If you pledge your unconditional support to the Democratic party

[MNBrewer]

what you're essentially saying (to the Democratic Party) is you SHOULD ignore me.

<http://www.salon.com/news/politics/democratic_party/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/04/08/two_parties>

[patrice]

1. And if you pledge your unconditional non-support of oneormore Democrats . . .

what you're essentially saying is you SHOULD ignore me.

[MNBrewer]

2. If you pledge your conditional support to one or more

Democratic Party candidate, they they have a reason to listen to you.

There's only one "democrat" I can think of that I would never vote for under any circumstances, and that's Joe Lieberman.

[patrice]

5. You and I are thinking the same things. It really is kind of like any mature (& significant) relatio

nship: there is that part of the relationship that is based on the buzzy ideals (the buzzier the better!), but there's also other parts to the relationship that have to do with demonstrable and accountable commitment from both/all sides, honesty, the quality and quantity of communication, etc. etc. etc. Someone(s) doing or not doing something(s), because no one(s) ever communicated about _______________ is just another instance of Plausible Deniability and, as such, the FAULT of both/all sides, because if you're committed to the truth (and to the relationship) and you think you have a better perception of the truth than x, y, z does, your responsibility for the truth exceeds theirs, so the standard of functionality REQUIRES that you take the first uni-lateral step for the sake of the truth and for the relationship.

Lots of IFs in the formulation above make so many latent ways out of responsibility for those looking for them. This is what makes Plausible Deniability soooooooooooo powerful.

[patrice]

3. Ergo the question is "What are the means by which one's conditions are made known and,

ergo also, are those means functional".

[damntexdem]

4. And it says that you're an idiot.

The Party exists for us, we don't exist for the Party.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[patrice]

7. There ARE people who, despite their own PERSONAL positions, are so committed to the PROCESS that

their personal positions become secondary to what serves the DYNAMIC. I know such people personally. For a comparable model of what they are doing, please consider what attorneys do, or counselors of any type, or therapists . . .

Whether "Circle-Ds" are such people or not is something which you have failed to establish, so you are claiming that they are "guilty until proven innocent".

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[patrice]

19. You prove your prejudices for all to see. nt

[MNBrewer]

21. Pointing out the willingness to excuse ANYTHING

and I do mean ANYTHING, because the POTUS has a D next to his name is hardly a prejudice.

[patrice]

23. Where have I stated a willingness to excuse anything? You assume that = your willingness

to convict for anything.

[MNBrewer]

25. sorry patrice, you're a "Peace Sign"

I was referring to the "Circle-Ds". SOrry for being unclear.

[patrice]

27. I should apologize too, because my reaction is my personal knowledge of people

working for the party. We have had highly detailed honest discussions and I understand how/why they do what they do, but that does not mean that there are not those who are just simply opportunists following the power/money.

[MNBrewer]

28. A party is a means, not an end.

Democratic Party victories are means, not ends. If we conflate Party victories with ends, then the whole exercise is useless, and doomed to failure.

[patrice]

30. That seems a False Dichotomy to me, because there IS a relationship politically. A party, any party,

is a means to an end, so it is necessary to think in terms of a dynamic and in terms of how effective any given means is.

IMO, the ends that are most significant to me are profoundly damaged by unconditional commitment to third party efforts at this particular time. Third-way tactics can serve those ends, but they are not THE solution right now, i.e. in this particular situation.

[MNBrewer]

32. Unconditional commitment to ANY party is profoundly harmful

The question that remains is, WHEN is a third-way tactic the right solution? Ask someone who believes that the next election cycle is all that matters, and I imagine the answer will be "NEVER". So, WHEN? NEVER?

[patrice]

35. Those are exactly the kinds of questions I am asking myself right now.

We have a new party chair here. I am happy about that, but still asking if they can deliver in any degree on my ends.

The question you ask is one of the most fundamental questions in any environment. I don't know the answer, but I guess answers would vary, because they are composed of the factors at work in specific situations (like a hand of poker) in which each one of us is INVOLVED. It would be nice though, if there were a way for us to get together better on our best strategic answers to that question.

[patrice]

20. also: False Dichotomy. nt

[emilyg]

9. +10

[Angry Dragon]

8. .............It needs more popcorn

:hi:


:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[MNBrewer]

17. and some

:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:

:beer:

[Lyric]

10. I don't pledge my "unconditional support" to ANYONE.

That's just BEGGING for trouble down the road.

[walldude]

36. +1...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Thomas Jefferson

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[patrice]

14. +!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! for the standards by which I try to live my own life. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. that's a large reason why most minorities get screwed by the dems

its because they know that we know the other party is worse. they assume that we have to support them unconditionally

[mod mom]

13. It reminds me of the loyalty oaths required to get into * rallies in '04. It made me sick then

And I feel the same now

[patrice]

18. Assuming all are such is justmore guilty-until-proven-innocent; take a pepto bismol & think it over.

Your assumptions may be true for some, but the probability that they are true for all is low.

Given that fact, what else might be going on; what other plausible explanations might there be?

[MNBrewer]

22. Always remember

SHow your work. Probability isn't an opinion, after all.

[patrice]

26. True. But that goes for both/all of us & without it, it's indeterminant, i.e. 50:50 chance

that any of us is correct and that means the same for you as it does for me. If all of us could admit this fact up front, we'd have the beginning (ONLY) of somekind of a meaningful discourse.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. Yup!

Recommend.

[LooseWilly]

24. Threats to take your vote elsewhere are like the squeaking that gets your wheel greased...

... and to make that threat viable, sometimes it has to be carried out.

Just sayin'... ;)

[patrice]

29. Which is a valid action IF one's conditions have been functionally communicated.

Punishing a dog because it doesn't fly, when one has never shown it how to grow wings and taught it to fly, is more about anger and destruction than it is about teaching dogs to fly.

[LooseWilly]

41. Are you calling me a "fucking retard"?

Because that comment, when it came from the White House, was the response to conditions being "functionally communicated" (by a MoveOn ad, as I recall)... and your post could be interpreted as saying the same thing now, but without the potty-mouth.

Tell you what... since your absurd allegory includes the caveat "when one has never shown it how to grow wings and taught it to fly"... I'm going to treat that as a routine thing to teach dogs in my response—and tell you that yes... I've tried to teach the dog to fly... the dog has watched many other dogs fly... there are professionals on every side trying to teach the dog to fly, named things like Reich and Weiner and so on... there is one dog who was even pack leader, named Dean, who keeps trying to lead our dog by flying example... but for some goddamned reason this dog just growls at you when you try to prod it to fly.

I'm just saying... maybe it's time to send the dog to the allegorical pound, and let some other allegorical dumb shit see if some use can be made for a dog that's too damned cowardly to fly.

—Hey, don't blame me if my response sounds "fucking retarded"... it's your idiotic allegory. :+

[patrice]

42. The issue of functionally literate "dog advocates" aside, there are effective ways to

"teach" and less effective ways to teach and down-right counter-effective ways to teach.

Just because anyone says that they have done something doesn't mean that they did the right thing, at the right time, to/with/for the right person(s), nor that there was any kind of longitudinally strategic and adaptively effective follow-up.

And, as with all real learning, teaching is reciprocal, so the failure of any one side (Rahm E. or you) in the dyad does not obviate the responsibilities of the other side. I too think RE was a MAJOR mistake, but that is not grounds for assuming that the total realm of possibilities are all the same and acting as though it were IS self-fulfilling prophecy, as your over-the-top reply to me so clearly demonstrates.

Tell me, when/how do you decide which errors should be met with a 2 X 4 up beside the head and which not?

[LooseWilly]

44. Setting aside your own allegory/simile does not make you functionally literate.

And, as it was an allegory/simile... the dog actually represented something else... so there were no "dog advocates"... though, if you were truly functionally literate you might've commented on the virtuosity of the "dog-flying advocates" as compared with the "dogs-what-don't-fly advocates".

Instead... you are now changing from an idiotic magic dog allegory/simile to some sort of gibberishy corporate-navigator/instructor metaphor.

"there are effective ways to 'teach' and less effective ways to teach and down-right counter-effective ways to teach"...?? ... Why in hell would you bother to use a metaphor to express a tautology? There are also effective ways to communicate a point and less effective ways to communicate a point and down-right counter-productive ways to prove a point. Unfortunately... neither that sentence nor your own... has a point.

"Just because anyone says that they have done something doesn't mean that they did the right thing, at the right time, to/with/for the right person(s)," — uhh... sorry, the vagueness of that spot of gibberish is epic... are you the anyone who says something or am I? And, are you the one who judges "that they did the right thing {etc.}"?, or am I? Or is God? Or Allah? If possible... I'd like to vote to have Kali make the judgement... I'm not clear, however, if that's an option.

"nor that there was any kind of longitudinally strategic and adaptively effective follow-up."— uhhm, sorry... I don't speak Corporateese... could you maybe translate that?... so I don't mis-understand you as saying that you're developing some sort of Jeet-kun-do adaptive strategic East-West pursuit-esque search and destroy operation... possibly involving flying dog advocates...

"And, as with all real learning, teaching is reciprocal," so... learning = teaching... and, both are reciprocal. This sounds very Zen. Does it mean that students should be paid, also?, as learning = teaching? Is that the point you're trying to make here?

" so the failure of any one side (Rahm E. or you) in the dyad does not obviate the responsibilities of the other side." ... uhhm, sorry... could you clarify what responsibilities I have to Rahm again? I mean... I still haven't gotten a check from the Feds for my services as a "learner=teacher—reciprocal"... so, I'm afraid I'm not going to be accepting any responsibilities until those checks come in and are cleared. If you could maybe teacher=learner—reciprocal him re:this detail... that would be great, m'kay?

"I too think RE was a MAJOR mistake," ... mmm, does RE = Rahm Emmanuel?... or is it a "regarding"? If it's Rahm... wow, that's kind of harsh calling him a mistake, let alone a MAJOR mistake. Ouch. If it's a "regarding"... could you clarify what it is regarding?

"but that is not grounds for assuming that the total realm of possibilities are all the same and acting as though it were IS self-fulfilling prophecy, as your over-the-top reply to me so clearly demonstrates." ... not grounds for assuming that the total realm of possibilities are all the same?... Are you using a software program to translate from another language into English? I'm up for a challenge... but— so RE, who was a MAJOR mistake... that mistake (his birth?) is not grounds for assuming that the total realm of possibilities (wow, is this like some sort of Sci-Fi total realm of all possible realities?... or just a matter of all the possible interpretations of the data of... the universe?)...
"are all the same"— again, is this all the Sci-Fi possible realities or just the Intelligence Analyst extrapolateable realities for the known-knows (as Rumsfeld would've said)? ...
"and acting as though it were IS self-fulfilling prophecy"... Ok, firstly, that "were IS" is very Zen as well... like a subjunctivization of the state of being... but I'm not clear on what "it" is in this segment of your sentence. Is "it" the Sci-Fi collection of all possible realities? The Intelligence Analyst's collection of extrapolation potentialities? Is it the MAJOR mistake-dom of RE? ... And, what prophecy are we talking about now?... when was one or more of my above guesses RE (sorry re):the identity of "it" supposedly prophesied?

"as your over-the-top reply to me so clearly demonstrates." ... huh?, is that what my "over-the-top" reply demonstrated?... and by "that"... I mean the as-yet-unsolved mystery "it" above... I think. Or, was it the prophesy that my post demonstrated? Or, the self-fulfillment? Or... maybe my reply was the prophesy? — the thing is... if you read my reply as an allegorical response couched within the framework of your own allegory/simile... then I think most readers would've seen a demonstration of a sense that comments like "fucking retards" indicated that the message, that votes are not guaranteed no matter what actions be taken (you know, the point of the OP) was heard... and that it was not one that the White House advisors were wont to acquiesce unto... and the naming of the allegorical elements, from Reich & Weiner to Dean... should've also provided some insight as to who/what those elements of my reply represented. My reply was couched within the terms of your own allegory/simile... how was it "over the top"? ... and could you please clarify what it apparently clearly demonstrates?

"Tell me, when/how do you decide which errors should be met with a 2 X 4 up beside the head and which not?" ... Wow, a clear enough sentence, containing what can also be called an "over the top" metaphor... but finally something comprehensible.
The answer is simple. When an error is repeated after a "dude that's not right" (call it Rick Warren), and after a "really, again?"(call it having the DOJ equate homosexuality with incest in a court defense) and after a "what the fuck was that?" (let's call this one the decision to detain in Gitmo indefinitely) and after a "dude, you fucking hit me with that swing of your bat!" (let's call that HCR and the trade-in of the Public Option for the Mandate) and after a "Hey asshole, you hit me again!" (let's call that contesting the courts on DADT to continue enforcement, while simultaneously deciding to push to drop any interest in EFCA, or trade & cap) and ... well anywhere around here a metaphorical 2x4 is called for... Does that help?

[patrice]

43. My point here is that you are claiming to have done everything possible to communicate/

"teach" your/our conditions and have failed, so the whole class gets the 2 X 4 up 'side the head.

I doubt that you have done everything possible. I will, to my dying day, dispute self-righteous eagerness to hurt the disadvantaged and those who have paid the most for what we have become, in the name of ________________________ and I think anyone who takes that suffering as the price for ___________________________ may be a "Progressive", but is not, IMO, a Liberal.

[Initech]

31. I'll never pledge any support for the teabaggers.

[patrice]

33. That's one unconditionality which I'm going to take the risk of supporting, because teabaggers are

agents of Private-Money Royalty. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs&feature=related ) This video is apparently a little un-PC here on DU, but I like the historical sketch of private-money vs. public-money that it provides.

[Initech]

40. Theyre unpaid tools of billionaires, nothing more.

[Motown_Johnny]

34. No, you are saying "you can count on me"

[readmoreoften]

37. Yes, "go ahead and fuck me over, because you can count on me"

Fuck that. The party has been infiltrated by the banksters and most of the higher up Dems are corrupt.

[patrice]

39. That's a distinct possibility, especially when I have heard party leadership say things such as

"No crossover registrations (registering with the other party in order to mess with them). 'We' don't do that."

Some Dem leadership may be holding to a higher standard for honesty, while other leadership may be limiting the players in that crossover milieu to those whom they agree with; no freelancers allowed!

[MNBrewer]

38. No matter what you do, i'll forgive and come back, even if I have two black eyes

and a broken arm.