Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Let Grassroots Dem Party (John, Dennis) breathe. Let RepublicanLite (Hillary, Barack) be Third Party

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 08:44 PM
Original message
Let Grassroots Dem Party (John, Dennis) breathe. Let RepublicanLite (Hillary, Barack) be Third Party
Edited on Wed Jan-23-08 09:03 PM by omega minimo
One "worked for a slumlord." One "sat on a WalMart board." The two candidates that corporate media and its polls have catapulted to the top of the Democratic heap snipe at each other. And the point gets lost. Both candidates represent the continuation of globalization, corporatization and 28 years of Reaganism. (see Reaganism - http://www.thomhartmann.com). Nothing will "change" until that does.

On the national holiday honoring Martin Luther King, one candidate was enabling the myth of Reagan's "Great Communicator" role and praising the shift of national "trajectory" as a model public relations marketing concept. (His enablers in media crowed that "Of COURSE he was pandering to Republicans and THAT was SMART!!!") That "trajectory" and its propaganda led directly to the deviseness that this candidate now hangs his "uniter, not a divider" campaign on. He wants to "all get along" in the future while pushing the recent past that brought us here down the Memory Hole. The events of that "trajectory" and its perception management techniques are NOT praiseworthy.

MLK's Day was also marred by the specious debate question of whether the other top candidate's white husband was the "The First Black President." While the corporate media muddy public perception with superficialities, they neglect to mention that that previous Democratic president is also known as "The Best Republican President We've Ever Had."

Of the two "top" Democratic candidates, one covets the bogus "optimism" and propaganda skills of Reagan -- the other offers the "experience" of perpetuating Reaganomics in her husband's two pro-globalization, outsourcing, corporatization, media consolidation, "End The New Deal As We Know It" administrations.

The Democratic Party has sided with the economic policies -- and resulting social realities -- of Reaganism and corporate government. Democratic leaders have refused to hold accountable the corrupt administration that is the RESULT of 28 years of the Reaganist trajectory and propaganda. THAT is what needs to change.

The leaders and handlers of the Party insist on grooming their candidates and campaigns to attract Republicans -- not Democrats. They continue to ignore core Democrats as suckers who HAVE to vote for the eventual Democratic nominee. If disgruntled Democrats don't vote or vote another party, they are blamed for the failings of the Democratic campaigns; blamed by the same Democrats that took them for granted, treated them as saps.

The traditional grassroots of the Democratic Party doesn't deserve to be marginalized and demonized by Democratic leader$, cynical consultant$ and "Blue Dog" Republican Lite opportunist$! It is not the "Left," liberal, grassroots, middle class, workers, progressive, minority, feminist, peace and justice, environmental, education, "float all boats" Americans who need to create a new Third (or second) Party. They haven't left the party -- the Democratic Party left them.

Democrats! Split off the Republican wannabes and enablers, the Republican Lite consultants, fundraisers, handlers, marketers and voters. Let them have their own party and their own candidates. Let it be the Republican Lite Party candidates vs. the Democratic Party candidates vs. the Republican Party candidates in a three way race. Republican Lite has the Big Money. They can afford to change the letterhead and bumperstickers.

Let the grassroots Democratic Party breathe again.

Reaganism 101
http://www.thomhartmann.com

Mike Malloy's MLK Day Education of Barrack Obama
http://mikemalloy.com/

TimeForChange
The "Appeal" and Legacy of Ronald Reagan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2721736#2731796



Republican Party
Superrich Status Quo Candidate A
Superrich Status Quo Candidate B

Republican Lite Party
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama

Democratic Party
John Edwards
Dennis Kucinich


edit: spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. I like Edwards and Obama, I don't like Hillary. I'd don't think Kucinich would be a good Pres
though I like him in Congress. I guess I don't fit into your little box so well. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. no little box
:think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. What an OFFENSIVE post. So people who support Obama and Clinton are GOP lite, eh?
And the only "grassroots Dems" are people who support Edwards and Kucinich?

That is a load of divisive, ignorant, disgraceful HORSESHIT.

Last time I checked, everyone in your subject line was competing for the DEMOCRATIC nomination.

This kind of shit is childish and unnecessary.

I suppose I'll just have to consider the source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Reaganism. Read the ideas, not your red flags. Drop the insults
:thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Why don't you take your own snarky advice? You just called the vast majority of this board GOP lite
AND YOU have the brass balls to talk about "red flags" and "insults?"

This is a board for DEMOCRATS AND OTHER PROGRESSIVES. Not for assholes who want to slap "GOP" labels on Democrats.

You need to get a clue, and stop insulting people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. if you read the post and are paying attention to what's going on
you'll notice that the "top 2" are proudly "pandering" to Republicans.

Deal with it.

Discussion (if possible) is healthy for the Democratic Party.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. No, you deal with this--you don't come on a DEMOCRATIC message board and tell people that
the candidates they support are GOP without taking some shit for it. And if you can't "get" that, you need some instruction in essential social graces.

Discussion IS healthy, but what you are doing isn't discussing. It's childish NAME CALLING accompanied by rambling and disordered hectoring.

It does not persuade, it does not convince, except to persuade and convince the reader of your trash that you have your head wedged firmly in a damp and malodorous location.

Calling Democrats REPUBLICANS is a dispicable act, and one you should be ashamed of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. threats
Threats and loyalty tests just enflame passions. You prove my point - why is it that your faction presumes to own the Democratic party and everything associated with it, no matter how far to the right the party is driven, and therefore justified in threatening us and questioning our loyalty?

Who is more loyal? The person who is loyal to the traditional principles and ideals of the party, or the person who demands loyalty to the party even when it moves farther and farther way from its traditional principles and ideals, and then threatens and tries to initmidate anyone who points that out?

Saying that many Democrats have politics that are closer to the Republican party then they do the Democratic party (pre-cultural wars) is not name calling, hectoring, trash, nor despicable.

It is an attempt at getting some clarity, and at having a calm and reasoned discussion about the split in the party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Threats my ASS. Don't pull that shit. And you might try looking at
the purpose of this site, and the rules. You don't have a right to MAKE SHIT UP, falsely categorize Democratic candidates and by EXTENSION, their supporters, and expect those comments to remain unanswered.

You are the one tossing INSULTS. And DEMANDING that people read your bullshit.

That's not "getting clarity." That's called being an insulting, hubris-laden SCOLD.

And I am not the one CLAIMING TO OWN the Democratic Party--that's what YOU are doing.

My party INCLUDES Kucinich, Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Wellstone, may he RIP, Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy x 3--anyone who works to advance the platform. Your snarkyass elitist party, on the other hand, has only those members that YOU--like you fucking know anything--anoint.

You really want to have a reasonable discussion? Stop putting false, insulting, offensive, bullshit labels on OUR Democratic candidates, based on your halfassed, half-baked, flaky "interpretation" of what you THINK a Democrat is. Stop insulting their supporters with those labels.

Because you're WRONG.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. I am a Democrat
I have worked and voted for the party faithfully for over 40 years.

I am a loyal Democrat. I have the right to speak out about the direction the party is taking without having my loyalty challenged and without being told that certain opinions are not to be permitted because someone doesn't like hearing them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Feel FREE. Speak. Shout. SING if you want. Hold opinions. VOICE THEM!!!!
My beef is with anyone who labels a Democrat a REPUBLICAN.

Or are you completely missing the point of my irritation, here?

How would you like it, if, after forty years of hard work for the party, someone slapped you across the face by telling this forum that you aren't "sufficiently" a Democrat to qualify for membership?

Screw your hard work, screw your years of voting, you don't make the cut because you don't believe what some asshole with an opinion says you should? That you were a Republican, just because you weren't "onboard" on a sufficient number of issues to suit them? And anyone you supported was also assigned to the Party of Reagan and Bush?

It is an INSULT to call Democrats Republicans. It's an insult to their supporters. You can criticize policy and platform till the cows come home, and you are welcome to do that, but you don't have the right to disrespect the Obama and Clinton supporters with that sort of reckless and insulting labeling. And neither does the 'actor' who started this idiotic thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. OK, I will
Edited on Thu Jan-24-08 02:11 AM by Two Americas
First, I didn't call anyone a Republican, the OP did. That was an unfortunate and provocative choice of words, but I would maintain that was all that it was.

But it isn't a dirty word, nor is it name-calling. Many good and decent people have voted Republican, and there have been some decent Republican politicians over the years as well. Today's Republican party has morphed into some sort of neo-fascist monster, but I am much more concerned with politicians from either party who have voted to support their program than I am what label we put on which person.

The real insult that we should all be outraged about is the legislation that has come out of Congress, with much Democrat support. When politicians vote in favor of fascistic legislation sponsored by the extreme right wing that has seized control of the Republican party, what the Hell difference does it make if they have a "D" after their name. If we can't call them Republican-lite for doing that, what should we call them? Fascists? Fascist enablers?

Much of this outrage seems phony and contrived to me. In what possible way does it harm anyone to be called "Republican?" It does not. It is not an ethnic slur, it is not a personal attack, it just is not an insult.

If I said "I support free market capitalism and think unions have gone too far" someone would be completely justified insaying "you sound like a Republican" or "you must be a Republican." There is no insult there.

Again, I did not call anyone a Republican, and would not for the very reason that it upsets people and/or gives them an excuse to drive the discussion off topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #36
53. It is a dirty word here, and it is name-calling HERE.
The OP isn't talking about "good and decent" Republicans, and if you think that, I have a bridge for sale--he's using the word as an INSULT. If you don't see that, you're either woefully unaware of the intent of the post or being deliberately obtuse.

The real insult is that Obama and Clinton supporters do not need to see that shit on a forum for DEMOCRATS. This isn't the personal playground of whining scolds who come here to tell people that they and their candidates aren't "sufficiently Democratic." You can discuss legislation and votes without accusing someone of being on the opposition team.

As I said elsewhere on this thread, WORDS MATTER.

I never SAID you 'called anyone Republican' but if you pull the string, you'll see that YOU jumped in to DEFEND the idiot asertion posted at the top of this thread. What is one to assume, based on your advocacy?

I'm done with this bullshit. I've made my point, if you don't see it, well, you need glasses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. correct
"It is a dirty word here, and it is name-calling HERE."

Yes.

Keep in mind that the insults are fired from both camps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #56
80. Wow, there goes one angry young... whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #80
82. Not young, and not even angry--just disgusted by posts like yours
where you try to define the party and freeze out anyone who isn't in your "Big Tent Hater's Club."

You're the young one here--if not in years, than in maturity. Didn't your granny ever tell you that you catch more flies with honey? See, I have an impression of you now, from your post--that you are a rigid, intolerant scold who has a elitist view of your political views, and who considers the rest of the party 'inferior' to you. Now, that may or may not be true, but you created that impression with your eagerness to insult two candidates and by extension, their supporters.

The subject of this thread is lame in the extreme, it doesn't deserve any more bumping.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #82
86. Um-
I think your anger is clouding your vision there buddy, I'm not the OP.

But have a nice day anyway!:hi:

And maybe you should think about cutting down on the caffeine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #82
88. your scattershot hostility in this thread treats every different poster as a target for your venom
if you pile attitude on top of attitude without ever reading - carefully - what an individual posts, you'll be lost in confusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
68. perhaps you're so MAD and frothing, it makes it difficult to read clearly
No one called anyone a Republican. I'm sorry that the ideas elude you and that you are so pent up all you can do is screech.

All your insults point up what YOU are doing.

Come back when you want to discuss the future of the party and the nation. If you're looking for a fight, surely there are others who really ARE trying to insult you. I'm not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #8
24. how is it an insult?
I don't get that.

I can assure you that it is not intended as an insult.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #24
34. Because if you call the candidates Republicans, then you are calling their SUPPORTERS Republicans
So all the Obama and Clinton supporters should just go waddle off and get their RNC nametags, is that it?

It's an ASININE thing to say. It's not a device to stimulate debate, it's an insult designed to piss people off--a divisive tactic, if you will.

The rules make mention of it;

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #34
39. I didn't
I didn't accuse another member of being a Republican, nor did I imply that anyone here was not welcome.

By this logic, if anyone mentions that a Democrat voted for a Republican bill and objected to that, it could be construed that the Democart had been called a Republican, and that therefore all the supporters of that politican had been called Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #39
52. That's what the OP does, though, and by endorsing his comments, you endorse that sentiment
Read what the guy wrote, fachrissake. Words have meaning.

Your logic is faulty. A Democrat who votes with Republicans IS a Democrat who voted the same way the opposition did. That's all.

When you call a Democrat a Republican, though, you are attaching a LABEL.

How about if I call you a child abuser? If you ever smacked a kid or yanked him to keep him away from a hot barbecue or the stove, well, that would "techmically" qualify. Feel good about that? After all, it's "just" a label.

Your example is a poor one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #52
57. really?
So saying that a Democrat - a public official - is "Republican lite" is equivalent to calling those who may defend that politician "child abusers?"

Are you saying that calling politicians whom you like "Republican lite" is the same sort of insult, and that you are feeling as maligned about that as you would be had you personally been called a "child abuser?"

Isn't that a stretch MADem?

Isn't that also twisting things so that your supposed defense of the supposedly maligned and insulted people is itself a worse smear and insult than anything that was initially said - things that were said not to you, and not about you, but about some politicians you happen to like?

Your defense is more insulting and more maligning than the original offense by a long shot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #57
83. Try FOLLOWING the argument. Read for comprehension. Both things are "bad."
That's the point.

But you and the OP apparently SPECIALIZE in being deliberately obtuse when you WANT to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #83
89. your lack of understanding doesn't mean others are "deliberately obtuse"
calm down
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #57
84. Try FOLLOWING the argument. Read for comprehension. Both things are "bad."
That's the point.

But you and the OP apparently SPECIALIZE in being deliberately obtuse when you WANT to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. of course they are
That doesn't mean they are bad people. They are playing the game the only way the game is played, as all of us have to one degree or another. I think they might come around to our side if there were an alternative, and if we made it safe for them to do so by showing some courage ourselves, so it isn't as though we need to hate them anymore than to heed the calls to worship them.

The argument about this gets tiresome. If we had a true opposition party, the abomination that is the Bush administration could never have happened.

Are they "better than the Republicans?" They are hired to be firefighters, the Republicans are arsonists. Seems to me the Republicans are doing a better job setting fires than the Democrats are putting them out. The Republicans are doing a better job of protecting and advancing the interests of their sponsors - the wealthy and powerful few - than the Democrats are at protecting theirs - all of the rest of us.

We hold firefighters to a different standard than we do arsonists. "We are better than the arsonists!" does not excuse letting the whole country burn to the ground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. Of course they are NOT.
Way to enable a load of divisive bullshit, there, "Two Americas."

If you support John Edwards, as your name suggests, he'd be appalled at the suggestion that either one of his debate opponents were "Republican"--LITE or anything else. I'm sure he'd find that DIVISIVE, and that goes against everything he stands for. He also knows, having been a Democrat for many years, that our tent has many corners--something YOU might get a grip on.

Your definition of what makes a Democrat is based on YOUR particular little desires--and I got NEWS for you--YOU don't get to make those rules and YOU and your thread-starting pal here don't get to define who is a Democrat, and who isn't.

The party has a big tent--not a pup tent, which is what you and the thread-starting Name Caller here seem to be advocating--that embraces the Paul Wellstones AND the Jack (pro-life, friend of lobbyists, best pal of the Pentagon, Never Saw a Defense Appropriation He Didn't Like, AND Anti-Iraq War) Murthas.

You know, back in the old days, it was the REPUBLICANS that used to call left-leaning Democrats "Commie Pinko Dirtbags."

Guess you learned a little from them, eh? And what you learned is an UGLY little lesson that reflects poorly on anyone who buys into it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kucinich4America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. I don't see a problem with Paul Wellstone & Jack Murtha in the same party.
It's the Mary Landrieu/Nelson Twins/Evan Bayh/Hillary Clinton/Joe Lieberdouche corporatist DLC types I can't stand.

That isn't centrism, it's corporatism. Murtha stood up against the war. A DLC'er would never do that, unless it was politically expedient for them to claim they were opposed (as Hillary is now trying to do, despite voting for war in Iran with the Kyl-Lieberdouche amendment.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. great point
We can have a big tent in every single respect except one.

The wealthy and powerful few have a political party that represents their interests and needs, relentlessly, ruthlessly, effectively - the Republican party.

The rest of the people need a party that represents their interests - unambiguously, aggressively, effectively.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. Another one who doesn't know a damn thing about Jack Murtha...
:eyes:


http://www.ontheissues.org/PA/John_Murtha.htm


Well, golly gee, he got up and gave that speech about the war, so he's not one of those 'corporatists' that I despise, no sirreee!!! And he "represents my interests" just fine! Gee willikers, his antiabortion stance is just up my coathanger back alley! I love his association with lobbyists, to include his brother, and the way he's wired into the military industrial complex!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. You can "not stand them" all you want. But what you, and anyone else, can't do,
is decide WHO IS A DEMOCRAT.

What part of "It's a BIG tent" is unclear, here?

If you can "stand" Jack Murtha, but you can't stand the rest of those folks, you don't know Jack. AT ALL. You might want to spend some time looking at his long legislative career. You might be VERY surprised, especially if you aren't a fan of those with corporate interests.

Unless it's the "one issue" thing that does it for you. I have little respect for "one issue" scolds, frankly. Once the "one issue" is resolved, they shit on their former heroes and disregard their hard work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #31
41. you are
You are trying to define Democrat and decide for all of us what a Democrat is, much more so than anyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #41
54. No I am not. YOU are calling Democrats you don't like REPUBLICANS, and that's a no-no here.
And you KNOW that. If you didn't before, you know it now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #54
58. agreed
Were someone calling a member here a Republican that would be out-of-bounds and against the rules. And of course it could also be merely used as an insult, which is probably the reason for the rule. But accusing a person of accusing a person is in the same malicious spirit, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #58
81. David Carradine starring in Kung Fu, is that you?
The difference is, there would be no "accusation" if there were no offense in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #81
90. so you didn't read the posts correcting your mistaken impression of the "offense"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #23
40. I didn't
I didn't call anyone here nor any Democratic politician a Republican.

The OP is not known to me, so I don't know what you are implying by saying "your pal."

I am not making any rules, nor attempting to.

Your posts have been extremely hostile and provocative and you have made numerous personal attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #40
55. You don't need to answer twice.
I am not 'HOSTILE,' I simply don't care to see Democrats called Republicans on a forum for DEMOCRATS. If you can't handle straightforward discussion, that's YOUR problem, not mine. This isn't a coin collecting forum.

Point out my "PERSONAL" attacks--and you make sure they are personal. Keep in mind DISAGREEMENT is not an attack, since you seem to have trouble with definitions. Also keep in mind that calling an IDEA idiotic isn't personal, either. A "personal" attack would be something like YOU are an INSULT -- and for insult, one would fill in a word like jerk, asshole, nitwit, fool, etc..

You'd better put up or withdraw that accusation--you just made an assertion against me without evidence, and I don't appreciate it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. you made the charge
You made the charge that I was in violation of the rules more than once, I defended myself more than once.

"I am not 'HOSTILE'"

Your language and use of caps suggested hostility to me.

"Point out my "PERSONAL" attacks..."

"...your trash that you have your head wedged firmly in a damp and malodorous location."

"That's called being an insulting, hubris-laden SCOLD."

"...your halfassed, half-baked, flaky "interpretation" of what you THINK..."

"...whining scolds..."

"...you need glasses..."

"How about if I call you a child abuser?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #59
85. Suggested hostily to you? That explains it. You haven't gotten anything right yet.
Way to take shit out of context, though! Did you spend an hour on that, or what?

You might want to get a life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #85
91. you seem to be playing games.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. Let idiots who haven't learned their lesson prattle
because of course we all know there's no/little difference between the Republican and Dmeocrat right? I mean you guys were so damn right in 2000 we should all believe you this time!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. read the post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
7. Not as funny as your creationist arguments, but certainly as poorly
thought out. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. "creationist"? all these insults and no meat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. Creationists who insult their fellow Democrats don't need much of a response. We just have to
consider the source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #18
73. another nonsensical driveby insult. whatever "creationist" crap is naught to do with me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
11. At least Spell Obama's Name right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
12. A moderate dem as an independent - give the election to any republican...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
13. This presupposes that an intelligent, grassroots Democrat would never support Hillary or Obama
Edited on Wed Jan-23-08 09:06 PM by jpgray
I don't, but I know many who do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. rather that -- given a choice -- that voter would not support Reaganism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. It's speculation. Might as well ask what would happen if Kucnich were a handsome media darling
Policy is inextricably tied to image and marketing in our system, and "electability" is some murky mix of the two that is maximized by media exposure and attitudes. Given that, it's hard to say how a speculative change in party identification would change the opinions of people. Would media coverage change? Would candidate viability change? Would your proposed "Republican Lite" party have all the benefits of being a "major" party that the Democratic Party enjoys? Lots of factors here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #17
70. anything is possible
i was surprised by your politeness

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
19. the battle
Edited on Wed Jan-23-08 09:27 PM by Two Americas
There is a battle going on for the soul of the party, and no matter which side of it any of us are on it makes no sense to deny that it is happening. It also is senseless to deny that the party has significantly changed from what it once was, has become a less effective opposition party, and has lost much of its former constituency, so those complaining that the party has abandoned them rather than the other way around have a legitimate and important point - at the very least. People may disagree with that point, but that is no reason for expressing that disagreement with ridicule and dismissal.

Why is one side in the debate - the minority here - presumed to own the party and therefore justified in calling those on the other side "purists" and "fringe" and "whiners" and God knows what else? Why is one side in the debate always told to "love it or leave it?" Why are wealth and access to the media presumed to be what defines which side in the party should be dominant? And is that not undeniably the case? And if that is the case, why deny that the Democratic party is controlled by big money interests and therefore at risk of being Republican lite?

You can't have it both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #19
69. excellent post -- the crux of the discussion, great and important questions
Thankfully there are some people here who get it or are willing to consider a discussion... you'll notice that the snipers just use drive-by insults and don't say anything. No indication that they actually read the OP.

Some just react blindly:
"My beef is with anyone who labels a Democrat a REPUBLICAN"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No one did.

I can see why folks don't want to consider that their party or candidate may be Republican Lite... (by the way, that term is always used referring to Democrats as far as I know) .... because it may require a bit of soul searching, for the soul of the party and even reflect on the individual. HORRORS!! That any DEMOCRAT have to consider that they themselves may contribute to R-Lite behaviors!!!

Of COURSE it's more convenient to just get pissed off and try to end discussion.

Thank you for your presence in the thread and on DU.

Altho MADDEM thinks we're "pals" this is first I've seen you.

Here's to open discussion :toast: and the health of the Democratic Party :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #69
77. nice to meet you...
...and thanks for the great OP.

There is a split in the party, and calls for unity and loyalty are actually attempts to silnce one of the two factions within the party. Although one side does tend to be more to the right and the other more to the left, I think that the split is more about democracy versus corporate control, or even better - the haves versus the have-nots. This split is real and is not going to go away, and I believe it is as serious as the split in the Whig party in the 1850's or the Republican party in Teddy's era. In the 1850's, some wanted to go slow and work with the slaveocracy, others saw that any compromise with the opposition wwas fatal to the cause. Today, some want to go slow and work with the corporatocracy, while others see that any compromise with the opposition is fatal to the cause.

When these splits coincide with the 80 year political cycle we have a very volatile and unstable situation and anything can happen. There is a generational amnesia about politics that runs in about 80 year cycles, once most people who can remember the last social upheaval have passed away. These are roughly the 1770's, late 1850's, early 1930's, and now we are at another one of those points and you can see the signs of dissolution and unrest and crisis everywhere. There are also less volatile mid-cycle crisis points, and those serve as a bridge between the larger crisis points - 1800's, 1880's, 1960's. That is why so many veterans of the political wars from the 60's - who were informed by the activists of the 30's while they were still alive - are outspoken today about the direction of the party and lining up against the corporatists. They are the generational bridge right back to the 30's.

It is difficult to approach this subject - no matter how you do it people get very angry, and while those of us who are anti-corporatocracy are under terrible handicaps as to what we may and may not say, as to access to the media and therefore the public, and in terms of resources as well, the opposition can do just about anything to ridicule, discredit or shut us out with impunity. Still, I strongly believe that the vast majority of people here, including many lurkers, are sympathetic to our side, and I also firmly believe that on a level playing field the vast majority of the public would side with us, as well. I know that to be so, in fact, from having spoken to tens of thousands for decades all over the country in all of the forgotten blue collar, minority and impoverished neighborhoods.

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #77
92. you nailed it
from a previous post:

"I will keep living in my world and rather than in denial, where the wealthy few have control over the process, where the media corrupts our democracy, where the poor and left behind and left out - the other America - have no voice and are marginalized and kicked to the curb, where corporate big finance interests select our candidates for us, where elections are stolen, and where the party has gotten weaker and weaker as a buttress against extreme right wing domination of our politics, and I will continue to fight and speak out against the ongoing destruction of our democracy."

:kick:

You have the historical perspective. Why is it that people forget so fast that they -- for example -- could not have PREVENTED all the damage done since Reagan was elected, instead of try to go back and "fix it"? The disconnect is so severe that many of the oblivious detractors don't understand that may be impossible and just want to "get along" and have "change."

"When these splits coincide with the 80 year political cycle we have a very volatile and unstable situation and anything can happen. There is a generational amnesia about politics that runs in about 80 year cycles, once most people who can remember the last social upheaval have passed away."

This OP was an attempt to address the most recent "generational amnesia about politics." I consider the praise of Reagan and lack of awareness of the damage done by the propaganda machine -- not to mention the hostility of those who would rather attack than think -- to be dangerous. Orwellian.

For what its worth, I don't underestimate the audience here. Even when some get apoplectic and froth at the mouth at my posts, I know my intentions are for the GOOD of the common interests we share. They can handle it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
21. In other words, the OP wants to end voting.
I prefer a system where I get to vote for the candidate, and the the winner among Democratic Party voters is the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. voting
Is it to be one dollar-one vote, or one person-one vote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #27
47. In other words, you won't respond to my objection.
Edited on Thu Jan-24-08 07:13 AM by robcon
I'll take that as agreement with the OP - that you beleive it's YOUR decision, not Democratic Party members' votes, that should decide whether Clinton, Edwards or Obama should be the Democratic Party nominee.

You're a royalist - no votes needed - you'll decide the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #47
60. hardly
We already have that exact set of conditions you describe. I am objecting to that. It is already happening. Those without power and a voice are objecting to power being held by the few. The few already think that it is their decision who the nominee should be. The royalists already exist - they are the ones with the money, the power, control over the media, and they are already sabotaging and subverting democracy - it is not poor everyday leftists here who are objecting to that who are the royalists or being anti-democratic.

Are we to believe that the poor people in the country really have the power, that their voices are being heard, that their needs are being met, and that it is the connected, the wealthy, the dominant and the powerful and those who identify with them who are being oppressed and persecuted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #60
65. I think you need a dose of reality.
Get out and meet people, vote, and find out what people want. Obama and Clinton are by far the favorites among Democrats, and one of them will be the next president.

Your question: "Are we to believe that the poor people in the country really have the power, that their voices are being heard,"

is an answer in the affirmative. They are voting, and their votes will count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. half don't even vote
I have spent 40 years on the ground working in the poorest neighborhoods in the country. Well dosed with reality, thanks.

There is no doubt that the candidates you mention are the most popular among a certain relatively small percentage of party activists and insiders, who have a disproportionate influence and control over the direction of the party, if that is what you are referring to.

The interesting contradiction is that we are asked to simultaneously believe that the candidate best at fund raising is the most viable, bit at the same time that media buys do not determine the nominee. Both cannot be true.

"They will be voting" ignores the massive voter suppression effort going on. "Their votes will count" is not very realistic, given what has happened in the last few elections.

I will keep living in my world and rather than in denial, where the wealthy few have control over the process, where the media corrupts our democracy, where the poor and left behind and left out - the other America - have no voice and are marginalized and kicked to the curb, where corporate big finance interests select our candidates for us, where elections are stolen, and where the party has gotten weaker and weaker as a buttress against extreme right wing domination of our politics, and I will continue to fight and speak out against the ongoing destruction of our democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #66
76. Correct - only half vote.
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 01:02 AM by robcon
But is that a reason for your idiotic post that the Democratic Party nomination should be restricted to YOUR choices - Edwards or Kucinich? Not the the choices of Democratic Party members who vote?

It is ironic that you talk about vote suppression, when the OP argued that most Democratic Party members should be disenfranchised if their choices are Clinton or Obama. Incredibly, the OP argued the grassroots (by whose definition?) of the party should be able to choose the nominee without 'interference' from the ones (Obama or Clinton) that the majority of Dems actually prefer, and would vote for.

Supporting the OP suggests that illogic is your only mode of thinking. G'day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #76
78. I beg your pardon
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 02:19 AM by Two Americas
I was responding to your statements about people voting. I notice that you cherry pick one item from my post, and ignore the main points I made.

I didn't say or imply what you accuse me of saying - "that the Democratic Party nomination should be restricted to YOUR choices." I don't think the OP did, either.

What I would say is that a minority of the people in the party carry a disproportionately large influence. This very thread has "love it or leave it" threats leveled at my side, and they are very common. But let us suggest that perhaps the dominant and controlling minority do that themselves if they are so unhappy with the leftists and anti-corporatists in the party, and then we hear all sorts of outrage. I have been told to love it or leave it for years, and every anti-corporatist knows what I am talking about. Of course, there was a time when my views were considered mainstream Democratic party views—pro-Labor, anti-monopoly, anti-trust, anti-big finance and manipulation of capital and markets and in favor of strong protections for workers and citizens from the ravages and predations of big capital — and I didn't change, but something did. What happened was that many people who are very conservative on the true political issues of economics and power are in the party because of their views on the cultural war issues.

Should the party merely be a mirror image of the opposition on the cultural war issues — all created and defined by right wing propagandists — or should the party be a true opposition party and represent the interests of the everyday people? That is an open question at this point. The Republicans represent the wealthy and powerful few quite well, and that is what they are interested in. The cultural war issues are just used for expediency sake by them to gain power. Will the Democratic party strongly represent the other 90% of the people who are not wealthy and powerful? That is the question. It is a legitimate question and has yet to be decided.

So all of these charges you are leveling at me seem to be projection. If we are such a fringe, so inconsequential, then why the desperate need to attack us? The truth is we are the majority, although we operate with many distinct disadvantages, and that is why authority needs to be invoked, why the attacks need to be so bitter, why the suppression techniques need to be so refined and potent, why the arguments need to be so destructive. One side has the money, the power, and the media, but not the hearts of the people. That means to stay on top requires a continual effort at keeping the rabble in line, maintaining a tight lid on any signs of revolt with any means necessary and at all costs, and keeping the people divided and on the defensive.

That is how I see it. I don't expect to persuade you, but I ask that this point of view be respected and accepted as legitimate, as it once universally was within the Democratic party.

Thanks for the chance to respond and to explain my views in more detail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #78
87. Another bout of illogic and evasion.
"If we are such a fringe, so inconsequential, then why the desperate need to attack us?"

I think you are a moron, Two Americas, and have a great deal of difficulty with logic. You've wiggled away from my issue for so many posts, you now go on long irrelevant tangents whenever I confront you with it.

Maybe you should make yourself clear... do you agree with the OP when he/she states that the Democratic Party nominee should not be chosen by the members of the Democratic Party, but by the self-selected members of the "grassroots"???

Do you think that Clinton/Obama cannot run as Democrats, even if they are favored by most Democratic Party members, because your part of the party disagrees with the majority of the party?

I think you have a lot of problems confronting my consistent issue about royally appointed nominees of the Democratic Party, because you don't like to admit that you are in a small minority of the Democratic Party, and rue the fact that you can't appoint the nominee of YOUR choice rather than accept the democratic choice of the voting party members. You're like the soldier who is out of step with the brigade, but claims the brigade is out of step with him.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #21
74. end Reaganism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Annces Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
22. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneGrassRoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
33. How about this? Take away the "Republican-Lite" label and similar verbiage...
is there room for discussion about this subject then?

Yes, it's the "big tent" party, but what happens when the ultimate goal is genuinely perceived to be different by party members? I'm not talking about single issues; I'm talking the overall goal of the party.

There really seem to be separate sets of ideals in play. Not merely HOW the game should be played to win, but what the overall goals are once a candidate does win.

My primary issue and concern as a citizen has always been corporatocracy and the control it has on the citizens, as I firmly believe the corporations run our government. Is that in dispute here at DU? It's an honest question.

If that's not in dispute, can we not agree that there is a huge gap between how a government works when controlled by corporations rather than the citizenry?

I thought this section of the OP was very significant:

"The leaders and handlers of the Party insist on grooming their candidates and campaigns to attract Republicans -- not Democrats. They continue to ignore core Democrats as suckers who HAVE to vote for the eventual Democratic nominee. If disgruntled Democrats don't vote or vote another party, they are blamed for the failings of the Democratic campaigns; blamed by the same Democrats that took them for granted, treated them as saps."

Many, many democrats feel that way, and they're not calling anyone names or dissing anyone else. There is simply a HUGE division in the direction of the party...the goals and ideals.

Is this not able to be discussed here? Is this why whenever I post about the influence of Corporate America on our elections (affecting ALL candidates in one form or another as they try to shape the story for their agenda), there are those who say I'm a conspiracy theorist and others who wholeheartedly agree? Is that the fundamental place where our views deviate?

If anyone is tempted to question my motives or intentions, I encourage you to search my posts. I don't do flamebait and I don't trash talk other candidates. I trash B*shco and Corporate America (and by that I mean the Enrons, Halliburtons, and GEs of the world).

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #33
75. another great reply - thanks to all who kept this thread viable - and thoughtful
"My primary issue and concern as a citizen has always been corporatocracy and the control it has on the citizens, as I firmly believe the corporations run our government. Is that in dispute here at DU? It's an honest question."

Not sure. Hard to tell.

"If that's not in dispute, can we not agree that there is a huge gap between how a government works when controlled by corporations rather than the citizenry?"

Yes. Sometimes we even use the F-word.

"Many, many democrats feel that way, and they're not calling anyone names or dissing anyone else. There is simply a HUGE division in the direction of the party...the goals and ideals."

Thank you for getting it. Maybe the right end of the spectrum instead of the left should be the one looking for a home.

"Is this not able to be discussed here?"

The fact this thread is alive is a good sign.

Thanks for being here.

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:13 AM
Response to Original message
37. The good news is that Dennis and John have forced Obama and Hillary
to be more progressive that both Obama and Hillary are taking pieces of Dennis' and John's platforms.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:16 AM
Response to Original message
38. How about this (and this may come as a shock):
We let the Democratic voters decide who they want to represent them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 03:54 AM
Response to Reply #38
44. Sure. Let them decide all they want to. Then they can vote on corporate owned & programmed
voting machines.

Machines that Obama thinks are just fine & dandy, & anybody who questions them are "conspiracy theorists".

.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #44
50. There is absolutely no evidence of election fraud whatsoever. The recount showed no
significant difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 05:20 AM
Response to Reply #38
46. This OP was a post that was given some thoughtful consideration...
...in the writing. Many are complaining that there's no depth to the level of exchange in the GD:P forum. That posts about the primaries have been consigned to a specific area is not an indicator, in my view, that all posts must be sanitized to please every reader. Spirited exchange is what our democracy has always been about.

Harry Truman got it right: "If you (the general "you") can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #46
49. Completely agreed. I don't understand why you're
attacking the concept of challenging a post on a rather-obvious flaw in reasoning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #38
51. Bravo. Excellent. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Califooyah Operative Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 03:25 AM
Response to Original message
42. what?
This Deaniac likes John Edwards and Supports Barack Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 03:42 AM
Response to Original message
43. What a bizarre and completely dishonest little fantasy life
you live. Your ignorance is only superseded by your arrogance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #43
62. we are in good company
The "completely dishonest little fantasy life" is the same reality that those who supported the New Deal lived.

It is not a fantasy that there is an internal battle going on over the proper direction of the Democratic party. It is not a fantasy that the majority of people in this country are sliding into want and despair. It is not a fantasy that democracy is being sabotaged and subverted at every turn. It is not a fantasy that powerful interests have an unhealthy and anti-democratic influence and control over the Democratic party. It is not a fantasy that the Democratic party has been compromising with the interests of those with entrenched wealth and power and failing to fight aggressively for the have-nots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #43
63. it is a fantasy, in a way
Thinking about this some more, I can see how you would think that this is a fantasy. In the divide in the Democratic party, it is true that one side is "reality based" and the other side are "dreamers" so to speak; one side is "realistic" and the other is not.

"Some men see things as they are and ask 'Why?' I dream things that never were and ask, 'Why not?'"

Robert F. Kennedy, 1968
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #43
71. back atcha, Cali. Your bitterness never ceases to amaze
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 05:16 AM
Response to Original message
45. In many ways, the terms "Republican" and Democrat" have lost...
...the meaning we used to ascribe to them. I agree with your premise in your OP because we have come to a point where unquestioning party loyalty is the very thing that is bringing America to its knees. Every thinking American needs to exercise the power of critical thinking to look beyond oratorical rhetoric and party alignment, and support the people who have proven by their own track records that they will do what is right for the country. It is the very height of political honor to speak out with truth about that which has gone before, and how it has affected our democracy.

There is simply no denying that all our hopes in November 2006 have been dashed to the ground by the Democrats we voted into office. There comes a time when personal honor will not allow a vote for a deeply-compromised candidate. We do not need to go outside the Democratic party to find people, as you've pointed out, who have the country's best interest in mind, before their own political careers. I fear for our country when "good Democrats" will turn away from the very obvious fact that some of our candidates are not staying true to what the Democratic Party has historically stood for.

We the People must not allow ourselves to be treated like wayward children who have to be herded into "free speech zones" -- not even, and especially not on this forum.

Great post. Thanks!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #45
64. powerful as labels
Edited on Thu Jan-24-08 05:54 PM by Two Americas
Their only power is as labels, with the meaning of the labels shifting continually in a certain definite direction. It is as though "Democratic" and "Republican" have become corporate consumer brand names.

Look at the violent reaction from people on this thread over what is essentially ownership of the brand name. They fight for the label, and against the principles and ideals that the label once stood for. Of course, it should be obvious that it is a particular definition of the label that they are really fighting for, to promote a particular political program that is profoundly at odds with the traditional political program of the Democratic party, as well as (ironically!) the program that has historically brought the party its greatest electoral success and most power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #45
72. dear pueblo knot - thanks for your comments
"It is the very height of political honor to speak out with truth about that which has gone before, and how it has affected our democracy."

The real motivation of this OP is "to speak out with truth about that which has gone before" where -- right now, one of the "top" candidates is rewriting "that which has gone before" and contributing to the bogus myth of Reagan; and doing it is a typically-slick way that then gets picked up and reinterpreted by both his detractors and enablers via the media .... everyone trying to convince everyone else that they know what he "really" meant ..... and then we're in a he said -- she said food fight that has NOTHING to do with the viability of his original statement!! "The party of ideas." WTF does THAT mean? It's ambiguous enough for everyone to get all crazy about without ever going back and saying first of all, NO THEY WEREN'T and furthermore EVERYTHING THAT REAGANISM REPRESENTED AND PERPRETRATED ON THIS NATION WAS DONE WITH LIES.

LIES.

So no -- I don't like seeing a "top" Democratic candidate massage the Reagan myth.

It is also dangerous to go along with his tendency to drive an even deeper wedge between our very recent and pivotal past and those too young to remember it.

That may include some of those here spitting venom at the OP, who think it makes no sense.

Our ability to sort out what makes sense in public life was poisoned by Reagan. And Reaganism. Now it is a high art.

THAT is the "trajectory" Obama chose to admire. Propaganda.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
48. Not to throw a wrench in the works, but "Republican Lite" seems to have a pretty good record...
Edited on Thu Jan-24-08 07:33 AM by Perry Logan
I'd like to see the Democrats move way the hell to the left, too. And I would never say the Clinton record is perfect.

But you have to give credit where it's due: if the Clinton administration was an example of Republican Lite, Republican Lite (despite its objectionable name) may not be worst thing in the world:

longest economic expansion in American history--a record 115 months of economic expansion
More than 22 million new jobs: more than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration
Highest home ownership in American history
Made the Federal government smaller (a feat matched only by Harry Truman; if you like small government, vote Democratic)
Lowest unemployment in 30 years: unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000; unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women was the lowest in more than 40 years
Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
Lowest crime rate in 26 years.
Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
Higher incomes at all levels: after falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family's income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation; all income brackets experienced double-digit growth; the bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent
Lowest poverty rate in 20 years: the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent in 1999--the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years
Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
Lowest infant mortality rate in American history
Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union: efforts of the Clinton-Gore Administration led to the dismantling of more than 1,700 nuclear warheads, 300 launchers and 425 land and submarine based missiles from the former Soviet Union
Paid off $360 billion of the national debt: under Clinton, we were on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009; what a difference a stolen election makes...
Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Lowest government spending in three decades
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
More families owned stock than ever before
Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: Republicans really chew the rug when you mention this one, so it's worth repeating constantly
Median Family Income Up $6,000 since 1993
Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years
Highest Home ownership Rate on Record
7 Million Fewer Americans Living in Poverty
Largest Surplus Ever
Lower Federal Government Spending: after increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy was cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000--the lowest level since 1966
The Most U.S. Exports Ever: between 1992 and 2000, U.S. exports of goods and services grew by 74 percent, or nearly $500 billion, to top $1 trillion for the first time
Lowest Inflation since the 1960s: inflation was at the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, down from 4.6 percent during the previous administration
The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent
The poverty rate for single mothers was the lowest ever
The African American and elderly poverty rates dropped to their lowest level on record
The Hispanic poverty rate dropped to its lowest level since 1979
Lowest Poverty Rate for Single Mothers on Record: under President Clinton, the poverty rate for families with single mothers fell from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 35.7 percent in 1999, the lowest level on record
Smallest Welfare Rolls Since 1969: between January 1993 and September of 1999, the number of welfare recipients dropped by 7.5 billion (a 53 percent decline) to 6.6 million. In comparison, between 1981-1992, the number of welfare recipients increased by 2.5 million (a 22 percent increase) to 13.6 million people
Lowest Federal Income Tax Burden in 35 Years: Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family dropped to their lowest level in 35 years
Higher Incomes even after Taxes and Inflation: real after-tax incomes grew by an average of 2.6 percent per year for the lower-income half of taxpayers between 1993 and 1997, while growing by an average of 1.0 percent between 1981 and 1993
AGAINST TERRORISM

# PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
# Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
# Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
# Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
# Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
# Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
# Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
# Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
# Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
# Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".
# Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.
# Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort".
http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/clinton.html
ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order on Environmental Justice to ensure that low-income citizens and minorities do not suffer a disproportionate burden of industrial pollution. Launched pilot projects in low-income communities across the country to redevelop contaminated sites into useable space, create jobs and enhance community development.

President Bill Clinton sought permanent funding of $1.4 billion a year through the Lands Legacy initiative to expand federal efforts to save America's natural treasures and provide significant new resources to states and communities to protect local green spaces and protect ocean and coastal resources. Won $652 million for Lands Legacy in the FY 2000 budget, a 42 percent increase.

Launched effort to protect over 40 million acres of "roadless areas," which include some of America's last wild places. Dramatically improved management of our national forests with an ambitious new science-based agenda that places greater emphasis on recreation, wildlife and water quality, while reforming logging practices to ensure steady, sustainable supplies of timber and jobs. Balanced the preservation of old-growth stands with the economic needs of timber-dependent communities through the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan.

Adopted a uniform tailpipe standard to passenger cars, SUVs and other light-duty trucks, producing cars that are 77 percent cleaner -- and light-duty trucks up to 95 percent cleaner -- than those on the road today. Set new standard to reduce average sulfur levels in gasoline by up to 90 percent. Once fully implemented in 2030, these measures will prevent 43,000 premature deaths and 173,000 cases of childhood respiratory illness each year, and reduce emissions by the equivalent to removing 164 million cars from the road.

# Approved strong new clean air standards for soot and smog that could prevent up to 15,000 premature deaths a year and improve the lives of millions of Americans who suffer from respiratory illnesses. Defending the standards against legal assaults by polluters.

# Accelerating Toxic Waste Cleanups. Completed cleanup at 515 Superfund sites, more than three times as many as the previous two administrations, with cleanup of more than 90 percent of all sites either completed or in progress. Secured $1.4 billion in FY 2000 to continue progress toward cleaning up 900 Superfund sites by 2002.

# Providing Safe Drinking Water: Proposed and signed legislation to strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act and ensure that our families have healthy clean tap water. Required America's 55,000 water utility companies to provide regular reports to their customers on the quality of their drinking water.

# Established EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) that provides grants to States to finance priority drinking water projects that meet Clean Water Act mandates. To date, the DWSRFs have provided $1.9 billion in loans to communities.

# Awarded nearly $200 million in Department of Agriculture (USDA) loans and grants for over 100 safe drinking water projects in rural areas of 40 states. USDA grants and loans target rural communities plagued by some of the nation's worst water quality and dependability problems.

# Expanded Safe Drinking Water Act protections to protect 40 million additional Americans in small communities from potentially dangerous microbes, including Cryptosporidium, in their drinking water.

# Ensuring Clean Water. Launched the Clean Water Action Plan to help clean up the 40 percent of America's surveyed waterways still too polluted for fishing and swimming. Secured $3.9 billion since 1998, a 16 percent increase, to help states, communities and landowners in reducing polluted runoff, enhancing natural resource stewardship, improving citizens' right to know, and protecting public health.

# Strengthening Communities' Right to Know. Strengthened the public's right to know about chemicals released into their air and water by partnering with the chemical industry and the environmental community in an effort to provide complete data on the potential health risks of the 2,800 most widely used chemicals. Nearly doubled the number of chemicals that industry must report to communities, while expanding the number of facilities that must report by 30 percent.

# Expanded the community right to know about releases of 27 persistent bio-accumulative toxins (including mercury, dioxin, and PCBs). These highly toxic chemicals are especially risky because they do not break down easily and are known to accumulate in the human body.

# Secured $83 million in FY 2000 for two major new efforts to restore salmon in the Pacific Northwest: $58 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, which provides resources for states and tribes to protect and rebuild salmon stocks; and $25 million to implement the historic Pacific Salmon Treaty with Canada, which established two regional funds to improve fisheries management and enhance bilateral scientific cooperation between the two countries and provides funding to buy back fishing permits in Washington.
# Expanding Wildlife Refuges. Added 57,000 acres, including lands along the last free-flowing section of the Columbia River, to the Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge to protect salmon habitat in Washington.

# Forging Partnerships to Protect Habitat. Completed 255 major Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), compared to 14 before the Administration took office, to protect more than 20 million acres of private land and over 170 threatened and endangered species. These voluntary agreements protect habitat while providing landowners the certainty they need to effectively manage their lands.

# Strengthening Protections for Wildlife. Signed legislation that strengthens protections for wildlife by mandating that the most important use of our nation's wildlife refuges is giving refuge to migratory birds and other animals reliant on this rich system of natural habitat.

Protecting our Oceans and Coasts

# Creating Comprehensive Oceans Policy. Directed the development of key recommendations for strengthening federal oceans policy for the 21st century and appointed a high-level task force to oversee the implementation of those recommendations. Convened a National Ocean Conference in June 1998 that brought together government experts, business executives, scientists, environmentalists, elected officials and the public to examine opportunities and challenges in restoring and protecting our ocean resources.

# Strengthening Our National Marine Sanctuaries. Secured a funding increase of over 100% to better support national marine sanctuaries -- homes to coral reefs, kelp forests, humpback whales, and loggerhead turtles. Supporting the five-year Sustainable Seas Expeditions to explore, study and document ways to better protect underwater resources.

# Preserving Coral Reefs. Issued an Executive Order to expand protection of coral reefs and their ecosystems to address issues of coral reef management, expansion of marine protected areas and increased protections for coral reef species.

# Protecting Marine Mammals. Led negotiations resulting in a multilateral agreement to protect dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Issued new standards to protect the endangered northern right whale from injuries from ships by instituting a first-ever ship reporting requirement in two areas of right whale critical habitat. Fought for creation of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, an area of more than 12 million square miles off the coast of Antarctica.

# Banning Ocean Dumping of Toxic Waste. Led the world in calling for a global ban on ocean dumping of low-level radioactive waste. The U.S. was the first nuclear power to advocate the ban.

Introduced "Better America Bonds" to generate $10.75 billion in bond authority over five years to preserve open space, improve water quality and clean up abandoned and contaminated properties known as brownfields. Local communities can work together in partnerships with land trust groups, environmentalists, business leaders and others to develop innovative solutions to their community's development challenges.

# Provided leadership critical to successful negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, which sets strong, realistic targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and establishes flexible, market-based mechanisms to achieve them as cost-effectively as possible.

# Investing in Clean Energy Research. Won more than $1 billion in FY 1999 and in FY 2000 for the Climate Change Technology Initiative, a program of clean energy research and development that will save energy and consumers money. Extended the tax credits for wind and biomass energy production through 2001, reducing emissions and reliance on imported oil.

# Growing Clean Energy Technologies. Issued an Executive Order to coordinate federal efforts to spur the development and use of bio-based technologies, which can convert crops, trees and other "biomass" into a vast array of fuels and materials. Set a goal of tripling our use of bioenergy and bioproducts by 2010 to reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by up to 100 million tons a year -- the equivalent of taking 70 million cars off the road.

# Improving Scientific Understanding. Increased funding for the United States Global Change Research Program to more than $1.7 billion in FY 2000 to provide a sound scientific understanding of both the human and natural forces that influence the Earth's climate system. This record research budget continues strong support for the "Carbon Cycle Initiative" begun last year to improve our understanding of the role of farms, forests, and other natural or managed lands in capturing carbon.

# Energy Efficiency Standards for Appliances. Issued new energy efficiency standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers and room air conditioners that will save consumers money and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and dependence on foreign oil. The new standards will cut the average appliance's energy usage by 30 percent and save more than seven quadrillion BTUs of energy over the next 30 years, more than seven times the annual energy consumption of the entire state of Arkansas.

# Promoting federal Energy Efficiency. Issued an Executive Order directing federal agencies to reduce energy use in buildings 35 percent by 2010, reducing annual greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of taking 1.7 million cars off the road and saving taxpayers over $750 million a year. Forged new partnerships with industry to develop and promote energy-saving cars, homes and consumer products with the potential to save Americans hundreds of millions of dollars in energy bills and significantly curb greenhouse gas pollution.
http://www.environmentalcaucus.org/gore.html

PS: What about corruption?

Forget about it. As measured by the total number of convictions and forced resignations, Clinton's was the cleanest administration since Teddy Roosevelt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #48
61. not "to the left"
Dean is not to the left, but he is fighting to put power back into the hands of the people, as is madfloridian right here. They aren't "fringe" leftists, they are pretty moderate.

The battle is not so much between left and right as it is between the haves and the have-nots, the left behind and forgotten versus the dominant, the wealthy, the powerful few.

Of course Democrats are "better than Republicans." We hold them to a different set of standards. Job one for the Democratic party is to prevent at all costs exactly what has happened with the ascendancy of the Bush administration and the extreme right wing backed by the few with entrenched wealth and power and an inordinate amount of control over all of our lives. If they fail in that, they have failed - no matter how "liberal" they are, no matter how "good" their records, and no matter how much "better than the Republicans" they are.

Saying that they are better than Republicans is like saying that firefighters are better than arsonists. That is no excuse for failing to put out the fires that are consumoing all of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #48
67. all that and the Clinton administration managed to perpetuate Reaganism too!!!!
that's the point. This is year 28 and counting. We need a real change. When people talk about "dynasty" they oughtta think about what that really means.

thanks for the info
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:24 AM
Response to Original message
79. Raving lunatic Malloy has no business 'educating' Barack Obama on MLK day
BTW, perhaps you haven't listened to him on those evenings when he's been quite the misogynist, om. I'm sure we'll be treated to it regularly if Clinton gets the nod.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 16th 2024, 06:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC