]

89. Yep.

If Dubya had had a D behind his name, he would have had a lot of defenders here.

In the end, it's about party, not policy. Well, that and who pays the bills.

[phasma ex machina]

234. To the winners go the aches of carrying their pols water. nt

[bvar22]

351. If Bush had said he was going to force every American to BUY...

...Health Insurance from a For Profit Industry......:nuke:

[Enthusiast]

359. I certainly can't disagree

with your assertion here, bvar22.

[eleny]

8. kr

[rug]

9. Maintaining power has become a greater good than maintaining values.

[kath]

108. wow. You said a mouthful. A very sad but true statement.

[tekisui]

165. Agreed 100%.

[StillHopingForChange]

200. Simple lucidity.

Summed up how I feel - good job.

[frylock]

239. perfectly stated

[Enthusiast]

361. And REAL power behind the

power is the ever present corporate influence. This is worse than ever. It is now at such a crisis that it threatens our democracy.

This is why these changes to DU might represent a greater danger than many recognize.

[Kaleva]

10. Unity was easier to achieve when there was a common foe people could rally against.

[RKP5637]

60. I'm new here, but I think your posting hit the nail on the head! I have nothing to

compare anything too on DU, but I just thought what you said was quite logical. I've seen it happen before.

[redqueen]

227. This ^

Very few of us are all going to agree on everything.

The illusion that we ever did is just that... an illusion.

[Individualist]

11. It isn't just you.

DU has changed drastically from what it once was.

[Sherman A1]

330. Agreed

There is a strong current of "absolutism" no matter the issue.

[robinlynne]

12. I dont really see them as DUers. One or two have many posts. the majority just

arrived and are visiting.

[ProleNoMore]

13. It's The Continued Erosion Of Democratic Values By The Corporate sponsored DLCers

Obama cheerleaders are probably not helping much either.

[Raster]

34. Ah, you mean the "fan club"? While I voted for President Obama, support

President Obama and consider the alternative unthinkable, I cannot help be saddened by this administration's lack of attention to matters promised during the campaigns.

And please, save the "poutrage," "pony" and other demeaning bullshit.

[ProleNoMore]

40. Sorry That You And Others May Be Offended - The Fact Is There Is A DU Obama Fan Club

BTW - I voted for Obama as well.

Likewise - I have serious buyers remorse over the financial support that I contributed.

[Raster]

113. I am so sorry. I did not mean for the last sentence in my post to be directed at you.

It was not. And I do apologize if if appeared that way.

[Enthusiast]

364. You are not allowed to say that, Raster.

Take it back.

[Lorien]

82. Yep. Hit the nail on the head. nt

[StreetKnowledge]

332. Got it in One.

These people have no business being part of the Democratic Party. We already have a coproatist party. It's called the Republicans. And they need sane people just to save us all from the likes of Sarah Palin.

[MissDeeds]

362. + 1

:toast:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

14. America has developed a deeply rooted ideology of virtuous cruelty

In which ones ability and more importantly willingness to be an asshole is seen not as a social defect but as virtuous resolve.

[old guy]

37. Can I write this in my quote book?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

45. "virtuous cruelty" isn't my line

It is from "Orphan of Zhao" as translated by Stanislas Julien,

[old guy]

48. Got it. Thanks

[Go2Peace]

49. +100!

Our problems are more about our personal values than about the nature of our government.

[Lorien]

84. +1000 nt

[G_j]

241. well said nt

[KoKo]

252. +1

[Enthusiast]

368. This was also a virtue

in Nazi Germany.

[Liberal Dose]

428. Sounds like "Compassionate Conservatism" nt

[saltpoint]

15. Here's my own checklist, if anyone gives a tinker's damn:

Reproductive liberty is the domain of personal integrity and Congressman Stupak and just about any Republican you name need to back the hell off.

I'd also like to see someone get their head out of their hindend at the Vatican so that women can be ordained as priests.

Can't think of a good war. Some perhaps better intentioned than others. But the despair and destruction leave the earth wounded in all ways. Afghanistan defied even Alexander who at the time led the best-trained army of history. I fear that it will continue to defy any leader who commits soldiers to its punishing terrain.

We're all parents or children or both or uncles or grandmas or cousins or something, plus citizens on a real big planet, one which in my opinion should not condone spanking.

I support the president's health care reform initiative. You ram your way downfield. They'll be mud and blood. But you keep going. Stupak, IMO, bought the farm with that amendment. I think it will hover over the rest of his political career in ways he has not calculated, and none of it to the better.

And not least, I continue to believe that Emmylou Harris is the best there is in the entire spectrum of country and western music, hands down.

[tmyers09]

16. I've only been here about a month, so this is the only DU I know, but...

I think that maybe, it is because the Democrats are back in power of the presidency. Before, we had a Democratic congress but a Republican presidency. We had a common enemy to unite in anger against. Now, even with majorities in both houses and a Democrat in the White House, there is still an inability to get things passed. As a result of this, those who are for and against certain things start to blame each other; so-and-so is expecting too much, so-and-so has to take what they can get. Rifts will develop due to the inaction of the government, and tensions will flow.

Before, we could point to the other side when anything happened that we disapproved of.

Now, we can only point amongst ourselves.

[Kaleva]

26. +1

[RKP5637]

68. +1 from here too! n/t

[GliderGuider]

152. +1 from me too. The change in attitude in the last year has been astonishing. nt

[rudy23]

270. I only wish that I trusted that this rift happened organically, and not intentionally.

To me, the discourse has gone beyond tense, and it looks to me like DLC-ers are trying to harass progressives to the point where they run us off the site. Sadly, it's working, IMO.

[gleaner]

402. May not only be the DLC ...

It may also be Conservatives who have managed to get a high post count. I read a thread once on this same subject, and one of the posters there said that getting 1000+ number is not that difficult to manipulate if you know what you are doing.

Whatever the source, why let them drive anyone out. If they bully it is not pleasant, but if you stand up to them they will stop. I got attacked like that once recently over my refusal to say that I approved of everything Obama does and I responded to the attacker by saying that this was my opinion and if OP didn't like it not to read it or to block me. I also offered to make a robo post to keep in my journal stating my feelings on Obama's job performance because I was getting blisters on my fingers from typing the same thing a thousand different ways. OP decamped and has not pressed me again. If he does, I'll do the same thing again.

We have the same right of tenure as they do. If they don't like it they can avoid us.

[goclark]

319. You are right IMO, we are stabbing each other in the back

and we should be on the same side ~ I don't get it.

We are not really "IN POWER" ~ we really are not.

I'm not convinced it is the fault of the current Democrats (other than LIEman and a few others) it is bigger than that ~ we are doing exactly what they want us to do ~ Blame each other Progressives against the DNC etc.

We fail to realize that the Bush Mafia is still in control of Fox News and the voting machines. The reason we won this time was because it was such an overwhelming vote, they could not stop the steam roller.

But they are STILL in control of the Supreme Court, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, Blackwater , the M$M,Wall Street, the Health Industry, the Lobbyists, the Economy and on and on and on.

While I'm at it ~ the reason that FOX has so many viewers is because the Baggers don't watch anything else. FOX is their Bible. While we on the other hand watch a variety of channels. Still controlled by the Bush Mafia and Wall Street.

We are not in control of ANYTHING in America,nothing except our ability to act like crabs in a barrel and snap at each other at DU.

When we wake up and realize that we are our own enemies ~ DU will stand for something and we can work together again.


PS ~ Can we stop the FU's here?
Let's talk on an intellectual level please.

[lyonn]

345. "We are not in control....." That is how I feel

It is damn hard to get any real info on the economy, war, health care, etc., etc.. I end up watching old Frontline and PBS type programs for anything that isn't stupid questions about what the tea baggers are doing or all the nuttiest of nuts on the Hill are saying and doing.

The other day my husband was at a family owned type business that he has used for over 20 years, knows they are repubs and likes to kid then about all things goofy. He saw that they had few/fewer salesmen and boss was in his office taking his blood pressure. My husband told him something to the effect that he shouldn't be voting against his self interest. The old fart came back with the comment that he wouldn't vote for a black guy. It stuck in my head ...... these people are serious??!! So as I was passing through the house I commented to my husband in a sorta facetious way that "I don't care if he is black, I like the guy." He knew I was making fun of the jerk that is having serious financial troubles. Until Obama got into office I had no idea how so many around me were extremely prejudice.... and stupid.

Looks like people believe what they want to believe. Hell, I've gone from thinking civil unions are just fine to why not allow G/L to Marry. This site is a necessity to get different views. The rants against one another not so cool.

[goclark]

409. I like the way you view the political situation in America & DU

I like to come to DU to enhance my knowledge and to participate with really bright people who know how to discuss an issue on a very high level.

High level meaning ~ convince me with big words from the dictionary ~ that's what draws me to DU.

Let's leave the FU's to the Freepers.

"This site is a necessity to get different views. The rants against one another not so cool."

[goclark]

410. I call the Ranters ~ Bullies nt

[noiretextatique]

346. +1

:thumbsup:

[goclark]

445. I feel strongly about this ~

I was thinking about making a thread about it.

[Enthusiast]

386. When Bill Clinton was elected the first time

I had the distinct feeling that G H W Bush had never fully relinquished power. Like you I get the same impression this time around with President Obama.

[C_Lawyer09]

394. Here's what I don't get

Oregon used to have Republicans that were twice as liberal as Clinton. Mark Hatfield, Tom McCall. I thought Chuck Hagel was a good Senator, Repub from Nebraska. I'm a rookie in here, but have been taken back at the multitude that toe the party line. It doesn't just pay to critique the Repub agenda. I do a ton of that on the conservative blogs. We should look inward as well. Is it written in the Democratic platform that I have to subscribe to Keynesian economic policy? People rant on and on about our Iraq/Afghanistan involvement. Nothing wron with that, but was there this much outrage when a Democratic admin. allowed the genocide in Darfur? Nothing wrong with some intellectual honesty.

[redqueen]

396. Very well said. (nt)

[autorank]

17. Hey, you've been here much longer than I have

and I feel like it's been decades;)

I agree that the "moderate" view is more pronounced, as you outline it. And it is because we "won" but here's what surprises me.

Given the victory and the newness of the administration, I'm totally impressed that there's so much open questioning and discussion about the direction of both the country and actions of the party.

[Frances]

18. There have always been arguments on DU

I found DU soon after it started. At that time, there were violent arguments between the pro-Nader, pro-Green people and the angry at Nader people over the 2000 election.

And things got pretty hot at the start of the Dem presidential primary too. It stayed that way until after Obama won the nomination.

[SidDithers]

211. Yup, I agree with you...

the faces and issues may change, but there has always been beligerance and argument at DU.

Sid

[deaniac21]

19. Many people just like for their side to win. So it becomes very

easy to rationalize just about anything.

[provis99]

20. this is Democratic Underground, not Liberal Underground.

the forums look more like DLC Underground everyday.:(

[ProleNoMore]

27. Wait A Second - I Thought Democrats Were Liberals?

eom

[Raster]

30. Not anymore. Democrats have become just as corporate-controlled as the other.

[Enthusiast]

387. And ex-Republicans have

no where to go. If they don't do crazy, that is. And there are now more independents than ever. So we are getting the full spectrum of opinion. Also there are certainly purely GOP operatives on DU with the simple task of sowing discord, divisiveness and anger.

[Dinger]

420. I NEVER Thought I'd Say This, But

is it possible ralph nader was right, even a little bit? Eeeek, I'll take a shower now.

[TwilightZone]

41. Since when?

Not all Democrats are liberals. Never have been, never will be.

How do you think Blue Dog Democrats get elected in the first place?

[Atticus]

46. Republicans elect them. nt

[RKP5637]

71. Here that's the best we've got. Better than all Rs for us. Frustrating, but still

better than all Rs.Fortunately ours are human and pretty decent. I would rather deal anyday with a Blue Dog Dem than a conservative R.

[lyonn]

354. My State loves their Repubs!!!

It does no good to write them. I keep getting the same thank you letters about how they will consider my opinions. So it has been a long time since I bothered, but this a.m. I was choking on this health care bs and began scribbling my thoughts to Coburn about how he was not for the people, while drinking my coffe and watching the news. It was a bit harsh, like his lackies that read it will care. But, I felt better. Like my votes here don't count but ya gotta vote. Oh, and Coburn has this ad that keeps popping up on the screen telling us to let him know how we are behind him on health care. Like he needs to be told. I guess he is worshipped.

[TicketyBoo]

69. Well, our Blue Dog

Ben Nelson got my vote because it was that or another Republican.

'Nuff said?

[TwilightZone]

214. Yep.

I spent 20 years in NE and I know exactly what you mean. Pete Ricketts made Nelson look like a liberal.

[Lorien]

85. About 1970 or so. nt

[Kaleva]

42. Not always.

According to one poll I saw, a majority of rank and file Dems considered themselves to be moderates.

[waiting for hope]

43. There are many levels to what a Democrat is

these days - Centrist, Moderate, Liberal, Progressive, Leftists ... Before the BIG WIN, most democrats were labeled as Liberals by the Right - who have long held the tradition of trashing the meaning of the word and denigrating it to something akin to loony, socialist and unsavory - something that the label progressive is now achieving. Personally, I would like to see the party move away from the labels, for it shortens the dialogue. Here, take the test: http://www.politicalcompass.org/test - from the time frame that the OP is referring, most here would have scored to the far left in that test.

[voc]

57. No they are not.

A democratic voter is a DLC voter.
Liberals don't exist, dontcha know.
I believe the latest incarnation is "Progressive"
meh

[Sebass1271]

59. don't get confused. Sometimes Duers are very deep

and passionate. Just don't read their accusations, right now, everyone is against each other bcuz we all have our own ideological branch within the Democratic party. These ppl are all democrats/liberals/progressives whether they want to admit it or not.

; )

[Sebass1271]

62. its an internal fight, you know, like the famous song

with or without you.. i can't live....

[C_Lawyer09]

397. No Way

That's how the media started framing our two party system about 20 years ago. Repub=conservative and Dem=liberal, just not that black and white.

[dysfunctional press]

447. you got it backwards.

most liberals are democrats- but not all democrats are liberals. not by a long shot.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

21. Someone posted an OP from VDARE darling Paul Craig Roberts

Got a good 20+ Recs for it.

And why?

I doubt it was for his DLC/Corporatist policies.

The shock at things people can be "for" on DU doesn't just run one way.

[SidDithers]

213. I saw that...

and have been shocked more times than I can count, at some of the stuff posted here.

Idiocy is not the exclusive domain of the right or left.

Sid

[mitchtv]

22. No, DZ, it's not just you

it's a lemming mentality

[Thickasabrick]

23. Just you...the party is such a huge tent - there will always be these

differences.

On Kucinich - some of us have always just thought he was "too out there" to really be effective. I still like him very much and appreciate his efforts.

[H2O Man]

24. Recommended.

I posted something similar in an OP tonight.

Thanks.

[Raster]

28. I've been associated with DU since 2002. It's not you.

Liberals and progressives are being marginalized. The advocacy for the rights of women is diminishing. The advocacy for the rights of GLBT persons is diminishing. It's not you.

[ProleNoMore]

29. Progressives Are Definitely Being Marginalized

eom

[Lorien]

88. ...

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/lesson-by-digby-by-digby-ive-received.html

[lukasahero]

189. Women and LGBTs have left DU in droves

or have been TSd for fighting for our rights. There are few left to fight those fights and we are easily out-voiced.

[Enthusiast]

390. Much of this is through an

effort by a complicit M$M.

[tuvor]

31. You're like member number 3000 something. Currently there are almost 150,000 members.

And you're not sure if DU has changed since then?

[G_j]

32. sorta feels like it

though those views have always been around. To have them thought of by anyone as progressive, is a joke.
It is a joke if any of those people think they are "progressive", because they clearly are not.

[Luminous Animal]

33. The same thing happened to Democrats after Clinton was elected.

Thus, NAFTA & welfare "reform".

[Festivito]

35. Don't be fooled by the ebb and flow of shallow postings on DU.

It just means we were doing well, and must keep our noses even closer to the grindstone - an oftentimes messy business.

[closeupready]

36. I agree, but I think the recession has a lot to do with people's frames of mind.

I've been through several recessions, and this is always what happens. People get nasty and more primal.

[DJ13]

38. "Moderate" Republicans started migrating to our party after the 2004 Bush "win"

Bush and the rabid right scared them, pushing them out of the GOP.

Now they are diluting the Democratic party, trying to recreate their own little "Reagan Revolution" from within.

After all, that WAS the original reason the DLC was created.

[VOX]

39. There's a lot more anger on display than in years past, and posters are hitting flash-point quicker.

The anger, in many cases, is completely justifiable, after 8 years of right-wing rule, runaway cronyism, media BS, etc. As the bumper sticker reads, "If You're Not Angry, You're Not Paying Attention."

The disturbing aspect of this is when posters here turn on one another, and rapidly at that; then the slugging away begins, with posters trading repeated blows.

It would seem that the big tent has definitely had a few seams let out here and there.

[Atticus]

44. As a whole, DU has skidded to the right.

I think the last several years of the Bush administration were SO nauseating and blatantly criminal that even some Republicans and Libertarians started commiserating with the traditional Democrats and liberals here. For a time, we made common cause against Dubya and his thugs.

Now, Dubya has slunk offstage and the topic is "government". Differences conveniently papered over 18 months ago are now erupting almost daily. You have named many of the specific areas of disagreement. I would add the over-arching snarkiness and intolerance that now often contaminates even the most innocuous threads.

Tolerance is one of the hallmarks of liberal philosophy but, as I've posted more than once, tolerance of intolerance is self-defeating. We surrender all that we hold dear if we passively move aside and let the small-minded shouters pose as our equals. WE have the quality product. "Don't be fooled by shoddy imitations".

[MuseRider]

50. Hi David.

It is not just you. It is uncomfortable here, I don't spend much time here anymore. It saddens me but there really is precious little more here than one side bullying the other or vice versa. Not a lot of thought and the straw flies so thick it is hard to even follow some of the threads. I stay because I honestly care about some people here and just can't stand the thought of losing contact.

[BeHereNow]

58. USE the "Ignore" option... "they" are very FEW in actual numbers.

Just very aggressive and loud.
When you put them on ignore, DU becomes recognizable and enjoyable again.

BHN

[TicketyBoo]

74. It's uncomfortable for me, too.

I came here because Nebraska is an uncomfortable place to live if you're anything but gung-ho Republican.

I had hoped to find a comfort zone here, somewhere with a little more support for the President and Democratic Congress, but it's a bit more contentious than I'd counted on.

If I want to hear criticism of Democrats, I only have to go to the grocery store or Applebee's (where half of their big screen TVs are turned to Fox News).

I have to confess that I have a low tolerance for the not-so-polite discourse here. I wish I could stand more of it, but I can't. My time here is limited before I get my fill and have to turn away.

[Techn0Girl]

114. I understand ...

I think Skinner is making a huge mistake by relying on the good graces of the people to sort out free speech on the internet. What he may me missing is that one crazy person has the time to post ten times the amount of any sane and sensible person.

I think we need much more moderation with regard to civility here.

People who habitually use four letter words for the shock value of it need to be moderated.

People who cast aspersions on other's intents and, interests and motivations need to be moderated.

People who troll need to be moderated.

People who use the forums to whore out their opinions by creating inane "Rec if you Want blah blah blah" need to be moderated.

Skinner, if you're listening (because he's everywhere, right? lol ) , you avoid these issues at the peril of losing your sane and sensible base of users and having this place become the equivalent of a left wing teabagger party.

I've only been a member for a few months but have been reading the forums for a couple of years now. Places like Daily Kos moderate these idiots out - I think that you should as well.

Let's have a sensible conversation.

[BeHereNow]

125. SKINNER!!! Are you listening????

Please, help us save this place.

BHN

[Egnever]

139. Oh please

The moderation has been the same here since the begining and the amount of users has only kept on growing.

[AngryOldDem]

263. Then maybe that's the problem.

You can personally ignore disruptors all you want, but they are still here disrupting and will eventually compromise the integrity of this site. Moderation standards/guidelines have to be enforced more stringently as the population here grows.

DU, IMO, has just gone the way of most Internet board venues, as well as societal discourse in general. Sad.

[Beetwasher]

244. Anal Much?

:rofl:

[kenfrequed]

264. "...A left wing teaparty"

It is days like these that I wish was the sort to actually use the 'ignore' function.

Explain to me this left wing teaparty you see as a growing threat. Point it out to me. Try to give me a run down on how progressive anti-war, pro civil rights, pro environment, pro labor, ant-corporate power Left wingers are the equivalent of lying, fact challenged, racist, mysogynistic, violent minded, hysterical right wing lunatics.

Really do it. Make a real analogy that doesn't just try to say: "Well they are left of the middle and the teabaggers are right of the middle therefore..."

[rudy23]

279. Get used to it---that's obviously the DLC's long term strategy. We've seen it 100 times here.

One way you can tell who's trolling for the DLC is when 20 or 30 posters repeat the same catchprase. The Rahmbots are trained to be "on message" just like Rovebots.

By reading these tealeaves, we can gather that this is how the Obama administration plans to deal with "the left of the left" in the long term. They are going to try to brand us---we who were the most active in getting Obama elected---as being equivalent to teabaggers. Then the corporate Dems are going to link arms with the corporate Repubs and sing koombaya, while those of us with principles are shut out on the outside, crying.

[kenfrequed]

296. Yeah

I'm really not expecting much of a reply.

[azmouse]

349. Who pays you to post the same shit all over DU?

[noiretextatique]

348. nothing pisses me off more than so-called "moderates"

claiming that the "fringe" is the real problem, on the right and on the left. when the left in this country has the equivalent of faux news, for example, then perhaps that idiotic assertion would have a modicum of merit.

[Enthusiast]

393. +1, kenfrequed. nt

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

303. Need to be Moderated

so, you like a Police State.

oops - on your Ignore list now.

[blindpig]

331. Sounds like what you want is kindergarten.

imho, there should be no moderation.

[Enthusiast]

392. Those creating the

"Rec if you Want blah blah blah" threads DO NOT NEED TO BE MODERATED!

There is no danger of DU becoming a left wing version of the teabagger party because we have reality on our side.

[MichaelHarris]

51. pro

death penalty and pro spanking. Don't judge me monkey (Don't panic, it's a line from a movie)

[Jamastiene]

52. DU has changed.

It DEFINITELY has more conservatives now than it used to.

[DemBones DemBones]

53. DU has changed. It's not just you.

I couldn't believe the rejoicing over the giveaway to the health insurance industry that passed the House. And Kucinich was attacked repeatedly for having the brains and guts to vote against the stupid bill. Not to mention the way Obama's feet are not held to the fire; instead, excuses are made for him.

Meh.

[QC]

54. Yes, a right wing takeover does tend to change a place. n/t

[customerserviceguy]

55. It's you

You say that you've been here since 2001, things change when one side goes from the outside of political power to the inside. Rush Limpballs built most of his dittohead fan base during the Clinton years, but by this last year, he was unable to influence the Rethugs to nominate a more conservative candidate.

When we get out of power, we will see more unity, and we will achieve that status if we continue to fight with each other.

[Odin2005]

56. Back when I joined I remember a lot of decent moderate posters.

Now they seem to be gone. Even WyldWolf. :(

[ElboRuum]

228. Well...

If people don't quit jumping on us for expressing the moderate view, what cause is there to stay? I haven't left because I find opposing views challenging, rather than oppressive and unwelcome.

As a "moderate" (or whatever the word is these days for someone who doesn't toe the accepted liberal line on every single issue), when I first joined, I was very pleased with the tone and timbre of conversation on DU. You could talk and be heard. When people disagreed, generally they did so calmly.

There are, of course, exceptions. This is not Liberal Underground. This is Democratic Underground. There are those who wish it to be the former, and would expunge people like myself, who occasionally exhibit views which hard-core liberals would consider heresy, to purify the board. These conversations rarely ended calmly, and participation found you just a little bit worse for the wear.

The problem is that those who talk about DU's "good-old-days" required moderates such as myself to occasionally challenge the ideas presented here. That's where all of those great thought-provoking threads used to come from. Threads where everyone agrees get recommendations aplenty, but you see no conversation of any interest or value. You need dissent to get what the OP seems to be claiming to want, only the OP fallaciously insinuates that it is the moderate view which has displaced the liberal view and that's why it isn't the way the OP remembers. Far from it.

The fact is that your statement about good moderate posters is spot on. Many have left, and with very good reason. DU has factionalized.

There are those that are DLC, support your President at any cost, Obama Booster club with free decoder ring types who see any criticism of the President as being whiny and impatient. There are those that see all criticism of Obama as acting with nobility and resolve even if the criticism in question is just self-serving noise. And finally, there are the so-called moderates you mention and their more liberal counterparts who engage them in impassioned conversation rife with civilized dissent, but have been accused of being in one faction or another because of their desire to participate as they always have rather than choosing a side to be on.

This last faction has dwindled, but I'm sure many of them who've grown weary of the rather schizoid blend of elation and curmudgeonry around here still lurk, and you may see them again if things ever get back to some semblance of thoughtfulness and civility.

[LiberalLovinLug]

321. Very well put

From a previous post you made (I think), I am definitely to the left of you in a few matters.

But I welcome dissent. It helps shape a conversation.
Even when passion flows overboard into personal insults, I can forgive if the underlining conversation has a point.

Maybe we are in the minority, but I like to hear arguments between the Obama Booster Clubbers and the Socialist Puritans. Hashing out differences in the issues makes for a creative lively atmosphere.

Please lets not moderate this place into simply a mirrored sounding board for the "proper" DUer who satisfies a certain check list of beliefs and decorum.

I want passionate discussion. That doesn't happen with over-moderation.


As far as the board's members moving to the right, I agree. But the whole country, heck the whole world, has been moving that direction for years now. Decades even. Just because we have a Democrat in office doesn't change that shift. Its sad. The powers that be were so freaked out by the cultural revolution of the '60's that they began to come together to solidify ownership in mass media, and attack any liberal advancements. It worked! Hillary was right. There really is a vast right wing conspiracy. They have slowly but surely taken over all the institutions. The last bastion of free speech is the internet. I fear for net neutrality, especially when the next Rethug takes office. So we must use it or lose it.

[Odin2005]

336. Great post. I'm an unabashed liberal, but I hate the bashing of more moderate posters.

I will call people on misogynistic, racist, homophobic, anti-disabled, or anti-mentally ill positions that I consider wrong, but I refuse to bash someone because they are not ideologically pure.

[kentuck]

61. Well, we will need to change that, won't we ?

:-)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

63. There's More Because In 2001 You Had Like 10 Other Members.

Each year, the membership grows.

Oh... And Kooky kucinich is a hindrance...

[Sebass1271]

64. I have been a duer since 2000. and I still LOVE Kucinich

and i am totally pro-choice, and pro-death penalty.
complex, huh?

But i am a liberal progressive and very damn proud of it. : )

[Zomby Woof]

90. DUd didn't exist until 2001

Quite a feat if you joined in 2000. I hope Skinner gets that wrinkle in the space-time continuum fixed soon! ;-)

[kentuck]

65. I remember the big celebration when we broke 10,000 members.

It was a smaller community but with some very heavy thinkers. It was us vs the world.

[Sebass1271]

66. We are still heavy thinkers. I learn a lot on DU. Du is my shcool

this is where i come to learn and search for the real truth and real news. WE are just more opinionated, but we are still love liberals and Democrats.

[BeHereNow]

72. Filing you, finally.

Thanks for reminding me I needed to do so.
BHN

[nomaco-10]

75. What took you so long....

I've had them "filed" years ago. lol.

[BeHereNow]

77. What took so long? Thankfully hadn't seen that one in a while.

My better angels protecting me?
BHN

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

78. Buh Bye Now. Buh Bye.

:hi:

[nomaco-10]

83. I predict the next election cycle....

you'll be the one going buh bye.:hi: :headbang: :applause:

[Egnever]

135. I highly doubt it

He/she has been here a loooong time. You I am not so sure of.

[nomaco-10]

237. Well, we'll just see won't we....

I got temporarily banned for knocking lieberliar in 2004. It was my proudest moment. What's yours?

[kenfrequed]

268. Good!

I would wear that as a badge of honor. It's funny how quiet those that supporterd Lieberman are about that now, but I suppose I would be ashamed too.

[Stephanie]

93. No kidding

Case in point, re my post below.

[johnnie]

67. There seems to be more anger

Before the anger seemed to be directed at the opposing party and once in a while over Democratic candidates, but now it seems to be a continuous pissing contest over everything. There are a handful of posters here who only post angry posts and some who can dish it out but not take it.

[C_Lawyer09]

398. Dishing it out and refusing to take it

Generational

[nomaco-10]

70. Your profile says you've been here since 2001....

so you should know better than most, yes, du has changed. It's always changing and always has. It's ebbs and tides and flows of cyclical mood swings going on here all the time.

I don't hang here like I used to because it's so schizophrenic. I might come in and and find non stop wild, crazy conspiracy theorists threads taking up the whole page, or come back after a lengthy absence and have to check my address bar to make sure I didn't get redirected to freeperville.

I post here very seldom anymore. Not because I have any particular problem with du, but more that any subject that comes up is quickly dealt with and becomes "old news" by the time I find my way back here. Besides which, there are always at least fifty posters that have conveyed my thoughts in a much more timely and articulate manner than I could ever hope to match.

du is a lot like an aa meeting. Take away the stuff that helps you make it thru the day, and leave the rest behind.

[saracat]

73. It isn't just you David. I am stunned that I have to defend choice on DU. I was shocked

at the nastiness directed at the GBTL forum. GBTL DUers are frequently told that their "issue" isn't important and that they prevent progress.I was stunned when a dedicated young Democrat was "mocked" for being unemployed and told he was trying to use Obama as an excuse to milk unemployment benefits instead of trying to find a job. The Poor are routinely slammed on DU as though they deserved to be where they are. Folks express contempt for ther Brady Bill, support the NRA and defend guns in bars.I think this is because we have an Administration that is hell bent on bipartisanship whatever the cost and some are determined to defend that philosophy no matter what the cost. I think they are chasing an illusion. Bipartisanship no longer exists and it is not coming back. There are many who make up this "new" Democratic Party and the "new" DU. It is very difficult to find common cause with those who do not suppot Democratic principles and only endorse the concept of the WIN.

[cornermouse]

79. Do you remember when the government took the 400

kids from the religious commune because they were afraid they were allowing the children to be abused by the men? We had several threads on here defending the men too.

[saracat]

80. yep.

[Lorien]

94. I feel that many here view the Democratic party as a sports team that

they've adopted as an extension of their own ego. "My party, right or wrong" seems to be the philosophy of the masses these days. It's all about the "win", at any cost. Anything or anyone who weakens the chance of a triumph on any issue, good or ill, is torpedoed at once. There are no more "core Democratic values and principles". The Dems adopt whatever they believe will appease the corporations and loud far Right minority, and they treat their base with utter contempt because we have no one else to turn to. Either we must reform the party or start a new one, because as it stands we traditional Democrats are without representation.

[saracat]

107. I hear ya. Really. I really don't like a lot of these so called "new" Dems.

They do not speak for me.I am a liberal.

[derby378]

224. Democrats NEED core values - it's what separates us from the Republicans

Having grown up in a conservative family that tends to vote Republican, believe me, I know. Republican candidates often bleat about "traditional family values" and all that, but then they turn around and screw over the traditional families they claim to represent for the damndest and weirdest of reasons - many of which have to do with the corporate sector.

But my approach to Democratic values is rooted in the Constitution. That's one reason I'm such a stick-in-the-mud on gun issues, but at the same time, I will back you up 100% on women's access to healthcare and health insurance, including abortion procedures. And this viewpoint also fuels my disappointment with the House HIR bill.

It's been a long road of self-discovery for me, but I'm a Democrat, and I'm in it for the long haul. Even if I have to piss off the rest of the party once in a while.

[Kajsa]

219. We also have a number of

trolls ( yes, trolls!)

who are allowed to post here and infiltrate DU.

I'm not talking about " opposing opinions" either.

I know the difference between the two.

[kenfrequed]

271. Indeed

There are more than a few 'blue dog supporters' that post here with wild frequency in effort to give them cover here. I am still amazed how long it takes to get healthcare threads recommended out of 0.

[Kajsa]

278. Right you are, Kenfrequed.

That is one of their trademarks.

:(

[Autumn]

308. Same as with any thread against the wars,

you can refresh your page and a new anti war post has been posted, already unrecommended.:shrug:

[kenfrequed]

337. It really is odd...

I can only imagine there are freepiltrators or something. Hard to think that even the usual irritating blue dogs would stoop to such.

[Lilith Velkor]

76. A lot more DUers are channeling Ronald Reagan

I have never seen so much rage against tax money going toward social spending than I have for the past year or so.

[Lorien]

81. It's not just you. Add to that the increasing number of hardcore authoritanians

on DU (defending extreme police brutality, Walmart killers and more), misogynists ("Women are nothing more than a human sub-species") anti- environmentalists, anti-animal rights activists, even people who call anyone with a graduate degree an "elitist", etc. I don't know if we're overrun with trolls or if starstruck Obama fans have simply adopted every last one of the DLCs positions as there own. It's become a very ugly place that is extremely hostile toward Liberals, women, and GLBT members. If these people represent the "New Democrat" then many of us old timers need to seek out a new party.

[BeHereNow]

86. More people need to exercise the "Ignore" option!

WE know who these posters are- responding to them only encourages them.
IGNORE them.
End of problem.

BHN

[Lorien]

98. Oh, I have about 180 of them on "Ignore"

but the continue to multiply.

[BeHereNow]

106. I see no other option but the ignore list. If you do not feed them...

they will go away.

Too many DUers continue to engage them.
If they multiply, add them to your ignore list.
I see no other way to reclaim DU.

BHN

[voc]

97. +1

[ChiciB1]

355. I Was Commented Below About Starstruck Obama Fans Below & Somehow

got interrupted. I've sort of alluded to them as Rah Rah's and feel they want those of us that are more to the left like some type of corrupter.

Anything that comes down about him, or any time he's going to make a speech or anytime he makes ANY kind of news it gets posted BIG & PROUD!

However, we can go elsewhere I suppose, even though I don't like being "run-off" by them, still I'm uncomfortable seeing this DLC type movement to almost right of the DLC'ers. It may be that Democratic Underground doesn't live up to that name anymore. There was a time when they had "underground radio" and everyone KNEW what that meant. Liberals went there to listen and it was almost like trying to hide from the Do-Wop sound. Underground meant that to me, maybe not to others. The people I ran around with DID believe as I do.

So, many of us may just have to move along to another place. There are more out there that haven't changed as much as here, and I have gone there and felt more comfortable. And before I get attacked, I KNOW... don't let the door hit me on the way out!!!

That's what I'M TALKING ABOUT... that ATTITUDE! But I won't apologize for having differing opinions when it comes to Obama OR other Blue Dogs... there are times I just can't agree, and it's happening more and more. I AM against MORE WAR, and I DON'T like what I'm seeing regarding what is being called HCR!

[bluetrain]

87. There were always assholes and ops, but huge numbers of moronic creeps showed up to cheerlead Obama

during the primaries.

[MrMickeysMom]

91. Well, I can't exactly blame low post counts for this...

THOUGH... I don't exactly think they are what I'd call thoughtful people who have posted over the "years".

Some lately (post full moon) did come together over everything from death penalty (thank you OPERATION MIND CRIME) to needing a history book and a dictionary. Very short sighted, and I'm willing to forgive and move on.

Stick around and help people develop, and I'll stay with you. After all, I'm so perfect!

[Stephanie]

92. It changed during the PUMA Primaries

You'll note many of the old regulars have gone elsewhere since then - DU has been dumbed down to the point that it's too frustrating to try to have a conversation here these days.

[BeHereNow]

101. USE the IGNORE feature PEOPLE!!!! Wanna clean house? STOP feeding the wolves!!!

The wolves only continue to hang around here because too many decent DUers
continue to feed them!
IGNORE them- focus on the intelligent and civil discourse!

No offense to literal wolves intended- only the figurative ones
that have invaded our camp site.

BHN

[Stephanie]

102. I have to say, the system at Daily Kos works better

You can Recommend or Hide a post or a diary. The community polices itself very seriously. Here, there's so much latitude the trolls have taken over the asylum.

[BeHereNow]

105. And we've lost so many valuable contributors because of it....

Time to reclaim DU from the disrupting element.
I say we starve them out by not feeding them.
USE THE IGNORE OPTION.

It's the only way.

BHN

[Stephanie]

110. Ignore only hides them from YOU, though

They still get to spout their shit for the world to see. HR hides them for good. Also the Trusted User feature at DK is excellent. You don't get to Recommend or Hide until you've proven yourself. Lurking trolls need not apply.

[BeHereNow]

111. But what IF the core of DUers ignored them in massive numbers?

Sure, the rest of the world may see their vomit, but if we DON'T feed them,
we will starve them out.

I refuse to surrender DU to these disruptors.
Like DK, for sure, but DU is what saved me for the last eight years.
I will not go gently into that dark night.
I will not let them have the board or my friends here.

BHN

[AllTooEasy]

363. WHY THE CENSORSHIP?! That's very Republican of you!

[Name removed]

439. Deleted message

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

[AllTooEasy]

440. you want to silence their opinion because they disagree...

Don't hate, educate. Republicans just want to shut you up with dirty tricks or scream louder, rather than battle opinions. DUer/progressives/brains take on desenters with better counter arguments. Censorship/cowardice is a Repuke tactic. Don't believe me, watch 'em.

[BeHereNow]

441. "Desenters???"

WTF is a "Desenter???"

Oh my, Thanks for the "Addvise"

Itis Hughe!!! Series!!!

BHN

[AllTooEasy]

453. If pointing out my spelling error is your best comeback then...

obviously you don't have a decent intellectual comeback.

I overlook spelling and grammatical errors and attack the meat of the opposing arguments. Nice to see that your debating skills are so shallow.

[Techn0Girl]

You're right in Theory but ....

In practice it never works. I have been on internet or Compuserve forums since 1984 (yeah, that long lol) and have seen what works and what doesn't. We can speculate on the reason but I can tell you that a forum population is NEVER able to self-police itself through an "ignore" or any other means. Never. It may be people's natural curiosity but enough people refuse to use filtering options (or are unable to decide how to use them effectively) so that trolls and idiots are always able to waylay a discussion . Always. I have seen trolls and outcasts go as far as to organize themselves into groups and then infiltrate groups over a period of months in order to bring it down by creating dissent and confusion. This has happened more times than you would believe - gangs of these cretins would organize. What you say? "Only a complete sociopathic loser would have so much time available to do such a thing!". Exactly.

The only effective means to avoid trolls and idiots is a strict moderation policy.
In theory what you say should work. In practice it never does.

[BeHereNow]

119. There are, no doubt, such a people on DU.

"I have seen trolls and outcasts go as far as to organize themselves into groups and then infiltrate
groups over a period of months in order to bring it down by creating dissent and confusion."

They are SO obvious.
But I fear you may be right about it, the fact that without strict moderation,
they overtake a space.

I think the mods on DU do a very good job for the most part.
However, the disruptors are careful not to actually break rules.

Perhaps the tomb stoning process should be decided by how many
people have a disruptor on "ignore?"

Maybe that could work?
I don't know, I just hate what I am seeing happen to DU.

BHN

[Techn0Girl]

121. I Feel your pain :)

This sort of takeover by masses of cretins occurs in direct proportion to the popularity of a given site. It is inevitable - it always happens.

Your suggestion of having people tombstoned in direct proportion to the number of ignores thay have would lead to gangs of cretins getting together and effectively auto-tombstoning anyone they wanted - just for the laughs. But your suggestion is not without merit.... In fact it forms the basis of the only known (to me) effective community moderation system used on Slashdot - but there's a lot more to it than that.

If you want to save DU before it devolves even more into a hysterical bable of idiots and "my party uber alles" types you will have to implement a better moderation policy and continually embark upon a community campaign to get people to use it:

Some suggestions:

1. Allow people to rec or unrec individual user posts rather than just entire threads. Possibly (probably) restrict the ability to rec/unrec to "trusted " users in some way.

2. Restrict the number of posts a person can make in one day. Possibly to something like only 10 posts a day. This would help insure that people only say something that means something since their ability to post is limited. Quality over quantity. It seems that the people who have the least to say , say it a lot more than anyone else ("K&R!", ugh. )

3. Mandate a no nonsense policy regarding simple civility towards and then aggressively implement it.

[BeHereNow]

123. OH, I love number one!!!

Can I pass that onto Admin?
I'm sure they are well aware of the problem.

BHN

[Techn0Girl]

124. Feel free - this is a public forum

But I'll tell you - it's #2 - restricting the ability of social misfits to overrun a forum through massive disruptive posting that is really the most effective means. Suggestion #1 will be vetoed by the admins because it is difficult to implement technically.

[geek tragedy]

160. #2 will never, ever, ever, ever happen.

That would cut drastically down on the page views, which in turn would kill ad revenue.

[geek tragedy]

158. Who's disruptive and who's a REAL Democrat?

Who gets to play thought police?

[nashville_brook]

109. spot on.

[ChiciB1]

356. YES! Daily Kos Does Work Better Now... And Since I'm Being Vocal I

suppose there will be several suggestions that we LIBERALS go elsewhere. I've stayed here because it's been easy to post and it was my first blog. A creature of habit I guess, and I haven't taken enough time to involve myself elsewhere even though I've made some stabs at it.

As with many, lives are so, so busy and it's easy to what we've always done... but as I've said on this thread, it might well be the best thing to go where I feel more comfortable.

I did go away for a while, and I know some others did too, but see some of them back again. Still, seeing so much change perhaps I made a mistake.

[Techn0Girl]

117. dupe ...

don't know how this got posted - Dupe - sorry.

[TicketyBoo]

122. "Ignore" doesn't work for me.

I don't come to a board to ignore people.

If I have to resort to using "Ignore," I will go elsewhere.

[Techn0Girl]

118. "Ignore" Features never work....

I'm here to tell you that it doesn't work. I have been on internet and/or compuserve forums since 1984 - 25 years. I have been on hundreds of forums. I have seen trolls. I have seen troll gangs. I have seen people try to defend against trolls. An for a short time I operated as a troll once when I went through a period of idiocy myself.

I can tell you that "ignore" or filter features NEVER ever work. Ever.
I can only speculate that poeple have too much natural curiosity to use such a feature en masse. At best only 10% - 20% tops of a forum's membership will ever self regulate like that. The vast majority will either have too much curiosity or too little common sense to do such a thing.

And if all else fails , trolls and disruptive people will organize into various camps and create false arguments and flame wars amongst themselves to attempt (almost always successfully) to draw others in.

Filters never work in forums.
People are never able to self regulate en masse.
That's 25 years, a quarter of a century of experience , talking.

The only effective means of improving the signal to noise ration is a strict moderation policy.
The only user centric moderation policy that I have ever seen in 25 years that also works is the one that Slashdot maintains but this takes a HUGE amount of computer code to implement. It's almost certainly out of the question here.

[CanSocDem]

315. Never...??

Depends, I guess, on what you're trying to achieve. Some posters make their strongest statement, ever....by telling you you are being "ignored". It used to hurt, like having people walk out of a public meeting when you start to speak. It was worse when they refused me entry.



"People are never able to self regulate en masse."


I know you are talking about the nature of the forum but the whole purpose of democracy is because we think we can do it. We trust in the basic goodness of mankind. But, like little children, we sometimes get it wrong. The internet and left-ish forums like DU are valuable because they help to expose the enemies of social democracy.

These are heady times for the planet. Everybody is a little crazy. I'm as far left as they come here, but in my Skinnerian(B.F.) lunacy I agree with this:

"The only effective means of improving the signal to noise ration is a strict moderation policy."

.

[whatchamacallit]

95. It's tilted so far right, it's lying on it's side on the ground

A ton of really pissed, self righteous, moderates (or trolls) have overrun the place.

[geek tragedy]

159. What set of beliefs makes someone unfit to participate here?

Just curious if actual mainstream Democrats should be welcome at this place.

[whatchamacallit]

247. As long as "mainstream" democrats don't continue drifting so far right

that they become indistinguishable from conservatives, everyone is welcome. But let's face it you don't get C Street Stupaks without the party taking a hard right turn. I think what the OP is commenting on is the increasingly loud and aggressive "authoritarian democrats" (pro war, pro capitol punishment, eager to believe government propaganda...) who like castigating progressives in a manner reminiscent of right wingers.

[geek tragedy]

253. It sounds like the the OP is building strawmen.

There is going to be a wide variety of viewpoints on any given issue, even in a room full of progressives.

[whatchamacallit]

257. Agreed (about the variety), but I personally have noticed an increasing number of DUers

regularly posting views that were rare to this forum before. Just sayin...

[geek tragedy]

258. I never saw them as rare.

We've always had misogynists and homophobes here. It was only through vigorous moderation that they were able to purge the anti-semites.

But, when the OP labels everyone who supported the House health care bill as cheerleading the insurance cartels, he's just being dishonest.

[whatchamacallit]

269. Maybe so

But something does seem different. The DK hunters and Hasan = auto-terrorist crowd, among other things, has me wondering if the sands are shifting...

[Regret My New Name]

313. Aren't they terrorists, no?

I mean, even if they were middle aged white men, would we not consider them domestic terrorists?

[MisterK]

96. Truly big tent

It does seem the site is going to the right

[QC]

100. A big tent full of clowns and elephants. Like the circus. n/t

[proteus_lives]

99. Change is inevitable. Especially after the election victories.

I assume you don't want everyone marching in lockstep. I think argument is good. People should be exposed to multiple POVs.

But I've been a member for less than a year and only lurked for two. Changed for the worse? Can't say.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

104. Just more right wing DLC triangulators trying to sell BS as "not as bad" ice cream. K&R

[slay]

112. I'm right there with ya David

been here since 2004 - used to be VERY progressive site. for months i've been seeing people tryin to justify bad policies in relation to obama. i'm not sure why - this isn't FR - we are not going to be told we MUST do something - and it's not very easy to fool a stubborn liberal like you or me so regardless of the change - they can't change me, or you, or many other strong progressives here who, in my opinion, make up the core of DU.

[hfojvt]

115. that first one does not sound right

Are there really very many opposed to a woman's right to choose? Or is the question about public funding of choices?

[PurityOfEssence]

116. It's changed

One of the problems is that we "won".

So many have so much personal ego at stake with their adulation of Obama that to not defend every shifty, mealy-mouthed, corporatist, warmongering, timid, ultramoderate, two-faced action would throw the cruel light of day on their own cringing need to be on the winning side.

As discussed many times, this is Clintonian pandering writ large, and it will net similar results. At a time when the reactionaries were finally cornered and due a righteous comeuppance for nearly thirty years of atavistic deconstruction of our society into a jingoistic neo-feudalism, somehow we've won and STILL can't drive the stakes into their hearts. There are only two reasons for this, and the relative proportion of them is really not much more than the stuff of morbid speculation: the unsurety of effective policy to repair the damage and the grim fact that those who control this administration are cold, calculating corporatists of an only slightly worse kind.

This administration typifies a slur I used against Hillary Clinton during the primaries, before realizing that Obama was worse on this very count: it's Minnie Pearl politics, with a big cheery smile and the price tag dangling right in front of the face. Depressing image, eh?

[glitch]

238. Shudder! Still, nice to see you posting. :) nt

[Autumn]

311. I remember that Minnie Pearl politics post

I thought I had bookmarked it but never found it again.:spray:

[Violet_Crumble]

120. There's always been some of those types at DU who I find hard to pick from conservatives..

I've been here since 2002 and there's always been some round where I scratch my head and wonder why they think they're the slighest bit left-wing coz they embrace all or most of the views you spoke of, but apparently what's considered to be RW in other countries is seen as LW in the US, so there ya go. They don't bother me too much, coz it's just the internet and I like to have fun at their expense while I'm here :)

[eppur_se_muova]

126. Not "a lot more DUers" ... just "a loud more DUers".

Every family has its embarassing in-laws, and besides, we're all someone else's.

[MrScorpio]

127. I stand with you, David

We old timers need to stick together

[NMMNG]

128. We were told that "reaching out" to the RRRW was a good thing

You know, all of that bipartisanship and "building bridges" stuff. Look what it got us. :shrug:

[Nikki Stone1]

129. Lots of progressives are taking heat for sticking to their beliefs

And, yes, things have changed.

[BeHereNow]

131. SKINNER???? Can you hear us?

HELP!
BHN

[Nikki Stone1]

277. +1

:thumbsup:

[spin]

375. Try beling pro-gun on DU...

the "progressives" use flame throwers on us.

But hell, it's fun. I just wear flame retardant clothing.

[tavalon]

132. It's a bigger tent

People don't read the Democratic Primer anymore. It used to be that saying one was a Democrat was short hand for pro-union, pro-choice, anti-capital punishment and so on. Nowadays, we have a huge tent. And sometimes around here the crowd picks up strange memes (and that is same as it ever was).

[bvar22]

379. I'm all in favor of a "Big Tent", but....

there is NO ROOM for those who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners)
at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[bvar22]

380. I'm ALL in favor of a "Big Tent", but...

....there is NO ROOM for those who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners)
at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

Health Insurance Lobbyists do NOT deserve a seat at the table.




"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Ichingcarpenter]

133. We still have perpetual war draining this country dry

What is the mission? No one has a GOOD rational anymore.
DU? You need to awaken from your slumber the miltary industrial complex is still in charge even after CHANGE

[cherokeeprogressive]

134. No more and no less knee jerk reactive than it was when I signed on five years ago. n/t

[Egnever]

136. Well theres more people

And the willingness to buy into propaganda seems to have gone up but other than that I would say its about the same as it ever was.

[BeHereNow]

138. I sincerely and respectfully think you're wrong-

The level of tolerated vitriolic posts has never been so high.
IMHO.
BHN

[Egnever]

141. Come on, did you forget the 2004 primaries

They were brutal

[BeHereNow]

143. NO! I have not forgotten!

The disruptors were out in force and ELIMINATED.
I think we need to reexamine the rules for the board.
BHN

[Egnever]

144. Well acording to the OP's criteria

I am a disrupter, yet somehow here I am still despite the 2004 primaries and all the years since.

[BeHereNow]

147. Are you slinging obscene names and insults at posters? Not to my knowledge.

Everyone on DU has always been allowed to express opposing views-
that is NOT what I am referring to.
I am referring to the string of posts that have no reasoning, just mindless personal attacks.
BHN

[Egnever]

148. Well I try not to

But sometimes my temper gets the better of me.

[tavalon]

137. A lot of us progressive liberal socialists find it even more painful

to be screwed over by "our own" than by the others. I think that's the crux of some of the change.

[BeHereNow]

140. I don't think the contingent you refer to is "our own."

I agree with the premise set forth by TechnoGirl. I think it is more accurate.
I also think the Admin needs to set forth "new rules."
If we are to preserve the integrity of the forum.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6987043&mesg_id=6988025
BHN

[tavalon]

142. I agree

I would have to be a old school republican to feel like these people are "my own". Actually, I would need to be a corporation and a big one at that, to feel like they represent me.

[defendandprotect]

146. Ah . . "You can only really be betrayed by those closest to you" . . . DLC!!

[Critters2]

246. +1 nt

[defendandprotect]

145. I don't know that a lot of DU'ers are opposed to "Choice" . . . I think they're frightened

of losing health care and will throw women under the bus for it --

Meanwhile, this bill doesn't even have PUBLIC OPTION!!!!

But anyone willing to move their positions to the right to ensure their "safety" are nuts!

The right wing is violent and suicidal --

Joining them makes no sense -- if you're a thinking human being!

[Tx4obama]

149. David ...

You said in your OP:
"A lot more of DU'ers are now opposed to a woman's right to choose and suggest that Democrats should back away from our defending women's reproductive rights than the community did in the past."

I can only speak for myself (as a woman and a democrat)

There are TWO different issues:
1) A woman's RIGHT to have an abortion - which I fully support and which the Stupak Amendment does not affect.
2) INSURANCE COMPANIES being prohibited from issuing insurance policies that cover abortions (with the exception of rape, incest, and when the life of the woman is in danger) that are funded by taxpayer dollars and/or federal subsidies. In my opinion abortions should NOT be funded by the government and NOT funded by taxpayer dollars.

Women still have he RIGHT to have an abortion paid for by 'their own money' and have as many abortions as they deem necessary -
taxpayers and other insurance policy holders should NOT be expected to pick up the tab.

[cornermouse]

151. I shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for a war

that cannot succeed and is a far larger, far more outrageous waste of money, and which kills life forms that are capable of independent life. I shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for a giveaway to the bankers and Wall Street. In fact the government does a lot of things with my taxpayer dollars that I don't approve of. Since when did you or I get to pick and choose what we pay for with our tax dollars?

[Tx4obama]

325. To answer your question..

One is example is in 1976.
We the People were represented by Congress when they passed The Hyde Amendment which prohibits our tax-payer dollars from funding abortion.

[Bluenorthwest]

207. Then are you going to pay for YOUR war?

I do not want to pay to send drones to kill kids. Why do do you expect me to pick up the tab? Or does actual killing not count?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

150. It's the Pragmatists overcoming the Progressives/Liberals

who they have stigmatized as "purists" or childlike or irrational Dennis Kucinich fans.

People who adhere to the same values they had before the election and who voice surprise/disappointment at the actions of the man they elected as President as well as the majority they put in the Congress have been told consistently over and over here to be "realistic" "pragmatic", etc. and that they are a fringe group outside the vast DLC majority.

When you are an underdog you are passionate. When you are the power holder the core issue becomes retaining the power, and values mutate or become disposable all together.

[tblue]

248. I think what's scary is how many progressives will sit out the next elections.

That's part of my reason for ranting against the Democrats' steamroller of centrism, bipartisanshit, and capitulation. It's not that I want to criticize Obama and Harry Reid, or that I can't acknowlege the good they've done. It's that I want them to deliver on their promises, stick to the party platform, and dammit stand up for the people who elected them instead of dismissing us and what we want as just another opinion and therefore expendable.

[juno jones]

293. Pragmatism.

I have come to hate that word vis a vis politics. Pragmatism is what I heard in defense of not standing up to Reagan and pointing out the flaws of the republican agenda back in the 80's. We were supposed to become pragmatic and hold out noses and vote for corporate DLC'ers who were like Reagan only supposedly nicer, because pragmatism dictated that we shut up and let them screw us.

After '84, I no longer registered as dem. I vote dem, but I am officially 'I'. Pragmatism is effing killing us and has effectively skewed our representation to the right, because no one will challenge the assumed reagan-era 'cultural wisdom' on anything.

[geckosfeet]

153. Kind of like NPR. They were much more aggressively liberal in the beginning.

Over time they have become "fair and balanced" and required to "present both sides" if they want taking gov't $$$'s.

[notadmblnd]

154. we've been infiltrated by a bunch of blue dogs

and a hateful bunch they are.

[jpak]

155. It went from a Big Tent to A Big Outhouse

Accompanied by a steady drumbeat of anti-Obama anti-Dem FAUX News talking points.

yup!

[urgk]

156. Not that I'm arguing, but I'd like to see numbers on this type of OP.

Passion can distort the way we analyze things. Which may or may not happen on threads like this.

I mean, you could be 100% right. Or you could be somewhat wrong. My point is that we have no idea until there are concrete numbers and I'd like to know what they'd say.

[geek tragedy]

157. The good old days of MIHOP vs. LIHOP vs. No Plane Hit the Pentagon?

What's happened is that this site's membership now more closely resembles the real human beings who comprise the Democratic party. There's more diversity of opinion, and it's more mainstream.

People should not act surprised to find legislation supported by the party's most liberal members (219-2!) with support here. The people who think it's a grand rightwing sellout are not the mainstream of the Democratic party.

[Junkdrawer]

166. There was a time DU provided an alternative to Corporate News...

Can't have that...

[H2O Man]

168. Right.

We want to be "mainstream." It is the highest goal. It may require lobotomies, and they may now be covered, considering that a conscience can be considered a pre-existing condition for many here.

[geek tragedy]

170. So, you favor a leftwing echochamber where

people who support the Democratic party should be unwelcome?

Where ordinary citizens should feel afraid to speak their mind if it departs from the thought police's dictates?

[Junkdrawer]

181. Who sends whom to the dungeons?

:shrug:

[geek tragedy]

183. That's my question.

Should mainstream liberal Democrats just STFU whenever they disagree with Dennis Kucinich?

[Junkdrawer]

187. It's much more likely that a "Kucinich" sub-forum (dungeon) would be created...

and all pro-Kucinich posts relegated there.

But more likely is that the rabid anti-Kucinich posts will continue, will receive subtle moderator support and soon most DUers will get the message that supporting Kucinich is not encouraged.

[geek tragedy]

188. They haven't dungeoned the rabidly anti-Obama stuff.

Nor have they dungeoned the Obama cheerleading.

So, why would they do the same for the Kucinich people?

[Junkdrawer]

192. I said the dungeon is a long shot. Marginalization of Kucinich supporters...

is much more likely.

[geek tragedy]

195. Kucinich supporters outnumber Obama supporters here.

In terms of forum activity, to be sure.

[Junkdrawer]

196. Looks like you got your work cut out. No one said McKinney-ing Kucinich...

would be easy.

Sockpuppets to the battlements!

[juno jones]

300. LOL! n/t

[Lyric]

167. The mainstream. Hah.

The mainstream of the nation as a whole is comprised of a bunch of centrist idiots who care more about the latest reality TV show than about the political issues that define their lives, and the mainstream of the party isn't much better. Why should we WANT to be in the "mainstream" of the party? The mainstream is the place where the muck flows the thickest and fastest. No thanks.

[geek tragedy]

169. You're no smarter than anyone else just because you're far left.

This incredible arrogance--that somehow only the left 5% of America has any intelligence, insight, or validity--really indicates a smallness of intellect.

If you don't want a site where mainstream Democrats are welcome, don't name yourself after the Democratic party. If you want to form GreenParty Underground, go ahead. But, to call a site "DEMOCRATIC Underground" and then complain because actual Democrats are there is really stupid.

[tekisui]

177. AH, now we are getting to the 'elitist' argument.

[geek tragedy]

184. Read this and tell me it's not elitist.

The mainstream of the nation as a whole is comprised of a bunch of centrist idiots who care more about the latest reality TV show than about the political issues that define their lives, and the mainstream of the party isn't much better. Why should we WANT to be in the "mainstream" of the party? The mainstream is the place where the muck flows the thickest and fastest. No thanks.

[tekisui]

185. It sounds like a well informed opinion.

Calling it elitist is to suggest pride in ignorance.

[geek tragedy]

186. You're endorsing elitism and intellectual snobbery then.

You really can't object to the charge of elitism when you endorse elitism.

[tekisui]

190. LOL!

[geek tragedy]

191. That you don't realize the irony of you decrying

accusations of elitism and then turning around and endorsing egregious, flagrant elitism is not my fault.

[tekisui]

193. I don't decry accusations of elitism.

I find solace in RW memes being lobbed at me.

[bread_and_roses]

201. The very fact that "far left" is routinely used to describe positions here

is, I think, symptomatic. I can't offhand recall ever seeing a "far left" position seriously advocated by any significant number of posters on DU. But the term is routinely applied to what - in Western Europe, say - would be part of mainstream discourse. Not to mention routinely used to describe positions supported by the majority of Americans as shown in poll after poll over the years.

[QC]

203. It's gotten where there's more red baiting here than at a John Birch Society meeting.

Did you ever imagine you would see longtime members denounced as Trotskyites and commies here? It's like the Reagan years are back. Hell, we're back to the Eisenhower era here.

[geek tragedy]

255. Lazy language, admittedly. But, there is this notion here

that anyone to the right of Dennis Kucinich is a rightwing sellout DLC ConservaDem.

Which is nuts.

[Capn Sunshine]

339. Nuts?

Everyone knows Kucinich took the money and ran, and now is laughing at all of us from his private island with his ultra fascist redhead model babe.
Wake up and smell the coffee, hippie.

[bread_and_roses]

395. Is it nuts? There's a song: Which Side Are You On?"

You know, when you're young, you think there are only "two sides" to any issue: right and wrong. You get older, enough people convince you that that's jejune, that nuance and compromise are more "adult" and "reasonable," you practice them in your own life and are rewarded for doing so, you're convinced. Then you get older. And guess what? You watch the way things turn out. You see who "wins" and who "loses" in any battle. And you realize, that yes, your young self was right. There really are only two sides:

from "Which Side Are You On" Lyrics by Florence Reese

They say in Harlan County,
There are no neutrals there.
You’ll either be a union man,
Or a thug for J.H. Blair.

Oh, workers can you stand it?
Oh, tell me how you can.
Will you be a lousy scab,
Or will you be a man ?

Don’t scab for the bosses,
Don’t listen to their lies.
Us poor folks haven’t got a chance,
Unless we organize.

Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?

[juno jones]

304. However consider the described noun, "underground";

NOT mainstream, NOT middle of the road.

Democratic is an adjective that merely modifies the noun. This place has always been an outlier of conventional dem thought.

[geek tragedy]

369. Then is it to be defined simply as Democrats who hate most other Democrats?

If so, how would one distinguish between DU and Hillaryis404?

[juno jones]

426. I have no problem with democrats who adhere to their stated platform.

If they were doing that, there would be nothing to complain about. Do you disagree that a dem should accept the platform of the party at the very least for affiliation?

And you really might want to put the 'hate' word away. I have enough words without having someone put them in my mouth for me.

[geek tragedy]

442. Overall, every caucus member should adhere to the platform.

Understanding that virtually no one is going to subscribe to each and every element of the platform.

Of course, single payer is not in the platform, but that doesn't stop folks around here as using it as a litmus test.

[C_Lawyer09]

401. Muck

If it's the thickest then it would probably flow the slowest.

[LaydeeBug]

161. Oh, we laydees need to "back down" and "get a grip", we're just hysterical.

That mantra gets met with a resounding FUCK OFF each time from me.

[geek tragedy]

171. But, misogyny ain't nothing new here. nt

[Odin2005]

338. This guy agrees with you!

[CTLawGuy]

162. my 2 cents

- First, I'm guessing you are talking about posts saying that health reform should not be killed over the Stupak amendment. I don't think that posiiton makes anyone against women's rights, it's a matter of whether you want a bill that is an overall positive to be passed, and we can deal with the unpleasant parts later, or whether you should kill something that would do some good because it has some bad aspects to it.

- I also don't get how the bill is an "insurance cartel giveaway". No one has been able to explain this to me. The insurance cos have figured out how to get all the profitable people and keep out the unprofitable people. The vast majority of the uninsured are those the insurance companies don't want to deal with. Also, the insurance industry is virulently against the bill. this is not to say I support mandates. I think they are unnecessary, but it's hardly a giveaway.

As to your main point: It is always easier to oppose the implementation of a public policy, especially a complex one, than it is to actually make it happen. It's easier for DU to unify in opposing Republican ideas than to unify in support of the creation of complex public policy. There's much less nuance in saying "no to war in Iraq" than saying "yes to health care".

Either you are for the particular policy (in this example the war in Iraq) that is being proposed by the other side or you are not. You have no control over its details.

As to policy being proposed by our side, e.g. health care, because we are trying to put together a reform package, there are so many ways to disagree about how something should be done.

Take health care: you can disagree about

Substantive issues:
- the mechanism for implementing health care: single payer, public option, mandates
- how much the government should spend: deficit neutral, or don't worry
- what should be covered: abortion, Viagara

and Procedural issues:

- what's the threshold for the president rejecting a bill altogether? no public option? Stupak stays in? Mandates?
- how much should we compromise to ensure the passage of a bill?
- when should the bill get done?


With so many ways to disagree there is going to be a greater incidence of discord and flaming on DU.

[geek tragedy]

174. There's a certain up-is-downism here.

The 221 most liberal members of the House voted 219-2 in favor of the House healthcare bill.

219-2!!!

The other 37 'no' votes were from rightwing Blue Dogs.

But, I'm a DLC sellout because I support the liberals' vote, because I agree with Barbara Lee and Raul Grijalva and Louise Slaughter and Donna Edwards.

[clear eye]

204. The corporate giveaway aspect of the House HCR bill is off-topic.

If you really want to know why lots of people are saying that now, please start a thread saying just what you said here, and you'll get plenty of explanations.

[CTLawGuy]

245. doubt it

because it is an empty talking point.

[BREMPRO]

281. "It is always easier to oppose the implementation of a public policy, especially a complex one,

than it is to actually make it happen."

for me this is the core of the division that has erupted here. On the one side you have the hard core progressive idealists who don't compromise principle, and the other the progressive pragmatists who realize that creating public policy takes compromise to get anything actually accomplished. It's the single payer or nothing, vs. the something that can actually pass through congress and be improved and refined in future efforts. This is EXACTLY how social security and medicare was created.

I've been here since 2004, and count myself in the pragmatist corner, and have been very frustrated at the ease at which some of the idealists have been quick to reflexively judge any compromise as a sell-out to core principles, and sometimes just from ignorance rather than really understanding the issue.

I posted yesterday that Dodd was introducing sweeping financial regulation legislation. response? Immediately judged as inadequate and compromised by wall street insiders without even reading it or giving any thoughtful analysis. That's the part that bothers me. reflexive nay-saying. I'll have a discussion with anyone, but there seems to be many here who now are opposed to anything Obama or the Dem's in congress do because they've pre-judged them as sell-outs and anything that doesn't meet their ideals is dismissed without discussion or analysis.

regarding your point about the "insurance cartel givaway" I agree with you. I find it implausible that if they were getting such a windfall they would be running ads 24-7 to defeat any reform, and supporting teabaggers and their own employees to disrupt the process. The people here that want to completely eliminate the insurance industry in one fell swoop are unrealistic and have no appreciation of the upheaval that kind of change would create. I don't support insurance companies, and believe they are an unnecessary middleman that cost us dearly, but don't agree that it is either realistic or desirable to eliminate the entire industry in one legislative session. It's an non-starter and would be killed by a coalition of the majority before it ever got to the floor. It's also wrong to focus so much on Insurance- most of the cost issue with health care is with our "fee for service" delivery method. That is actually begun to be addressed in this bill, but the idealists just ignore that fact and continue to parrot their belief that single payer is the answer and their is NOTHING good in the health care bill. :banghead:

[tekisui]

163. Yes. Liberal positions are consistently attacked now.

Conservatives came into the party and have moved DU to the right. Blind defenders of all things Obama berate anyone who takes issue with a policy decision. It is no longer a place for liberals and progressives to be unapologetic in their positions.

And some long time asshole trolls prey on the expanding conservatism here. It isn't fun anymore.

[geek tragedy]

173. Or maybe liberals disagree with you sometimes. nt

[tekisui]

175. This isn't about me.

[geek tragedy]

176. Well if someone disagrees with you from the 'right' do you not

interpret that as an attack on progressive values?

[tekisui]

178. It isn't about me.

[Forkboy]

298. Yeah, but what's your excuse?

[freddie mertz]

164. What is weirdest of all is that the far-righters here have managed

To project themselves as the "true" and "loyal" defenders of the party and the president.

Which shows us just how far the "high command" of the party has drifted from its core values in the past year or so.

[Echo In Light]

243. Well stated

[Stinky The Clown]

172. It has changed

There is much more blind acceptance of what is said by those in power and much less critical thinking, There is also a lot of defense, not so much of policy as for the man setting policy. I think some DUers have become too person-centric in their consideration of policy and in the way they defend it.

[Vinca]

179. The only way I seemed to have parted ways with the old DU is

I'm inclined to think we should get whatever health care will pass, then work on it. Why? Because it's been 16 years since the Clinton plan went down in flames and we cannot wait another 16 years. This is a lousy bill. It's not what I want. But there is no way in hell any bill that is even close to single-payer will pass anything in this government anytime soon. Maybe if we get a bigger majority. Maybe if we elect more progressives. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Meanwhile the bodies are stacking up. There are 3 years to work on the many flaws in the bill, but if we don't have a foot in the door we will have nothing.

[Bluenorthwest]

210. is that the topic?

[patrice]

180. I think it has.

[Geek_Girl]

182. I think what has changed is the Dems are now in Power

and unfortunately the Democratic Politicians are not very progressive. Many on DU support democrats no matter what, even if they are pushing a conservative, corporatist agenda.

Unfortunately this is a forum for supporting Democrats not necessarily progressive policies.

[bread_and_roses]

202. then maybe it should drop the "underground" part of the name?

After all, what is "underground" about "supporting Democrats"?

[Echo In Light]

206. Sounds "edgy!" (but it ain't)

[Fading Captain]

194. I would sacrifice abortion coverage, temporarily, to win single payer

Because that would be a giant victory for America. And a few years down the road, the abortion coverage would come.

But to make this sacrifice for the pile of shit reform passed in the house is unpalatable.

[lukasahero]

198. I don't suppose you see the irony

of a guy talking about how he would sacrifice women's rights as a reply to the OP, huh?

[Bluenorthwest]

212. Your profile says 'Male' so what exactly are YOU giving up?

Just amazing.

[Toasterlad]

216. The Ends Justify the Means, Eh?

I hope a woman kicks you in the balls every day for the rest of your life.

[Lorien]

327. Fine. Let's add an addition to Stupak. Every man who fathers a child is

responsible for 50% of the cost of raising that child until the age of 18, and 50% responsible for all the health care costs of the mother. Would you stand behind that law 100% in exchange for "health insurance reform"?

[snot]

197. Agreed.

The DU'er's you described are not, to my mind, Dems at all.

And this is not just about tolerating a diversity of views, since meanwhile, Dems supporting DK or voicing opinions even further to the left get flamed.

[geek tragedy]

199. How many posts in this thread can you identify

criticizing Obama supporters as opposed to those criticizing Kucinich supporters?

It seems a lot of people really don't like the idea of a Democratic website's members supporting a Democratic president.

[Toasterlad]

221. Oh, Do We Have a Democratic President?

I'm glad you told me. Given the vast number of Bush policies being continued by this administration, I thought the Pres was a Repub.

[geek tragedy]

249. The vast majority of actual Democrats disagree with you.

Which would indicate that you are a poor judge of who is and who isn't a 'real' Democrat.

[Toasterlad]

254. Got a Poll On That, Do You?

I've read more than a few posts on DU by people unhappy with Obama's continuation of Bush's policies. I'm pretty sure I'm just as good a judge of who is and who isn't a "real" Democrat as you.

[geek tragedy]

259. Poll proving you're a piss-poor judge of who is a 'real' Democrat

http://dailykos.com/weeklypoll/2009/11/5

Obama approval rating:

Democrats: 88%

[TwilightZone]

276. The 5% unfavorable...

must all post on DU. Loudly and often.

Considering the storm of negativity both here and in the media, that 5% figure is rather remarkable. If one based his or her opinion on the media and/or DU, one would conclude that half of Democrats can't stand the guy.

[geek tragedy]

312. There are a lot of people who talk

about "REAL" Democrats that are registered Greens here.

[AllTooEasy]

360. EXCELLENT COMEBACK!!!

[TwilightZone]

275. DU is not even remotely representative of Democrats as a whole.

If it were, Dennis Kucinich (or Wesley Clark, for that matter) would be president.

[Toasterlad]

285. Ah, So DailyKos Is an Impeachable Source, But DU Doesn't Mean Shit.

It sure is easy to "prove" your point when you can cherry-pick your statistics. I seem to remember Fox sports announcing that all their polls said Bush was doing a bang-up job.

[TwilightZone]

286. Either you responded to the wrong post, or you're having a little trouble reading.

I didn't mention DailyKos and I didn't provide any statistics.

Want to try again?

Oh, and "Fox Sports"? Try Fox News. It's not that hard to tell them apart.

[Toasterlad]

289. The Poster Above You Posted a DailyKos Poll, As You Know.

And then you said that DU doesn't mean shit. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing. For example, it enabled you to realize that I typed "Fox Sports" when I meant to type just "Fox" (probably due to my looking at a sports site immediately prior to my post). Sadly, you were unable to extend that comprehension to realize that my post used your post and the previous poster's post to make a point.

I'd have to give you a C for the day.

[TwilightZone]

292. It's a Research 2000 poll. Says so right at the top.

I guess you are having trouble reading.

Perhaps you should take a step back and re-evaluate your approach. Your ignorant belligerence is making you look pretty silly.

Have a nice day.

[Toasterlad]

305. "Your ignorant belligerence is making you look pretty silly."

As I have zero respect for your opinion, I'm pretty comfortable ignoring your advice.

BTW, at the top it ACTUALLY says DAILY KOS. And right below that it says "Daily Kos Weekly State of the Nation Poll". That's what we call a DAILY KOS POLL.

Same to you, re: nice day.

[geek tragedy]

374. It was a public opinion poll conducted by a professional

polling firm, genius.

[geek tragedy]

370. That was a public opinion poll, not a DailyKos

site poll.

Are you really denying that 80-90% of Democrats approve of Obama's job performance?

Edited to add: Oops. Responding to the wrong person.

[TwilightZone]

225. Dennis is the only "real" Democrat alive.

Everyone else is a corporatist whore.

Didn't you get the memo?

[geek tragedy]

250. A Party of One.

Kinda like Connecticut for Lieberman.

[Bobbie Jo]

295. LOL

True dat. :rofl:

[Bobbie Jo]

294. + 1

[SlingBlade]

208. But of course it's changed ....

There has been an absolute hoard of Freeper (The Obvious) and disaffected conservatives who
have invaded our domain. The obvious one's, The Freeptards are easy to spot, Their usually found
in the postings as "Name Removed, Message Deleted", Not such a problem but an irritant for sure.

The most dangerous, Those disaffected Conservatives are much harder to spot. I know of at least
one who operates a message forum, He's the Forum Fuhrer, Who claims that he's been on D.U for over
two years and laughs at the D.Uers who he claims actually recommend his postings.
http://www.LetsBeHeard.net/forums

Postings which he claims run the gambit of outright Obama and Progressive/Liberal Policy bashing to a strong conservative stand on the issues. He claims to represent the majority here of conservative democrats who are more in line with republican conservatives than they are with Liberal and Progressive members of D.U

Every time I see one of these post I wonder if it's him or one of his cronies and Yes, I'm the one
who generally Un-Recommends most of these conservative type postings that in my mind belong more
to Freep Land than they do Democratic Underground.

There like a Virus, Give them a shot of good old D.U truth and kick their asses to the curb

K & R :)

[SidDithers]

209. A lot more DU'ers question the motives of other posters...

and think that they are the sole arbiter of what a "real progressive" or "real liberal" or "real democrat" is.

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

215. It is more like a right wing church picnic

and less like a fun political site.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

217. I agree

I have read a few things on here that have completely blown me away. Reading how many people were championing the execution of the DC sniper and hoping that the Ft. Hood shooter received the same fate was mind-boggling. Not to mention throwing DK out of the party. I really dont have anything in common with those people.

[WI_DEM]

218. Nope, all the acrimony around here is the same as always.

[newportdadde]

220. Its not just you, this is the first time we have held power while this site was here.

So for the first time we find ourselves with actual control. Your seeing a split from a sole group that hated Bush and everything his regime stood for into two or three groups.

1) Group one - status quo group, I'm not sure how to describe this group beyond that they are very much pro what is going on in Washington. They want a win and they want to continue winning, very supportive of whatever the curret meme is. They are extremely supportive. I believe they overlook things because its 'our team'. For example if I magically waved a wand and it was Bush and a Republican congress passing this healthcare reform they would all be screaming, but since its our team its okay. I get where they are coming from nobody wants to go back to the previous way of governing but I think they suger coat it too much.

2) Group two - not enough change/fast movement etc, this group wants more change and they want it faster, they point back to campaign promises and want to know when they will be delivered. I think this group is frustated and worried about 2010 losses and I don't blame them at all.

3) Group three - skeptics group.. or the wtf is this shit group. This group finds itself looking at the past eight years and then this last year and wants to know if it might have bought a corporate DLC lemon. They are seeing that our team seems very very corporate friendly. When someone posts about overvalued stock markets remarkable recovery! this group raises its eyebrows.

Groups two and three are really closely mixed I'd say group three tends to have a more economic focus or domestic policy focus while group two has a more global focus.

[phasma ex machina]

222. Great thread! Goes well with my morning coffee. Thanks for sharing everyone. nt

[HughBeaumont]

223. It has. For myself -

1) You have the uterus, you have the choice . . . despite what the 10 fat old MEN that signed that dominionist piece of crap 7 years ago say. NEXT.

2) I'm pro-Single Payer. Always have been. The fact that we have to baby-step this shit speaks VOLUMES of how non-progressive a nation we are. I can't believe there are people who think keeping the system in place we have now and thinking insurance conglomerates are going to "lower costs" isn't anything but pathetically laughable.

3) Yes . . . maybe. Child killer/rapists is where I draw the line. Is it kinder to put the child killer/rapist to death by lethal injection or stick him in the GP and subject him to a short life of torture, beatings and the inevitable shanking?

4) Not pro-abuse. I wasn't spanked as a kid, but I was verbally abused throughout most of my life.

5) America is straight up a violent nation. We're raised on it. You can't just ban guns outright, but there has to be some more responsibility enacted in safety, training and sales transactions.

6) See #2, third sentence.

7) Bring them home. ALL of them. Both wars are pretty much being fought because rich people aren't rich enough.

8) I'd like it if all Democrats adopted at least ONE of his progressive positions.

I'd like to add that we're seeing a greater influx of posters here who support job offshoring, corporate profiteering, globalization, free-trade and laissez-FAIL economics. That's what sickens me. There is nothing progressive about the destruction of someone's working livelihood and "race-to-the-bottom" corporatism. NONE.

[SlingBlade]

226. Look, David Zephyr asked the question ...

Has the DU Changed? Or Is It Just Me?

And it's not simply a question of motives, But bedrock progressive and liberal issues which have for sometime now been under attack and or criticized. His list pretty much confirms in my mind at least that its an issue worth discussing here among members.

David Zephyr points out the change since the Iraq War/ Wmd/Election Fraud beginnings of D.U
and that's not an elitist stand but a genuine question concerning the direction of this forum
The attitudes and outlooks now being proposed by members of D.U on some of the following
issues that David has listed I've seen with my own eyes, Here they are.....

Opposed to a woman's right to choose
Cheering on the insurance cartel's health care monopoly
Cheering physical violence against children under the euphemism of 'spanking
Cheering the proliferation of guns and the weakening of gun laws
Opposed to GLBT civil rights
Cheering on Bush's war in Afghanistan
Dennis Kucinich bashing

Since WHEN are these simply issues to be discussed here on D.U ?

[geek tragedy]

256. "Cheering on the insurance cartel's health care monopoly" is patently dishonest

it's a smear directed against anyone who isn't a "single payer or nothing" fanatic.

Under David's interpretation, 96% of the Congressional Progressive Caucus--including Barbara Lee and Raul Grijalva--are cheerleading the insurance cartel's monopoly.

It's stupid, ugly, divisive, dishonest, and shitty rhetoric, and people who throw it around deserve to get smacked.

[lumberjack_jeff]

230. Aaah for the good old days...

... when the Republicans ran things.

Governance is messy.

... but I haven't yet seen a DU'er who is opposed to a woman's right to choose.

[pollo poco]

236. sadly, the whole country tips to the right

At DU most people think they are super liberal. But if you look at what they are saying, and how they are saying it, they are just as indoctrinated in (and comfortable with) bellicose, bullying language as everyone else in this sick and confused country.

They are down on gays and women, just like all the other flag wavers and fundies throughout history.

Now that we've "won", its time to start acting like military victors. Most people in this country, left and right, are highly militarized. Being the winner, and acting the bully, is all they are interested in. The actual content of the debate is not important.

Most people really do not support equal protection under the law. If they were allowed to vote on it, they would repeal the constitution without remorse- for everyone but people like them.

And there is a lot of confusion here and everywhere about civil rights, which are, of course, rooted in equal protection.

Many here believe that the term "civil rights" means only "rights for straight men of color". And that the word "bigot" means only "racist". They believe that because they voted for a black president, that they have proved that they are not racist, and therefore not bigots. Don't insult them, just because you have noticed that they have changed only the target, not the mindset that holds one person superior.

People here are just as confused about democracy as the rest of our sad citizenry. And just as unable to grasp the principal of equal protection. They will argue against the need for equal protection, if the citizen in question is gay or a woman. Then argue for it, only if they can closely identify with the victim- (eg straight dude).

Pig ignorant knee jerk totalitarian leanings are just as welcome here as they are in the greater national debate.

[Puregonzo1188]

240. I don't have a high post count, but I've been registered for awhile (since 2006 I believe)

and I visit DU everyday. I was just thinking this morning how much it has changed, most notably over the issue of the death penalty. It seems every time the topic comes up more and more DUers support it.

So you're not alone.

[Kaleva]

242. There are forums peopled by tombstoned members who claim DU is a RW front.

[AllyCat]

251. While I agree with those that say "big tent" I also agree with you that DU has changed

I am astonished at the number of people here that are opposing a woman's right to choose. That is the major issue that got me interested in politics in the first place and brought me to the Democratic party.

[WilliamPitt]

260. You're not wrong.

More people, more opinions. You and I were here back when DU was you, me, Kheph, davesand, ZombyWoof, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me and me (according to Freeper lore, anyway ;) ). Thousands more have sinced joined us, and not all of them I believe have fully formed opinions on many of the matters you ennumerated. We're also dealing with a lot of people who preach the gospel of hold-power-at-all-costs...a point of view that isn't hard to understand, given recent history.

It is what it is.

:hug:

Good to see you.

[David Zephyr]

283. I miss Kheph.

A lot.

[WilliamPitt]

290. As do we all

[Sinti]

261. Brickbats are the problem

The party is more conservative, because more conservatives have joined the party. Many of this forum's beloved members sound just like Barry Goldwater - which is not to say I don't love and respect those members equally.

Conservatism failed miserably, everyone here knows that. However, the extreme propaganda this nation is subjected to does not allow people to abandon their former ideology. It does not help that our leadership thinks that means we should meet them halfway, without trying to show them other options.

When I run into a post that causes me to think, "Ronald Reagan, is that you?" - I smile. It's a half-win. Now, they've abandoned the brand, but they're still wedded to the product. So, they need to see the real-life value and virtue of the Liberal product.

I am a Liberal, personally, and unabashedly so, not moderate, or center-left. I think the base ideology (the underlying principle which guides all other thinking) is the best way to ensure enjoyment of life for all concerned. So, I try to sell my product, with as much specificity and proof points as I can.

The brickbats being thrown around is the problem. People won't listen to you if you won't listen to them. They may have a point that's valid, and be willing to listen to your valid points also, but not if you whack them over the head. If you whack me, I will reject you because I think you mean me harm. I expect the same is true of others.

A lot of the old people are gone, too. You get used to certain people's conversation styles, and communication improves. I think many people say things that aren't taken for what they mean.

It's not just you.

[Kermitt Gribble]

262. That's the new Democratic Party.

The new Democrats (read former republicans) will abandon any principle if it means victory for the party - and viciously attack any who still try to defend those principles.

K&R for a glimpse of what the Party and DU used to look like.

[rudy23]

265. Yes. Right along with the DLC's re-emergence.

Also, the awareness that politicians and other marketers now have of the internet, and the anonymity that gives them cover to promote "virally" has drastically affected the integrity of this site.

A few links for anyone who wants to read a few posts that kind of mark this descent:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6022082

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6454174

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6972693

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6706609&mesg_id=6706609

[RetroLounge]

267. Of course it has

The admins purged a whole bunch of LGBT members.

Then they purged a whole bunch of long-time posters because of some asshats in the lounge.

and all these posters participated in GD and GDP.

I'm sure there are more.

and what's left?

a growing group of trolls, kids, and uniformed newbies on one side.

and a shrinking group of long time DU'ers on the other.

But as long as the admins sell their stars, all is well.

RL

[tbyg52]

406. Amen.

I'd like to flee as well - any suggestions as to where?

[tsuki]

272. That is one of the troubles with a "big" tent. Many people "become"

Democrats while retaining their Republican prejudices against women, GLBT, minorities and liberals. They want to change the "Democrat" into the Republicon party without the crazies.

[LWolf]

273. You're just now noticing?

With the nomination and election of a center-right Democratic president, DU has shifted to support that center-right president and center-right agenda.

It's been clear for a long while now; DU is "left-wing" in name only.

[rudy23]

274. I don't buy the "big tent" theory. Who outside of DC is adamantly pro DLC?

Their brand of Democratic governance is not based on ideology. It's based on their rationalization of a compromise that only people in their position have to make.

Most of us in the "real world" don't have to serve corporate donors AND progressive values, so why would we adamantly represent that stance on a message board?

[Ignis]

280. Hi, David. The change is not in your mind.

It's quite real, and the turn taken has been a nasty one, IMHO.

I'm used to a good knock-down-drag-out fight. Heck, I wouldn't participate in a forum that was over-moderated to the point where everyone's afraid to voice their opinions. But there's a serious difference between the DU fights of old and the current ones that seem to consist solely of personal attacks delivered in a nasty tone, and also seem to be lacking in moderation until they've gone off the rails.

I've only been here since 2001 (as a lurker, 2003 as a poster), though, so what do we know? The frequency with which I'm told how DU "should be" or what "real Democrats" should behave by a poster from 2007+ is ... well, rather startling.

Perhaps we should just practice saying, "Get off my lawn?" ;)

[treestar]

282. Entirely false

This is just black and white thinking. Being willing to live with the amd is not denying a pro-choice position. And so on with the rest of it.

[mistertrickster]

284. Hmmm . . . I don't see it that way exactly. For instance, the Afghan war.

I was never against it. In fact, I thought GW waited too long to put troops on the ground there.

This was the center of Al Qaeda's base. I never saw much alternative for going in and taking them out.

On the other hand, Iraq was a disaster from Day one.

[KoKo]

287. Maybe it's not just DU...but that Activists and Reformers are shut out of the Dem Party

and that means fighting within ourselves or being infiltrated by those who have nothing but time on their hands to cause mischief. And perhaps a few getting some funding to promote fighting among ourselves along with creating a sense of powerlessness.

Ever hear anything about Election Reform, anymore? Ever hear about holding hearings on the Bush Judges and Lawyers who were corrupting the system? Is Karl Rove still a Fox Contributor? (I don't watch Fox..but heard he'd gotten a gig there).

Has anyone been held accountable for torture, bringing our financial system to ruin and all the other issues so many worked so hard on for years? Where is the call for activism.

Into the vacuum DU has falling in on itself, maybe. We have few hero's and the ones we had have been marginalized (Cindy Sheehan) or vilified (Cynthia McKinney) or just never were very effective (John Conyers, Henry Waxman). Now "they" are working on Dennis Kucinich. What does that tell us?

[Lorien]

329. Spot on. Until we sickness-election reform and the fairness doctrine-

the symptoms will only get increasingly worse.

[KoKo]

384. And...the FCC...what the hell is going on with that dead group...

So, Dems win and the Media is doing the same old script and playbook. I can't say it's worse than it was with Bush/Clinton (this media) but it seems worse because we had "hope" for so much better and FCC was something that could have moved quickly on what already was simmering. It would have helped Dems and Obama if FCC Commish Michael Copps views (gotten from activists for years)had been implemented. Instead it's silence.

[H2O Man]

443. Perfect.

Exactly on target.

[no limit]

288. It has. I now see more straw man arguments here than ever. This post being the perfect example

[texastoast]

307. -1

I believe there is much legitimacy in the OP's observation that the tenor of this site has much changed since its earlier days.

[no limit]

322. Just because you agree with it doesn't make it any less of a straw man

Just because someone thinks this bill should pass even if it has that stupid ammendment in there doesn't make that person anti-choice or against women. Nor is this bill an example of "institutionalizing the insurance cartel's health care monopoly", infact it is the exact oppisite.

[texastoast]

326. Where is the line?

My line in a Bush world is in a different place than it is when Democrats control the White House and Congress.

Women have begrudgingly put up with being second-class citizens and paying for the "sins of Eve" since the days the Levite priests wrote the creation myth. Some of us are tired of it. This bill is the line in the sand for some.

There are some good things about the bill. There are others that should be raged against. Where is the integrity? Are we equal or not?

[no limit]

334. The question is whether this is better than the status quo, and I think it is

and we can get in to a debate about this here but there are numerous threads on this already. As dumb as this ammendemnt is I still dont think women purcahse insurance for abortions, that idea seems absurd to me.

My point simply is that the OP is projecting positions that don't exist on to people that don't agree with him, aka, straw man. So if I agree that this bill still kind of sucks but I think it should pass because it is better than the status quo I am not doing so because I want to help insurance companies build a bigger monopoly as the OP would have you believe.

[mistertrickster]

340. Hehe, no kidding. However one thing has NEVER CHANGED about DU

You get the most buzz on DU by posting about DU itself.

Narcissus died looking at himself . . .

[texastoast]

291. This used to be a progressive website

Not anymore.

On edit, I see fewer posters who display grace when they vehemently disagree with another poster. I see lots of "responses" to posts that are completely thoughtless, often totally nonresponsive, hostile, and rude. "STFU" just doesn't help foster the exchange of ideas or spirited debate. Crass, out-of-hand dismissal does not a mannerly, productive discussion make.

This site has definitely devolved since I first came here.

[Quantess]

297. It has become more moderate-to-conservative.

I have to admit, I liked it better when other DUers made me feel moderate in comparison. I get bored of hearing arguments that are more conservative than mine. Reading centrist viewpoints on the DU is about as exciting as yesterday's news.

[Forkboy]

299. Obama attracted a lot of right-leaning, vote for what's convenient type people.

I'd say about a quarter of the people who voted for him stand for nothing more than what's best for them, not the country as a whole. And that may be lowballing it.

[texastoast]

306. +1

I miss the hearts and compassion of some of the posters who have left.

[geek tragedy]

318. Yes, we should bring back the PUMAs and expel the Obama supporters.

We can call this place CapitalHillForum and talk about how Barry Soetoro threw us all under the bus.

[texastoast]

328. I'm talking of a different time

Long before Obama was a blip on the radar.

You don't have to be sarcastic with me. You illustrate my point too well.

[geek tragedy]

335. There is a LOT of outright hateful bashing of

Obama supporters in this thread.

Talking about how Obama supporters are what's wrong with the Democratic party.

I take it you realize how delusional and psychotic that is.

[Name removed]

317. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Fire1]

301. I'm not seeing what you see except on a few issues. n/t

[Mithreal]

302. Too many Progressives are not challenging the "moderates" here

I don't blame them for using ignore.

That is not to say they go unchallenged.

[Echo In Light]

341. There's nothing to be gained from engaging them...nothing positive, anyway

No common ground can be reached ... and there's a pool of about a dozen or so of the more nasty, overzealous 'moderates' who adamantly project, taking the criticisms the Left applies to our govt's policies, and inaccurately turn it back on those whose views, questions and concerns are valid. Nothing can be said, presented or sourced that such 'mods' won't reject outright while venomously demonizing any who espouse a dissenting view - yet, again, via psychological projection, insist that it is they who are demonized, treated unfairly, and are subject to the very tactics they themselves employ first and foremost against others.

So, the only rational conclusion is, just as I decided about the 'dungeon' long ago - refuse participation for the most part...cause it really seems as though they're just people who get a hard-on over that level of dead-end, profane discourse a la chants of schoolyard bullies, and so if one keeps engaging/responding to them, it only serves to fuel them on.

[Mithreal]

436. We are always getting new visitors and members

who may see these folks as representative of DU at least until they have been here a significant time.

I respect your position.

[Regret My New Name]

309. I think posts like yours have always existed.

:p

[earth mom]

310. DU has been infiltrated with DINOS aka RETHUGS. Simple as that. nt

[mike_c]

314. K&R-- I'm finding myself with less and less in common with many DUers these days....

More and more, I feel like an outsider here. I agree with the OP.

[nvme]

320. I scratch my head

I have been here for a short while. Sometimes I have to look at the larger picture. I am fiscally conservative, I believe every dollar spent should be accounted for. I believe, in the elimination of much of the subsidies provided for businesses. I do believe dollars and sense. Tax cuts made during the previous administration were reckless. Two wars being fought and no means to pay for them is reflective of the diminished mental capacity our country. or at least of its leadership.
As far as the rest goes is it possible to consider that like the sixties there is more than one set of principles that motivates this forum?
Which one was right MLK Jr. or Malcolm X? Do we follow the same road as the Republicans? Shall we purge those who are not pure from our ranks? Is it possible to agree to disagree on some issues?
I am a big boy when it comes to gay rights, abortion, constitutional and civil rights. I replaced idealism. It hinders. I have integrity. That is my greatest strength. I see this forum and all other things as self-cleaning.

[bsd13]

323. Personally I think it's become more mainstream

and less fringe. More in line with what the population of America actually thinks and cares about than it has been in the past.

I remember visiting back in 2002 and 2003 and being amazed at how left, left wing really was. My grandmother has been a straight and narrow democrat her entire life, every vote she's ever cast has been along party lines. Period. But I showed her around here one day a couple of years ago and she said this place was filled was lunatics.

Running down/through your points...

Most Americans are opposed to abortions and the number is increasing. Some will back away from their stance when you accuse them infringing on a woman's right to choose, but most won't.

Most Americans see a benefit to insurance companies negotiating on their behalf and are willing to pay extra for the "privilege"

The death penalty is around 50% for and 50% against it in the general American population

Most Americans believe spanking is ok. Not abuse, but spanking.

Most Americans believe in a right to keep and bear arms even if they themselves don't choose to do so.

Most Americans are against GLBT being able to marry. Vote after vote after vote confirms this.

Most Americans had no problem with America attacking Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11. They have a problem with Bush attacking Iraq

Most Americans see Kucinich as too fringe.

Notice I didn't say if I agree or not with "most Americans" I'm just pointing out that Democratic Underground has changed because America has changed. Our philosophies on different issues have changed.

[Lorien]

333. Mainstream WHERE? Rural Alabama?

Your stats don't jive with the facts.

[bsd13]

450. Main stream in the vast majority of America

I don't know where you are, I'm in Massachusetts. In Boston/Cambridge area people are very liberal, but get outside the city into the "smaller" towns and you'll see main stream isn't as radical left as some people who frequent this site make themselves out to be.

[ElboRuum]

344. I'm afraid you'll have to link to some sources...

...to get me to buy some of that.

[bsd13]

449. Walk around a few neighborhoods and talk to people

mainstream isn't radically left. At least not in most middle American communities. The population is more democratic than republican but that doesn't mean they are far left of center.

[ElboRuum]

455. So, you're saying you have no proof except your own experience...

Not good enough, I'm afraid. While they may not be radically left (which wasn't even the conjecture in the first place), my experience refutes yours.

PROTIP: Generalization based on your own personal experience is never a convincing argument.

[SandWalker1984]

324. Why people are frustrated

Corporate shills?

Some of these people on here, if they are not paid hacks for the insurance corporations, they are acting like anxious mistresses in that they say the bill needs to be passed first and fixed later. They believe, like mistresses, that even though they are the 3rd affair of the adulterer for the year, they are somehow special and the adulterer will treat them better and end up marrying them. Yeah, right.

Remember that when we were sold NAFTA by Clinton, Gore & corporate media, we were told it could be renegotiated and fixed in 6 months if it wasn't working out. It's now 15 years later and NAFTA wasn't fixed or renegotiated and it has devastated Detroit. In just the past few weeks Whirlpool and Electrolux have moved almost 2000 jobs to Mexico. Never mind that NAFTA has destroyed the value of our dollar.

Let's talk about Bill Clinton's capital gains tax cut to 15% that rewarded the rich for moving those jobs out of the US. That hasn't been fixed either, in fact, they now want to eliminate the capital gains tax altogether for their rich friends.

Then there's the Telecommunications bill from 1996. Newt told us all after passing the bill with Clinton, that our cable bills would drop to $15 a month. I don't know about yours, but my cable bill is $60 a month for BASIC cable. Another lie.


You can't fix legislation later that is being controlled by monopolies like the health care industry. Obama ran as an anti-current establishment, reform progressive but apparently, behind the scenes, he acts like a sleazy Chicago politician making deals in secret with the criminal corporations. He promised us open debate and transparency.

What Obama has given us in the past 10 months is a new level of corruption and secrecy. He is going behind our backs and cutting bad deals with the industry he is supposed to be protecting us from in the health care debate, the industry that he ran against during the campaign.

Yesterday on MSNBC, it was reported Clinton told the Senate Dems that they should pass whatever they can so they can declare a victory even though Bill was against the Republican MANDATES in 1994 and opposed them at that time in his health care boondoggle.

We are being sold out for "whatever." Whatever is more important than REAL health care reform - it's all about their self-serving agendas and the rich they represent. The rest is just lies and rhetoric.

Obama-Orwell, more corporate chains you can believe in.

[Name removed]

342. Deleted sub-thread

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

[OwnedByFerrets]

343. I'm afraid you are very correct.

[noiretextatique]

350. remember the abortion wars here?

there were a few dedicated anti-woman trolls creating a lot of havoc, but there views were exposed so consistently, that they were eventually banned. same with the rape apologists. same with a some of the more virulent racists.
it's more difficult to expose the trolls now because DU has grown so much. spotting and outting trolls is lot harder ahd it used to be, but it is still one of my missions here.
that and...bush did such an effective job of destroying the country that he converted many republicans and independents who may not hold liberal values. and of course there are democrats who don't value liberal values either.

[midnight]

352. To continue with Bush's DOJ, WAR, BANKING BAILOUT, AND NOW INSURANCE MANDATES,

It makes some of us sound ungrateful, and not in support of our new president. Does anyone recall president Obama telling the voters to make him change things? I don't think people expected once they voted him into office that the real work started.

[evenso]

353. The democratic tent has grown larger....and that's a good thing.

I think what keeps people here around is that they are progressives of one sort or another. I'm a more "moderate" progressive, I take some views that the poster disagrees with. But in any case, I've always been civil about things. These changes are a result of sane reasonable moderates realizing the GOP is not the place for them, and that they actually do agree with many progressive views. Okay, and I'm glad there are people like D. Kucinich around too.

[AllTooEasy]

358. how is spanking "conservative"?

I was spanked after "reasoning" didn't work and I grew into a confident, academic scholarship earning, non-criminal, responsible citizen

My cousin wasn't spanked and he's been in and out of jail, fought in school all the time, used drugs, and eventually got kicked out of high school. His life has been a waist and he knows it. His parents tried to "reason" with him.

My Dad brought reason to my behind, but only after I didn't listen the first time. I listened after that!!!

If you do it right, you only have to spank them once :)

[Kolesar]

365. It is now illegal in schools in all but the conservative parts of this country (the South)

[AllTooEasy]

438. Teacher should never be allowed to spank.

If a teacher had spanked me, my father would have been in prison shortly afterwards.

[Prism]

366. DU is actually growing more like itself

Take homophobia as just one example. The homophobes and softer bigots are the same people that were here four, five, six years ago. What has changed? Two things. We now have a Democratic majority that is just ducky marginalizing the LGBT community. This makes that homophobia much easier to explain away as simply defending the party. I mean, the President's not a bigot, right? So they can go to town, and it operates under the veil of "reasonable people can disagree" rather than "flaming bigots use any opportunity."

It's a genteel form of bigotry. They get to pretend they're just making innocuous political points, and we generally pretend we don't see straight through their nonsense. (Except sometimes we actually do call people precisely what they are, but they usually results in memory-holing and bannings for the liberal members).

Second, over the years, as the usual bigots and homophobes stretched their wings, they realized the moderators and admins weren't really all that gung ho about keeping them in line. (And, hell, we have some serious fox and henhouse crap going on to begin with). They could get away with an awful lot, so they tested those limits, getting more and more brazen over time, always realizing there was really very little downside to trolling LGBT topics and posters. When there aren't any consequences, why limit yourself? Why even bother hiding it? We're openly taunted to an alarmingly regular degree, and the people who can be counted upon to immediately participate in that sort of thing are not only still here, they're some of the highest volume posters.

Now remove homophobia and plug in just about every "centrist" (read: conservative) issue. You'll see the formula is pretty universal. The right-wing nonsense has always been here, the same old posters have always espoused it. Over time, it simply grows inward, becomes more concrete, the attitudes more crystallized.

So it may seem worse than ever, but no, this is what it's really always been like. It's just become harder to ignore, harder to explain, and harder to excuse in polite terms.

But we're not allowed to call it out, so it's gotten away with until . . . well, until we reach this place, where we're posting on a message board where conservatism = good and liberalism is the true villain.

Fucked up, isn't it.

[FreeState]

372. + 1000000 n/t

[enigmatic]

385. Great post

:thumbsup:

[pinto]

423. Geez, as one of the gay moderators here, that really hurt, fwiw.

Second, over the years, as the usual bigots and homophobes stretched their wings, they realized the moderators and admins weren't really all that gung ho about keeping them in line.

[Prism]

429. Sorry, just describing my experience

I've seen certain high profile, high count posters unabashedly antagonize the LGBT community here for years without much done. If there's a gay-related topic, and certain names are always way up in them opposing, belittling, dismissing, etc. whatever LGBTers are saying, that should be a signal. That it very rarely is *shrugs* It comes under that "reasonable people can disagree" cloak that gives so much leeway to bigotry.

I would be remiss in not saying cheers on the PW business. It was heartening to see. I honestly thought that one was going to require some sort of public toddler-eating before anything would be done. He was a prime example of the kind of abuse a poster could dish out almost consequence free for long periods of time.

Edit: And since I have you here, Pinto. My post might've stung, but having an LGBT mod around, who was here for the Purging of so many gay members, and who said nothing, did nothing, and continues on with things as if it never happened.

That kinda hurts, too. Quite a lot of people here, in fact. That incident, above all things, said quite a lot to LGBTers here. It let us know our place.

[pinto]

433. Prism, members have been banned for their posting behavior here, not their sexuality.

And, fwiw, I have my say in the process and can assure you - revoking someone's membership is not taken lightly. It's only done by group consensus of the moderators and, in the case of long term members, contingent on approval from the Administrators.

(on edit) And that's why we don't ban trolls on sight. We have to get some feedback on the decision, even if it's obvious. :hi:

[tbyg52]

451. Prism is right. nt

[Prism]

452. I'm sorry, you're being partially dishonest

When 7-9 LGBTers go flying into the graveyard in a matter of days - and not fly by night trolls, but regular contributors - there's a problem. They may not have been explicitly targeted because of their sexuality - and I don't think anyone said so - but there is at least an issue present and a decision made where it was easier to dispense with LGBTers than cope with the underlying problems at hand.

If 7-9 African-American posters were tossed out within 48 hours after they made a major ruckus about racism, I doubt there would be a quiet continuation of order and civility. Well, I doubt the administrators would do it to begin with. They know better. The fact they felt free in our community's case sent a rather loud, unambiguous message as to their level of care towards the abuse regularly hurled at our community.

Which is why I say, the entire incident let us know where we stand. The refusal to discuss it, the way everything even tangentially related was deleted, the way that - to this day - we're not much allowed to talk about it without the posts being removed are repeated echoes of the hostility and lack of empathy towards gay issues and gay posters.

I do find it sad that we have one gay voice, yours, that not only fails to address the issues, but merely replies with the company line and generic assurances that reek of a dishonest approach and total wish to sweep it under the rug so polite company can continue being utterly unaware of the injustice and soft bigotry involved in how things are done here.

It really stinks, and replies like the one above, where the lie is perpetuated, make things worse rather than any better. It just keeps putting that message across that what LGBTers think about their own issues is secondary to putting forth a dishonest image of solidarity and respect for equality which currently does not exist on this site.

[tbyg52]

454. Amen. nt

[kimmerspixelated]

367. DZ, the answer to your question is this:

I have believed for some time, that a number of rethugs have infiltrated the DU, and are possibly being paid in some capacity. Somehow they are allowed to continue their rude, obnoxious behavior that can only be seen in the republican personality. Freedom of speech, right? Well, your perceptions are spot on, something stinks, alright.. It stinks to high heaven!

[spin]

371. On the subject of guns...

You say:

A lot more of DU'ers don't see any connection between the proliferation of guns and the weakening of gun laws and the continued violence in America than the community did in the past. I wish that wasn't so.

And you probably are correct. DU has changed.

For many years the Democratic Party was very anti-gun and strongly believed that draconian gun laws would solve the problem of violence in our streets.

Some good laws were passed. For example the NICS background check required when purchasing a firearm from a dealer. I personally believe that this background check should be required for all gun sales including private sales. I also believe that the necessary money should be spent to allow the states to input data into the system faster.

Some incredibly stupid laws were passed. One was the assault weapons ban. Many people were led to believe that this ban applied to fully automatic weapons as used by military forces. It did not, it applied only to evil looking semi-auto firearms that resembled military weapons but operated the same as many common hunting rifles.

Before the ban, few people were interested in purchasing these weapons. After, just about every gun owner I knew just had to have one. They were readily available and manufacturers would simply bypass the law by changing the cosmetic appearance of their firearm slightly. Also everyone who bought one of these weapons had to have a banned high capacity magazine. while high priced these items were also available. If they had been manufactured before a certain date they were legal to sell. The companies that made high capacity magazines went into overdrive to produce unbelievable quantities before the cut off date.

So the ban caused the proliferation of these weapons rather than reduce it. This strong gun law had exactly the opposite effect then what was intended.

The anti-gun campaign has been constantly filled with lies and distortions. One example was the effort to ban the Glock pistol as it was supposedly made of plastic and could sneak past metal detectors. This claim was false and the Glock pistol is now one of the most common sidearms carried by police.

Another example is the lies spread in every state that voted for licensed concealed carry of firearms. There were supposed to be shootouts at every intersection and gun battles at high noon in the streets. The anti-gun campaign ended up with egg all over their face on this issue. Those who get a concealed carry license are the least likely group of people to misuse firearms.

I could go on, but I'll just finish with one more statement.

Bush the Junior and his administration caused many Republicans and Independent voters to move toward the Democratic Party. The Party is a big tent and suddenly people started filling it up. Obviously, the Party is no longer for the liberal elite.

Relax and enjoy the debate on DU. If your ideas hold water you should win far more than you lose.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

376. I expect more Republicans come here as they have no home

[ChiciB1]

377. Anyone Know How "the Media Polls" Are Looking?? Shows Dems Losing

TEN points to the Repukes! I can't help but wonder if it's not because we JUST AREN'T seeing THE CHANGE that I felt Obama represented. YES, he has made changes around the fringes (or so it seems to me) but on the larger MORE IMPORTANT issues, he seems tepid at the very least!

And I suppose just for saying what I did that makes me "unwanted" and AGAINST Obama! I DO want him to succeed, but I want some FOOT STOMPING, IN YOUR FACE, THIS IS WHAT I MEAN, and YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT action from Obama.

I think he's losing Independents because of how he seems to be acting! This is just how I'm seeing it, but I DO know than there are a bunch here that think he's doing EVERYTHING JUST RIGHT!! Politics ISN'T just how good the porridge tastes!!! Everything can't be JUST RIGHT!

Plus, so many times I'm not really SURE where he stands on issues. Kabuki? I don't know, but WOULD LIKE TO!!!

[bvar22]

378. Election 2008

Election 2008 was a crushing defeat for the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

The DLC New Team
Progressives Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

Now, the Brownshirts are here trying to enforce "Message Discipline".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-scahill/rahm-emanuels-think-tanke_b_185203.html

Historically, there have been periods when allegiance to a Political Party or devotion to a Charismatic Leader has superseded commitment to to Humanitarian Ideals.
Those periods have ended badly.

[MSchreader]

381. Been here since 2002

The place has changed a lot. It has moved to the right substantially, and it started that trek long before the 2008 election. DU is "liberal chic" now; if you want to be considered part of the "liberal base", it seems, you have to have some kind of connection here.

[Faygo Kid]

391. Me, too, but I don't see that trend to the right as much as disagreement now that Dems hold power.

Allegedly.

Anyway, anyone that wants unanimity can find it on Fox. Principled disagreement is OK, even if I am an absolutist on a woman's right to choose and certain other core issues.

I never joined DU to live in an echo chamber.

[MSchreader]

448. There's both

But it has really moved to the right a lot since 2004. When "Anybody But Bush" became the mantra around here, it opened the door for the DLCers and assorted Copperheads to surge into the site.

I said at the time that if your only criteria is "anybody but Bush", that was what you were going to get: Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Bart Stupak, etc.

[yurbud]

382. you are mistaking a vocal minority of DLC trolls for "a lot more" of DUers. Consider this poll

I did a couple of years ago.

It got locked as divisive, but in reality, it just divided the micro-minority from the rest of us and showed that they are consummate at making their numbers appear larger than they really are by starting a lot of threads, and doing vapid, hit and run responses to progressive threads.

The worst thing about them is how eerily similar their comments are to those right wing posters use on open sites.

Those who are willing to identify as ''moderate'' or DLC barely broke 10% combined. Those willing to identify as DLC was a minority of that minority at 2%.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5567638&mesg_id=5567638

The DLC has next to no constituency of voters. They win with corporate money and their control of the party apparatus.

[C_Lawyer09]

389. Congrats

On your blog longevity. I've been here for a few days, and while I've enjoyed the discussion for the most part, there are a few annoyances I've not experienced other places. There are several here, that when challenged, ask if you're a Republican or insinuate you're a troll, or unrec (recently had that explained to me) your comment. I agree to a degree with you on several items you mentioned, but I also think we need to be much more critical of the Democratic party as well, versus just be satisfied with much to do about milque toast. I'm going to give you an example of some criticism that I was summarily jumped on about by some Obama enthusiasts. Would it have been to much to ask for him to explain how we cared to pay for the health care bill? I'm sorry but finance with getting rid of existing inefficiencies doesn't cut it. Should I be happy with the current state of the party? From what I've seen lately, party loyalism doesn't equate to good ideas. Spanking is a euphemism for violence? Really?

[Hippo_Tron]

400. The gun issue is the only drastic change I've noticed since coming here in 2003

And my theory is that this changed because there was a lot of hysteria about Bush turning the country into a police state if he was re-elected and that liberals should be ready for that to happen.

[Forkboy]

403. The marginalization of gay members was never like what it is now.

You may be right on the gun issue as well, but I pretty much ignore that stuff. I don't feel that strongly about gun control one way or the other, and it's become like arguing religion anyways.

[Hippo_Tron]

408. Sure it was

Plenty of people arguing that Kerry needed to be against gay marriage for political expediency and lots of people arguing that the New Jersey Supreme Court decision was going to kill us in the midterm elections in 2006.

The difference now is that we're in power and that changes the dynamics somewhat. In the defense of the President's critics, people here do make excuses for things that President Obama does that they would've slammed Bush for doing. In defense of his defenders President Obama is not Bush and while we should always view things done by politicians with a great deal of skepticism, to view things that Obama does with the same degree of skepticism as the things Bush did is overreacting a bit, IMO.

[QC]

446. The haters used to have to be sly and subtle, but now they are out and proud.

That's a big difference between now and earlier days.

[JanMichael]

404. Yes it has. No need to elaborate. nt.

[Danger Mouse]

405. We no longer have a common foe in Bush to hate...

so our differences are becoming more pronounced. It's not DU that's changed so much as the times.

[C_Lawyer09]

407. You know what sucks?

So many believe they know the definition of progressive, aka liberal or conservative. It's obviously not that simple and there is no cookie cutter answer. Disagreement and argument are healthy toward the development of new ideas, opinions and refinement of same. It is ironic that Democrats are often espoused to be more inclusive than Republicans, I don't neccessarily see that here. I consider myself to be socially liberal, but maybe I'm more fiscally conservative than some on here. So what? I like guns. Doesn't mean I criticize those who speak for more gun control. If disagreement and discussion enable some critical thinking, I think it's a good thing.

[MindandSoul]

411. Partially agree!

I agree with some of your comments, not all. But I do understand your concerns!
I am also getting a little impatient (althoug I am an heterosexual woman, married 38 years) with the "let's be patient" attitude towards gay rights. . .but I still believe Obama will come true with it.

And I wish Obama would get us out of Afghanistan now. . .but then again, I do not pretend to know everything that is involved in his decision making.

[BelgianMadCow]

413. The essence of DU, to me, was critical thinking and news deconstruction

I still see a lot of critical, with less thinking involved. However, many of the pearls remain.
Civil disagreement, an honest debate, is the essence of progress. It was rare in general, probably overrepresented on DU. It's become even more rare through eight years of polarization (longer, really).

Nothing better to unite a people than a common enemy.
Obama cannot be, isn't, our common enemy.
But the real enemy wasn't Bush*, it was and is the military-industrial-political complex.
Divide et impera. Even the rank and file republicans aren't the common enemy.

The true fight is still on, and we're not using the historical opportunity. The momentum did shift leftwards and the last thing the country needs is for progressive leaders to stop pulling. The locomotive shouldn't lose the rest of the train either or the scales won't tip.

[Omaha Steve]

414. We have many more trolls than the old days

Many now have over 1,000 posts and look legitimate if you don't know who they are.

[QC]

415. Those trolls are now setting the tone for the whole place.

It's not like the old days when a freeper would wander in, get batted around a bit for fun, and then be shown to the exit.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

416. The reality is, 149,862 people are not going agree on each and every single issue.

You have to be realistic.

While there are going to be majority consensus (Consensuses? Consensi? Whatever...) on most issues by most people on this board, you cannot honestly expect every single person to hold the same opinion.

There are going to be people who feel differently about abortion. There are going to be people who feel differently about gun control. There are going to be people who feel differently about the death penalty. There are going to be people who feel differently about gay rights. There are going to be people who feel differently about Afghanistan. And so forth and so on.

Now, chances are just because a person may differ from the board majority on one issue doesn't necessarily mean he/she is going to disagree with the board majority on all issues, and that he/she is somehow a naysayer just out to make trouble. People are people. They are pragmatic. They don't fall into neat little idealistic boxes labeled "liberal" with that meaning those people must believe in A, B, C, etc.

I think you said it best when you described DU as a family. Now, I think I've been blessed with what I believe is a reasonably non-dysfunctional family. But even in a non-dysfunctional family, family members are going to quibble from time to time. They are going to have different opinions or beliefs or values. We're not robots. We're not programmed to all think exactly the same way. If we were, I think life would be, well, rather boring.

I know you're frustrated, but what you see here at DU is completely normal. It's not that DU isn't what it used to be. It's that DU is what it always has been, and you are only coming to realize that fact.

[gtar100]

417. I am not in that "lot more" group.

Those are pivotal issues you list. If people drift away from them, then they are not necessarily democrats, unless they are redefining the term. So to be clear:

• Women have the right to choose.
  
  
• The private, for-profit health insurance industry needs to be eliminated. Period.
  
  
• The death penalty is wrong.
  
  
• Spanking teaches children to fear authority and condone violence.
  
  
• The proliferation of guns is a major cause of violence in America.
  
  
• GLBT Americans have every right to what they want, the same as anyone. Now! Not later.
  
  
• The war in Afghanistan is yet another folly of the American military.
  
  
• We need all politicians to be like Dennis Kucinich, in that they fight for the good of the people and are not compromised by bribes.
  
  
• It's important for all liberals to speak up, speak out whenever necessary. To be silent in this struggle for our very souls is a surrender to the powers of stupidity and greed. We need to teach through our actions and our words the value of a community spirit.
  

Thanks.

[Dinger]

418. I've Been here Since 2003, And I See It Too

A definite trend. Good post.

[upi402]

421. Yep, Kucinich Democrats are REAL Democrats, and not lunatic left

I get so discouraged by all the excuses for the corporate Dems here. They're REPUBLICANS and are not allowing us an oposition party to the corporatists ruining America.

We should throw campaign cash at every nominee running against Blue Dog Democrats that voted against health care!

[paulk]

425. What has changed, I think, is the level of animosity

There has always been disagreement, but what I see is a change in what is allowed as far as how personal that disagreement becomes.

There are a number of posters here who do nothing but engage in personal attacks rather than in actual discussion. They are here to bully and browbeat, demean and disrupt. They are not here discuss or learn.


----------


I do agree with a change since we have "won", concerning more concerted attacks on the left wing of the party. The sad part is that the attacks mirror the RW's tactics, rather than a debate of ideas.

[enki23]

431. are you sure you are referring to the same early DU I remember?

less animosity back then? not how i remember it.

[paulk]

435. perhaps "level" was the wrong word

as I said later in the post, what has changed is how that animosity is expressed.

There was an influx of new posters during this last election cycle, imo, who attacked the poster rather than the poster's ideas. Not that that sort of thing didn't exist before, but that sort of poster was often run off the board. Now it seems they've taken it over...

That's my observation, it might not be yours.

[amborin]

427. agree; i started posting here just before '04 & notice the diff; many have left b/c it's gotten too

right of center

[enki23]

430. I've been here just as long, and I don't think people here have changed much at all.

It's a lot bigger, i suppose, and faster moving. More importantly, though, i think it's not as dominated by just a few people like it used to be. A few dominant voices used to more-or-less establish the boundaries of acceptable debate here back in 2001, but that just isn't how it works anymore. That part has changed. But it didn't require changing any of the people to do that, it just took more of them.

Back when the numbers were smaller, a position taken by just 1% of the membership might only garner the occasional contrarian post here or there, something easily written off. There were even people who were understood to be playing the role of resident contrarians, at least on their personally contrarian topic. But there were far fewer people, and one percent wasn't enough to look like a mob, or even a "position." Now, a position that only 1% of the membership *can* look like a mob. Here, and everywhere else, a small number of people can make a lot of noise, for better (sometimes) or worse (teabaggers). Trying to get a fix on the overall makeup of DU by perusing the threads, no matter how thoroughly you did it, would be just as futile as trying to get a complete picture of world events by watching all of the cable news networks at once. Even if you could do it, it wouldn't work.

[Beregond2]

432. The main change I have noticed

is a decline of civility and increase in anger. And most of that hostility seems to come from the most inflexible of us, who can't bear the thought of compromise, and won't take into account the historical forces involved. There has been more change toward institutionalizing liberal values in the past fifty years than in the rest of human history put together. The pace of change has been breathtaking, and continues to be so. But too many people on this board behave like spoiled children who scream and rage when they can't get their way RIGHT NOW.

I see it in women who are so focused on the rights of their sex to control their own bodies that they can't manage any understanding of those who are repulsed by the thought of killing fetuses, and question what failing to protect the most vulnerable of us, unborn children, will do to the moral underpinnings of the law. I see it in gay people who are so intent on acheiving full equality that they can't see that two thousand years of social conditioning can't be undone overnight, or appreciate just what astonishing progress has already been made in that regard. I see it in people who are so single-minded in their pursuit of health care reform that anything less than a perfect single-payer system is unacceptable to them, ignoring what a miracle it is that our president and congress have managed to come this close to passing highly significant reform, involving changes that seemed like a pipe dream not long ago. I see it in those who harp endlessly on the injustice of the bank bailout, ignoring that it saved this country from nothing less than a serious depression.

Now I happen to agree with these people on all these issues. I support a woman's right to choose unequivocally, because the alternative has been tried and it was a nightmare. As a gay man, I naturally support full equality for my people. I have no doubt that a single-payer health insurance system is the only one that works well and is morally defensible. The bailout of the banks filled me with disgust, despite it's necessity.

BUT: I also know that significant change ALWAYS happens incrementally. I know that changes in the law that are not matched by changes in the relevant cultural values are futile and counter-productive. I know that hearts and minds must change first. I know that confrontational strategies only serve to harden opposition. I know that "victories" won at the price of arousing everlasting hatred are not victories at all. And above all, I know that one must always keep a historical perspective. Changes in a culture are measured in decades, not days. Every step on the right path is a victory, and should be appreciated and celebrated, not rejected and reviled because it wasn't "enough," or not exactly the change one would have liked. Politics is a marathon, not a sprint.

So I wish people here could listen to each other with some patience. I wish people would realize how destructive it can be to a community, even an online one, to express hostility and fury without moderation. Yes, that anger is often justified. And it can feel very good to let it out. But we are all on the same side here, or should be. If we tear each other apart, the laughter of our foes will be our only reward.

And yes, I have been guilty of this too; and for that I apologize.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

434. Well, here's what I feel about those topics....

I believe in every person's right to do as they wish with their body and everything inside it.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean about the health care plan. I want single-payer health care.

I am against the death penalty and even against owning handguns, but in cases of torture or the murder of children, if you hand me a gun, well, I can't say I would be able to control myself!

I definitely think beating up kids is a crime, but I see nothing wrong with a single spank if things get really bad. I think permissiveness is turning out some monstrous little human beings who think the entire planet revolves only around them, for them and because of them.

Gun ownership should be prohibited, period.

Gays need to be able to live in peace, left alone, to live happily and with equal rights. They should defend themselves if attacked verbally.

I have no frikkin' clue what we're doing in Afghanistan. We've got to wean the military-industrial complex off the tax teat they've been sucking on & getting rich off of.

Kucinich is never going to be elected. I know this. Doesn't take an Einstein. He can add to the public discourse, but if he tries, like Nader, to step in the way of those who have a chance of getting elected, I will speak out against them.

I tend to like DU. I don't like the 2 or 3 cliques that have been here forever and think they can attack others in a gang-like style.

[texasleo]

437. DU is still 90% far left. Recs/unrecs don't lie.

[benEzra]

456. Regarding guns, the party has moved away from the 1990's Third Way hard line against guns

toward a more inclusive position. Roughly half of U.S. gun owners are Dems and indies, and the DLC/Third Way jihad against working-class gun owners in the early '90s was one of the big reasons behind the 1994 losses, and a lot of losses since.

Pro-gun Dem legislators turned the Senate blue in 1994, and pro-gun Dems and indies helped put Obama in office. If you want to kick the non-gun-haters out of the party and transcribe the Rovian "Dems hate gunz" meme into reality, fine, but don't forget the DLC'ers already tried that in the early '90s, and it was an albatross around the party's neck for a decade.

You don't like guns? Fine, don't own one. Look for common ground on addressing criminal ownership and use if you want. But piling additional restrictions on what mentally competent adults with clean records can lawfully own and use is sharply counterproductive, and doesn't really address violence at all.