GIMME BACK MY MESSAGE BOARD!

All you people who have come here to preach the wisdom of the middle way, the centrist approach, the corporate sponsored Doritos Election Bowl.

You preach how those of us who eschew corporate solutions to societal ills are destroying "our" party.

It's not called "Underground" because its corporate mainstream political poll driven pap.


ON EDIT - We're not destroying YOUR party, we're rescuing OURS.

to look that up. :)

why you thought that..quite the little hotbed of polarized opinions..and more than a few not getting it all what bth was writing about.

Willfully Ignornant.

but you should fix the typo in your post. Anything this succinct and insightful deserves a little buffing. I applaud what you've said here.

thanks.

Lately it's my biggest red flag that some crap is about to follow.

:thumbsup:

in so few words. I'm impressed because I've felt the same way increasingly through the run-up to primary season, and haven't figured out an eloquent way to say so. Good work!

PS - You've earned a little hair of the dog with this post. It might help ease your hangover.

over on Saturday? You poor thing! ..this could be a vegan burger, too, for me.

I rie of "XXXXXLiberal" of "ProgressiveFromXXXX" lecturing me on how, for instance, we cannot push for gay rights, it's "too soon".

Spot on!

Those fighting the anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic Party are TRAITORS to Democracy, itself, imo.

What solace is there in siding with fascism against our constitution and our democracy?

don't taze me Bro.

:thumbsup:

What are you trying to say?

--IMM

:D

...that he actually likes Doritos. :hi:

--IMM

it's not YOUR message board, anymore than it's mine. It's skinner's. And he decides who posts here and who doesn't. You whinge every bit as much as those you're complaining about- and it says something none too flattering about you that you want to shut down people who don't agree with you.

I'm sure you'll get plenty of folks cheering on your little tantrum, and dozens of recs. That's fine, but people ought to keep in mind that you're trying to shut down debate just as much as someone writing a post accusing those who slam the party of being trolls. Same difference.

Always a reasoned and well thought post.

It's not allowed on threads like these.

I think there are a lot of people here who dislike anyone debating their dogmatic beliefs. Seems a strange place to be if ones skin is that thin.

where they could talk about progressive politics without the fear of being over run by neocon hysterical flaming dipsh*ts. Skinner has always been very fair about who uses DU. He hasn't decided who posts and who doesn't post. There are moderators who try to keep the forums free of neocon hysterical flaming dipsh*ts.

I don't think that the original poster was trying to shut down debate, but rather lamenting the days when we had more progressive, liberal Democratic discussions. I agree, but the evolution of DU is similar to the evolution of any liberal organization that becomes popular. I can compare this to the Union that I helped organize about 30 years ago. It started out with people who were willing to put themselves out in front, and endanger their jobs just to work for dynamic and progressive change. After the heyday of liberalism in the organization, it gets taken over by the mainstream middle roaders.

As I recall, Democratic in Democratic Underground doesn't mean the Democratic Party as much as it means Democracy, which is generally nonexistent in this country. As a student and teacher of history, I'd say that true democracy has always been underground, since there has always been people denied the vote & people of great power who control everything. The state of democratic is like the state of enlightenment. Something that we always have to be seeking, and something that isn't easy to obtain. It is something that can easily slip away if we don't continually fight for it. Those people who put themselves out in front and put their security "on-the-line" are the people who are the true democrats.

:hi::yourock::hi:

and members are expected to support Democrats for election (unless one isn't running, like Bernie Sanders' situation, where he was endorsed by the Democratic party).

Here's the specific rule on that (link to rules at page bottom):

Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

"the Revolution is not being televised. (It's online.)" The center only recently became revolutionary. ;-)

Perhaps it would be better to let skinner speak for skinner? And as someone who has put themself on the line, and been arrested for civil disobedience, and thus falls into your "true democrat" category, I disagree with your assertion about this OP.

Democrat = A member or supporter of the Democratic Party in the United States.

Democratic = Pertaining to democracy; favoring democracy, or constructed upon the principle of government by the people.

Democracy = Rule by the people, especially as a form of government; either directly, as in Ancient Greece, or through elected representatives as in many modern societies

I'm not speaking for Skinner. I would never try to speak for Skinner. I speak for myself. I'm just pointing out what first attracted me to Skinner's DU and what I believed was the purpose of the forums here originally. Things change, but I agree with the original post. It was wonderful reading (since I mostly lurk) such liberal folk's words. It was a place where flame wars weren't as common as the rest of the Internet. In 2001, it was a safe place to say Bush was a liar and a cheat. It was amazing because everyone thought I was an over reacting, radical at the time, but there were people here that agreed.

Also the Top 10 Conservative Idiots was a big reason I wandered into DU.

that shutting down debate is a bad idea.

It's the refuge of people who have no argument, who can't bear anything other than a cheering section.

After all, it's wasn't Olbermann who shrieked "Shut UP, shut UP, SHUT UP!!!!!!!"

It was DildO' Really.

The free and respectful exchange of ideas is rather representational of our attitude as a party.

Our side has, or has always had, a reputation for listening to all contributors to an issue, not insisting that only the portion of the road called the far left shoulder is worthy of travelling. It's just not "on" to suggest that.

If the OP doesn't like the "middle way" he should argue against it, taking care not to suggest that anyone who does happen to like it is a Bushitler or a Repiglicrat, or words to that effect. Suggesting that the middle way-er shouldn't speak, or doesn't belong on 'his' message board, or that the operative word is UNDERGROUND and not DEMOCRATIC (forgetting when this site was created, and what Democrats were looking at in terms of representation in Washington DC) reflects poorly on the OP. IMO.

are hard to distinguish from the right wing d*psh*ts. They call liberals and progressives left-wing crazies, try to tell us that our ideology will not sell to the rest of the country (I guess that would be the 30ish percent that disagree). It's hard to be civil to them.

Those who argue by calling people "right wing dipshits" have already lost the argument. Even if they ARE right wing dipshits.

That sort of term should be reserved for people who don't post here, and don't identify as a "Democrat or other progressive" who "supports the election of Democratic candidates" (as the rules here describe our membership).

If people are posting in a manner that suggests that they aren't in this category, that's what that ALERT button is for.

'progressive left-wing crazies' - I will submit that fact alone is why you resort to name calling...perhaps, it is just that attitude that 'will not sell'...

Peace.

http://www.speaker.gov/pdf/ND1107.pdf

Making America Safer
9/11 Commission Recommendations to Protect America from Terrorism
Largest Veterans’ Health Care Funding Increase in History
Energy Security and Reducing Global Warming
Holding the Administration Accountable For the War in Iraq
Restoring the American Dream
Largest College Aid Expansion Since the GI Bill in 1944
First Increase in the Minimum Wage in a Decade
Innovation Agenda Promoting 21st Century Jobs in a Global Economy
Aid to the Gulf Coast Recovering from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
Health Care for 10 Million Children
Restoring Accountability
Widely-acclaimed Landmark Lobby and Ethics Reform
Pay-as-you-go Budget Discipline - No New Deficit Spending

Looks like the Democratic Party to me.

just say "Restoring Accountability."

Of course you're joking. Good one.

a real fight. You see, when anyone votes money for that war, they become part of the support for the war, thus responsible for the killing. It's an inconvenient fact now, although profound in real terms, that will become a badge of shame every war supporter in Congress will carry the rest of their lives. I'm not talking about members of the public who are subject to the massive lies of Bush and the deafening silence of the absent opposition. This document failed to mention the dead civilians or the tens of thousands of US soldiers who will have life long disabilities plus our lost soldiers.

The leaders and their supporters are responsible for the results of the spending and efforts they authorize. That's the responsibility of Bush, Cheney, Powell, and all those who thought up this illegal war; it's the responsibility of all the Republicans and Democrats in Congress who support it, and funding it is support. They all know of the death, they all know of the lies that make the war illegal, yet they continue to fund it. This, by the way, is the real secret of the willingness of Congress to eviscerate the Constitution. They bear the same risk of an international war crimes charge as Bush etc. from their cooperation, a little discussed problem but one that has to be addressed.

My Democratic Party doesn't stand by and vote the funds for a war that kills and maims our own and kills over a million civilians, people who would be alive had there been no attack.

Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health
http://tinyurl.com/qgtny

ORB Polling, Great Britain
http://tinyurl.com/2xlygm

:hi: auto!

"......Looks like the Democratic Party to me."


Yeah, Sure does. ::wry smile::

economy - with gov run portions and regulated other portions - and with unions offsetting the corporate power - and with corporate power taken out of elections by mandated federal financed only elections - can be good - if they pay a progressive tax rate on both investment and wage income and can not hide profit overseas - a point that also applies to the rich individuals (Grover and his Council for Growth folks especially).

I like Naomi's "centrist" position as it happens to be mine also. :-)

It's not perfect but its a lot closer to social justice and tranquility.

economies and nations thrive when there is a true balance between government and corporations, something that is always lost on the conservative Dem crowd.

right wingers here who would say otherwise.

Thanks.

painting it as being radical.

The Centrists are not.

for Gus Hall, or for any of the socialist party's candidates, and I reject Government running anything where it does not provide some needed economic/political control required for economic/political freedom, or an efficiency greater than that achieved via market forces.

Naomi seems to also be in that section of the political spectrum - so - just as I call myself a "centrist", I see her as a "centrist".

So three cheers for a "mixed" economy (with union power, corporate power, individual power, and government power balanced)- and "boo-hiss" to the Reagan corporate controlled economy and the whole concept of corporate freedom and rights being as great as or greater than an individuals rights and freedoms.

... it might lead some to call her and he "commies"... As it almost does seem to advocate the workers taking over the corporations that defaulted down there through legal loopholes that they exploited. It's a pretty cool film and worth everyone here checking out.

I really don't see her being "centrist". I see her as a VERY well schooled academic who is well versed in economics as well as politics. She's thoughtful enough as to introduce many of her own ideas and not just be an "adherent" to the corporate types or the communist types.

I think "The Corporation" is also a good film to get her perspective as well as a decent group of others on how they feel a well regulated private marketplace should work.

corporations that defaulted - how in the world is that "commie"?

We had that in the US a few times - and it beats the alternative of no jobs and being forced to move.

But I will try to find a copy of "the take".

:hi:


I'm not going to be bullied around any longer

I've turned into a real abrasive online personna. But when you've invested so much over 6 years with a group of basically like-minded individuals, losing that safe place is sort of distressing.

ignored


You, yourself, and all the mice in your pocket, have the tools and power to take it back. Be alert, the board needs more lerts. Put more people on ignore. The board you then see, will be much more to your liking. Write and recommend more posts expressing the POV of the democratic wing of the democratic party.

If we cannot rescue DU from the centrism that ate New York, then how can we hope to rescue our party.


Unless this mouse in my pocket is Mighty Mouse.

A lot of Americans don't go far left, just like they don't go far right.

I'm one of them. Certainly, I'm further to the left than many Americans, but I try to reach out to those in the middle, to show them that we agree on a lot of things, and why I disagree on others.

Fact of the matter is, a lot of people are disillusioned in ALL the parties. We should welcome them, not attack them.

Liberal means open minded and tolerant.

You are neither.

me me me me. i want. gimme, gimme, gimme. it's all about me and how enlightened I am.

The left and the right both have their share of idealogical purists.

I'm just wondering: How does the OP starter plan to get Dems elected w/o the moderates?

the two parties, and their contempt for moderates is all important to them, so they don't give a flying fuck if the dems aren't elected.

I'm better than you because I've found the truth and you haven't!

Different sides of the same coin.

I wonder: perhaps they don't understand that, for many Americans, all the people want is the nice house with the two car garage and the ability to keep their family well-fed and educated.

We need to show Americans that the Democrats do a better job of that than the republicans.

GWB has his core 25% constituency who will not waver because to do so would be turning on your party. We have the same 25%. Party over principle.

But that's really not my gripe. Hack, maybe we should call it DemocraticMainstreamCorporateHorseRaceRatherThanIsuueAnalysis.com

W has 25% of the voters who believe he is the Second Coming of Christ. They won't do anything against him because they believe he is ordained by God to bring about the Rapture so they can all go up in the middle of the air and laugh at other people's misery.

There are 25% of the people that vote Democratic, because they believe it is the best way, given the system we operate under, to make the country better. We don't have an idealogical obsessive-compulsive fixation on any one particular candidate. I will always vote Democratic, because it is far better than voting Republican. I want to be able to sleep at night. If another party comes forward that has a chance of implementing my ideals, then they'll get my vote. That hasn't happened yet, so rather than voting for someone who I know has no chance, or becoming a scumbucket and voting Republican, I vote Democratic. The obsessive people are the ones that pick one candidate as their One True Savior, and try to make out anyone other than their fixation as Satan Incarnate.

dependent on a vicious empire for its existence, but yeah.

If all it takes to fix this crap is to have the "good" party in power and the "bad" party out of power, then Congress should already be fixed. Right?

Do you really think that electing more Democratic leaders that are like the ones we have will change anything? How?

Do you honestly think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition">extraordinary rendition and waterboarding are partisan issues?

Do you honestly think that the impending collapse of our currency is a partisan issue?

How do you think we can fix any of this stuff without BOTH parties wanting and working for the changes? How?

We don't need any more fascist/corporawhore/crimesyndicate leaders in this country. Yes, it's true, some of them are Dems.

These are not partisan problems, and there are no partisan solutions that I can see.

..and DK said the same thing when introducing impeachment

rich, and the poor are getting poorer, the left needs to counter balance the status quo. The center can't be achieved by the middle road any longer. They already failed. Maybe we need more people in the middle class to fall into poverty, or more people to be thrown into jail, innocent or not, and they didn't worry about what is considered torture when it wasn't them being tortured. Those in the middle can easily eschew the center when it isn't they who are put in jail without a trial or being tortured. It is easy to be middle of the road when you have a comfortable life, a job, and can be appeased by all the bright shinny stuff that we can buy.

We will see how middle of the road people are when a small group of people have all the high ground as the ocean's are rising, the rivers & land are drying up, and only the very rich have coolers as the temperature keeps rising. It is easy to be middle of the road when you can afford to send your children to private school. What happens when those in the middle no longer can afford to pay for private school, and they didn't do anything to keep public schools healthy as the rich and powerful are dismantling the one great equalizer of this country, public education. Maybe things haven't gotten bad enough for those in the middle yet. Maybe those middle of the roaders can't see the path ahead, even when the path behind was heading right in that direction.

I don't know who these people are, these middle of the roaders. I don't think I know any of them personally, although I do know a lot of Bush-supporting right-wingers. I don't think there are a whole lot of these middle of the roaders, they do seem to be a somewhat small (but very LOUD) group here at DU.

As to what you say about the direction we are heading, I'm afraid that even my Bush-supporting friends would agree with most of what you say. The truth shall set them free. Eventually. Maybe. Class conciousness is beginning to become a reality for many people, on both sides of the partisan divide, as they watch more and more hard-working friends and neighbors and family members slipping backwards at a faster and faster rate. It has become too damn obvious, they cannot ignore it any longer. Time to face up to reality, you're either a worker and you're getting screwed, or you are the one doing the screwing.

my mother always said "When their shoes get tight then they will understand." I'm afraid it might be too late by than.
patty lame's wife

career in risk management:

Without going into a philosophical discussion of risk and its impact upon our lives, let me state that people are motivated to accept some risk in exchange for a reward. The higher the risk, the higher the expected reward. What has occurred over the past 50 years is a gradual but unabated shifting of risk from the owner class to the labor class. I'll give you a trite example: You sign up with Verizon for a cellphone for two years. Their service sucks and they've been giving my phone records to the NSA and I lose my job. I want out of the contract. I get to pay a $200 penalty. Why? Because my contract says so. Is the risk that Verizon took worth $200? No, it was a minimal risk but Verizon gets a handsome reward. There is a mismatch of risk and reward. Where did the risk go? To the consumer, who is least able to afford it. Therein lies the basic truth, we live in a society where the risk is shifted to the weakest party. Economic darwinism. So if a class of people are enjoying high rewards with minimal risk, the system evolves geometrically and the division between the have's and have not's grows out of control.

The government nanny-state does NOTHING for the poor, absolutely nothing.

The government nanny-state only serves lazy people who have a lot of wealth.

A pro-corpoate agenda does not appeal to moderate or "centrist" voters. Check the opinion polls.

They still oppose taxes on businesses.

That's why we need to find common ground, show them that we're both right. Then, once they see we're not snarling libtards, as Limpballs et. al claim, but honest accepting patriots instead, they'll listen to our ideas that they would have previously rejected.

are we talking about so called 'centrist' canidates?

because i think its the latter.




nobody disputes needing and wanting centrists in the democratic party....

the problem is FAKE canidates who claim they are left or centrist when really they are just money driven corporate shrills like the majority of politicians in washington DC.

THATS the problem.

not moderate/centrist voters.

i think uve gotten the msg confused.

exactly right and that was my impression. So what, happens? Posters immediately start scolding the OP for, "saying it's his board" when that wasn't what he meant at all. Talkin' about "shills" baby, shills!

Heart meet Matter!

I think that the vast majority of voters are where we are in terms of rejecting the corporatocracy and looking for real progressive change in areas like providing universal health care, strengthening unions, re-instatement of our constitution and civil rights, etc. They also want the war de-funded and the neo-cons' insane agenda of wars for oil and corporate profit ended. The problem is with the so-called "centrist" sell-out Democratic politicians. This is what drives me nuts at DU sometimes! I do wonder if these "centrist" posters really understand the distinction and who it is they are advocating for? Who is it in the electorate that they think we will alienate if we adopt a truly progressive stance and reject the politics of triangulation? :shrug:

You came here to tell us that our views are loony and irresponsible and not constructive. I am griping because the one place where I could come to to get away from the talking head BS is being overrun by the same stuff.

I'm <just kidding>

The talking head BS is insidious. We've been watching DVD's for two days and feel like our minds are lighter and faster.

would probably draw in that Vast Majority of Americans who know politics as practiced today is only for the bourgeois bullshitters and thus sit out election after election.

There ain't much democratic about the USA.

If both sides have their fringe purists, but are dependent upon the moderate middle

then what IS the difference between the parties?

Wait a minute- wait a minute -

BOTH sides strive for the so-called centrists, which have no solid convictions, and both sides are absolutely dependent upon them - dependent upon those who have NO convictions. Those who could switch back and forth between parties without a qualm. Centrists.

The party is defined by the 'fringe'. THAT is what differentiates a Republican from a Democrat. The center it NOT the base. The center is who the base must put up with. When the party runs toward the center it is running toward the other party.

It is a sad state when the base must become the 'underground'.

above yours.

dont you know... then the people with the message to get out might be put "off-message"

fucking insightful.

fucking amaze me.

:eyes:

"do as I say, not as I do" :eyes:

hes mad at centrist not being open minded to the views of the left?

how does that work out again?
tisk tisk

just another pot callin the kettle black im afraid.

like in the skulls of moderates on DU? Perhaps?

.

:woohoo: :toast: :woohoo:





:kick: & Recommended! :D

...want more Democrats in power.

Since you don't say what it is YOU want, I'll guess it's some kind of ideological purity that you and the rest of the dogmatically-cleansed "underground" can chant to one another late at night. You don't want politics, you want a catechism. You don't want to do what it takes to win, you'd rather lose and have the smug satisfaction that you are pure and unsullied in your heart.

More power to you. No wait, LESS power to you, because that approach will alienate the moderates, the Blue Dogs, the Independents, and especially the life-long Republicans who are finally maybe, just maybe ready to make the switch -- that is, everyone to the right of you and your chosen choir.

My thesis: The Democratic Party is a coalition. Always has been. It's our strength and our weakness. It's why Will Rogers' famous quote can be appreciated even today as both funny and insightful.

If you want out of the coalition, fine, good luck with your third- fourth- or fifth-party status. See if you ever get one electoral vote.

The rest of us? We have a majority to grow, an agenda to enact, a country's moral standing to rebuild, a Constitution to restore.

It's going to take all of us.

Conservative Dems, like their Republican counterparts, always seek to redefine and exploit terminology to advance their agenda.

Corporate control of US government is not "centrist" by any definition.

If you're proud of your ideas and agenda don't shy away from calling them what they are: conservative.

My ideas and agenda may -- in some areas -- be more conservative than yours, but it's all relative, innit? I'll bet we have more in common as regards public policy than we have differences. Really.

And nowhere did I advocate 'corporate control' of the US Government. Please tell me where you got that so I can edit my post.

way" is dino(corporatewhores/fucking WARMONGERS) and to enable bush and that's what BTH is saying. All this talk about a big tent Dem is actually condoning the fooking dinos.

And here they come with their "coalition" shit..in the meantime dissing and calling us names. They think think we're as dense as they are.

You have put into words what I feel.

Thank you for expressing that!

You, my friend are why I still have hope!

I don't have any issue with you or anyone else representing corporate power, but why do it by trying to marginalize those who see another way?

You know that when your middle way gets run over by a tractor trailer we'll be the ones still shedding blood to win our country back. You'l lbe right along with us when it starts to effect you too. You knoe, just like when Arlen Specter was all against stem cell funding until he got cancer, the he was all like give me a stem cell cocktail, now!

1) I think that those who 'see it another way' would have a lot better chance of getting some stuff passed into law with a large majority in Congress and a member in the White House.

2) I think to get that large majority and the White House the appeal of the Democratic Party must be as broad as possible, to attract as many voters as possible.

3) Many of those voters - in the middle - are in the middle because they are not comfortable voting either extreme. They will make incremental changes, however.

4) I must admit I don't understand the tractor trailer metaphor.

5) I think you are mistaken to equate moderate Democrats with supporters of 'corporate control'. I'd really have to know exactly what you mean by that - it SOUNDS bad, but even now, I'd say most Democrats - even the moderates - are loathe to privatize any more of the government, and in fact would like to return most areas to public control. I know I would.

"3) Many of those voters - in the middle - are in the middle because they are not comfortable voting either extreme." You apparently feel that the liberal left is as extreme as the people who are destroying our country.

Yeah, why don't we be moderate and compromise with them. I'm sure they'll see the light if we just go along with them until it's too late and we're all fucked. Sometimes in order to make a compromise you have to put your foot up the other party's ass so far that they start wanting compromise. It doesn't work as well if it's their foot up your ass.

Just tell me that - I truly do not understand.

How will a liberal left candidate get elected in a nationwide race?

Alot of them come from the center of its own party.

So, first the democratic "center" gets its head out of its ass.

Notice I put "center" in quotes, because the "center" doesn't have a philosophy beyond "unity" and "playing nice." They want to strike a balance between the "extremes" on every issue, but they are unwilling to declare where that balance is because a clear stand on the issues will make them a target.

Frankly I think anyone who is more afraid of cooperating with the "left" of their own party than of compromising with the right of the opposition is not only a fool, but a coward as well.

that strong stand.

The squishy middle are not govenered by their own conviction - if they had any, they wouldn't be in the middle. They are drawn by those they see to be the most honest, straightforward, and strongest in their convictions - IOW, a vicarious political stance - everyone wants to back a winner.

If the party stopped giving in to the right, stopped playing toward the middle, it would gain more support than it has in the past 3 decades because people who don't know what they are doing will gather behind those who do seem to know what they are doing, what they believe and what they want.

Bush got the backing he did from the middle because he had a simple(minded) message, while on the Democratic side we had open warfare between the DLC corporatists and the real Democrats. People sensed weakness on the Democratic side, and refused to back them. As long as Democratic 'centrists' put down the real Democratic message, we will be seen as weak and as losers.

What we need is a good, old-fashioned purge and send the DLC packing. A smaller, more focused party with a clear message and clear principles would gain more support from the general public.

As it has been for 30+ years...

is why Dick Nixon would be too liberal for the Democrats of today...

A mere provocation.

I learned my lesson last night - you're interested in incoherent ranting, not dialogue. Hence no more from me.

- establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency
- normalizing relations with Communist China
- commencement of SALT talks
- proposal of the negative income tax
- Nixon policy represents the peak of affirmative action quotas, the Philadelphia Plan
- establishment of the DEA with 2/3 funding for treatment
- detente policy with regard to the USSR
- imposed wage and price controls
- created Supplemental Security Income
- indexed social security to inflation
- created Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
- promoted the Legacy of parks
- improved salaries for US federal employees worldwide

So no, it is not a mere provocation. You seem to prefer to discuss me more than the facts, and that is just more evidence of the weakness of your "thinking"

...and I notice you're overlooking the secret bombing of Cambodia, enemies lists, surveillance on the opposition party, sabotage of opposition political campaigns, popularization of the race-baiting 'Southern Strategy', etc etc.

Chomsky said "In some respects...." You made a blanket, and unsupported, assertion.

and you are now picking fly shit out of pepper.

We have nothing to discuss.

Shine on, big guy.

Those were some good bones that Dick threw to the rabble, I'll give him that.

Noam Chomsky is a great guy, but there's more to Nixon's leadership than that. It was constrained in many respects by Congress, and it was also shaped and IMPROVED by Congress as well:

But compared to Congress during the presidency of George W. Bush, the Vietnam-era legislature compiled an impressive record in challenging flawed presidential decisions. Between 1964 and 1975, many legislators forced discussion of difficult questions about the mission, publicly challenged the administration's core arguments, and used budgetary mechanisms to create pressure on the Pentagon to bring the war to a halt. A number of liberal Democrats started in the mid-1960s as some of the most vocal critics of escalation in Vietnam; by the early 1970s they were wielding the power of the purse.

Many observers have glorified the role of the media and anti-war protestors in forcing an end to one of America's most disastrous foreign policies. But numerous members of Congress deserve equal respect, and can serve as a model for legislators who are today challenging the president.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12438

The same can be said for any and every initiative that came out of Congress to land on Nixon's desk for his signature.

Well put!

:patriot:

I think you speak for many of us. This reply should be recommendable! :)

:pals:

A fantasy team that the centrists would oppose tooth and nail?

A bit of disconnect, here?

It's my opinion. We all have them. Some people here cream in their pants over the unelectable man who has a history of voting against women's rights and I feel that they have every right to speak and discuss. I disagree with them and their cultish line of thinking, but I have never called for silencing them. Not here and not anywhere else. Ever.

Why is is "disconnect" to feel that everyone in the party has a voice? :shrug:

supporting the centrists (who are not, really) while your sig line advocates people the centrists despise.

If Gore/Feingold is your dream team, why are you supporting the politicians that have done everything in their power to keep them out of power?

WTF are you talking about?

Go find someone else to pick on.

"...the moderates, the Blue Dogs, the Independents, and especially the life-long Republicans..."

Those are the ones you dread to antagonise, while your dream team would in itself antagonise them like nothing else short of Kucinich.

Again, I ask, do you support your dream team or believe the road to success is in caving to "...the moderates, the Blue Dogs, the Independents, and especially the life-long Republicans..."?

Why is that so difficult to grasp?

This OP is about an attempt, nay demand, to silence a large part of our team.

A significant part of them are not on 'our team'. Just as we loony lefties identified LIEberman to be the 5th columnist he is, long before he admitted it by declaring himself to be an "independent democrat" running against the real Democrat, we see it as our duty to question the bonafides of those who have a 'D' by their name, but always vote with the republicans. IOW, find out who is really on "our team".

There are republican moles on our team. There are compromised corporatists on our team. There are self-involved egoists on our team. And they cannot be counted on to be on our team.

At one time, being raised with the military and having served myself, I was seen as being a moderate - now I am a radical, and I have not change any of my views. By groping to the right to bring more people onto our team, we have lost what made us a team to begin with.

It's one thing to listen to all views - it's another thing to believe in them. Know who is on our team starts with knowing what differentiates a Democrat from a Republican - whatever they may self-identify as.

That line of thinking has worked so well for the current abomination, I mean administration. :eyes:

against us.

Like Lieberman.

Reality based people recognise when someone is actively working against them. Dems who favor attacking Iran are NOT on our side, no matter what they say. Dems who think Saddam had WMDs at this point are NOT on our side, even if they've been Democrats since 1958. Dems who vote for Bush are not on our side.

It is not saying that if you are not with me, you are against me. It is saying if you are against me, you cannot be with me. There really is a difference between those statements, if you think about it.

"We have a majority to grow, an agenda to enact, a country's moral standing to rebuild, a Constitution to restore."

have to do with anything the current party is doing?

nothing.

absolutely NOTHING is on the table. we are now a party of few principles, and those few are up for sale.

the current definition of compromise (triangulations) is rather skewed when you allow the republicans to start and frame the conversation from an EXTREME right.

who is going to be thrown under the bus next, all in the effort to take a centrist position that is now about 8 on a 1 to 10 scale?

the most important election in the history of this nation is coming up, and you want MORE people to sit it out?

clever plan, that.

I agree with everything you've said.

when the chips are down...WE ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE NO MATTER WHO IN THE HELL THEY ARE....And we will support them to the end.

so, tell me, who did you vote for back in 2000?

And then I voted for Kerry.

And the DLC threw me under the bus, then backed over me in their rush to flee the parking lot.

Just what do we owe them?

won't. "We" thought the same thing with Kerry in 2004. "We" were wrong.

And FUCK THE YANKEES!

"Seeing Democrats suggesting ways of advancing Democratic viewpoints that I find to be unproductive both angers and confuses me. Please stop saying things I disagree with."

I don't like Democrats who oppose my conservative Dem agenda, so I pretend that any Dem who disagrees with me is a left wing extremist and not worthy of discussing issues.

:rofl:

Edit: I meant to reply to the OP. Oh well, shit happens.

I was translating the words of the post above, not referring to myself.

But you probably already knew that and decided to make it appear as something it wasn't, right?

I meant to reply to the OP. I edited it before you replied. I wasn't talking to you. Move along.

hahahaha!

That was a good one!

Well...Will as been banned before so I don't think it's any body's bord but Skinner's and Ellad's and EarlG's.

zooooooom!

All I can see is my ceiling! :P

:rofl:

Explain to me what exactly I believe in that is "conservative Democrat."

explain to me how you think your ideas are centrist.

I'm having difficulty thinking of a major policy platform in which I am not to the left of most Democrats.

Gay marriage? Equal rights for everyone immediately. Iraq? Out tomorrow. Taxes? Hike 'em on everyone making more than $150k. Health care? Single payer. Energy? Ethanol's a scam; dump federal funding into solar, wind, geothermal, tidal power. In the meantime, build nuke plants. Cars? 50mpg by 2010, and raise milage 5% per year. Waterboarding? I want the Biden/Kennedy bills specifically declaring it to be torture to be passed.

Only issue I can think of where I'm remotely "centrist" is that I was in favor of K-L. However, that's only because I believe that there are many fence-sitters in State and the Pentagon, and I believe that "tough diplomacy" will push them into the "war is not necessary" camp. If you don't quite understand, or think I'm pro-war, I assure you that I believe K-L (while regrettable and certainly counterproductive long-term) may be one of our best bets to keep Bush from getting the internal support needed for an Iran war.

The only way that you might believe I am centrist is if you think that "There is not enough popular support to push X through Congress" means "I disagree with X."

It appears Dems don't disagree on issues, they disagree on what Dem leadership in Congress should be doing to advance its agenda.

Sadly, it appears most Americans agree with those who think Dem leaders in Congress should be doing more.

milquetoast and wishy-washy. Bill Clinton, in analyzing the 2002 election, said that Americans would rather have strong and wrong than right and weak. We can be strong and right. However, our leadership is more afraid of being seen as wrong than they are of actually being wrong, and that makes them look weak and vapid.

This Congress has done some very good things, and I'll readily disagree with those who say they haven't. However, those have been overshadowed by the fights they've been to afraid to commit to. I understand that playing "chicken" with Iraq funding would be very, very dangerous indeed. Part of me doesn't want to risk 2008 (and the chance to actually pass legislation and not have it vetoed) on a gamble that might not even work. The other part of me just wants to see the Democrats throw down and make a stand.

protesters, oops, crowds. MKJ


edit, spelling.

I am in favor of microwave weaponry only against a riot, only when police are unable to contain with riot shields, and only when tear gas and rubber bullets are the only other options, as both are more dangerous to human life. I am of course opposed to use on protesters.

Just sayin'

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, even they get heard in public, but Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn - those are some crazy extremists!

and see that it is a ridiculous fabrication.

Cool.

Its a rather slippery definition.

The right shift in this country has moved the 'center' way over to the right. Advocating New Deal style reforms such as single payer universal health care has now become 'far left'. By that standard Harry Truman was a leftwing loon.

and are afraid that by rocking the boat too much they will appear "radical" and be marginalized.

They don't realize that this is the whole game, by marginalizing the left all the right has to do is hold them up as a bogeyman and the scared center will keep pushing right to avoid being associated with the scary uncompromising liberals.

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

I've been here for years and DU has not moved steadily right. That's a myth that has a life of its own.

And just because YOU don't know why a specific poster was banned, doesn't mean there wasn't a reason. But even if it was completely capricious, DU is not a communally run place. It's Skinners "living room", so to speak. He gets to make the house rules.

Don't like it? you're free to express that, and I'm free to tell you it's bullshit.

What is it that prompted you to start posting? After all this time? I mean, the banning of 'TruthIsAll' was quite a while ago, you know about it, yet you did not raise a peep until today? Curious.

As a newbie, you may not realize it's against the Rules to call out the Admins

Yikes. I did know know that.

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

Kick ass burythehatchet! :hi:

:sarcasm:

Go google the history of Democratic Underground and David Allen.

The information superhighway, like a gun, is a tool, nothing more.
:kick: & R

Im not ultra liberal. Im not ultra conservative. Many say I am moderate, what ever that means.

And I am a Democrat.

I think the extremes of both parties are what are wrong with both parties. They are those who believe in "my way or the highway". They have lost the ability to work with the opposite party, to compromise, to be reasonable.

And they turn into the fringe of the parties. The fringe always seems to crash and burn just like the rabid right wing neocons happening today.

Just funnin' with ya, John!
:hi:

Damn. Who caught me?

speaking of. I used to go to lunch with some guys at work who were HORRIBLE tippers. It was embarrassing. I mean these guys gave government employees a bad name. I always had to add to the tip when they werent looking.

But...I think I am a genorous tipper. And a bad speler.

If you're not liberal, how can you be a Democrat?

Or, are you one of the I'm a Democrat but I oppose their platform types?

:shrug: MKJ

so biting you would be entirely out of the question.

Thanks, though.

:)

Anything else is treason.

:grr:

As if no one else was, and as if anyone who disagrees with you in any way, is a traitor. No thanks.

:eyes:

FYI-I'm sick of the DINO apologists and enablers.

Send em to freeperville where they belong!

If not to jail for treason for going along with the treasonous bastards in Washington DC! :puke:

Nevermind, I shouldn't engage this. It will backfire on me.

:eyes:

I am a left-winger; an economic socialist (in the Europaean mixed-economy sense); anti-war from the beginning; horrified by the British equivalent of DINOs who have ruled us for the past 10 years; don't think America has had a president liberal enough for my tastes in my lifetime, and that includes Clinton and Carter, much as I respect them...

But:

I would rather be ruled by the fucking Blairites for the rest of my life, than live under a government that equates political dissent with treason!

Democracy forever!

It is the very definition of treason.

And the politicos who enable Bush and his minions in their subverting of the constitution are as much traitors as he and his are. Despite the attitudes of some, the amendments to the constitution ARE part of the constitution - and the first ten amendments need defending as much as any of the rest of it. For democracy's sake.

:hi:

and Joe McCarthy and his pals.

Not to mention the 'strict constructionists' and fundies nowadays. E.g. James Dobson said that mostly-RW Justice Kennedy was 'dangerous' and 'should be impeached' for ruling that people cannot be prosecuted for 'sodomy' in their own homes. Go to the Focus on the Family website - it's full of complaints about liberal judges undermining the constitution.

There is room for disagreement as to what 'the constitution' means on all sorts of issues. I think that it's great to HAVE a constitution to protect a society; and I wish my country did - we've only got Magna Carta and case law. And I am *passionately* in favour of liberal/left causes - but once one starts locking righties up for 'treason', the RW will be the first to use the same for lefties. You think that the meaning of the constitution is clear-cut on the issues that you (and I on the whole) support; but evidently not everyone shares this view, and so throwing people in jail for treason on these issues *is* punishing political dissent.

Just to clarify: I do think that Bush and Cheney and Blair deserve prosecution for war crimes, over the war based on lies in Iraq. However, once you start punishing people who merely voted in support of Bush - how soon does this move from punishing politicians to punishing individual voters; those who write letters to the editor; etc.?

Precisely. And THAT's what's wrong with throwing people in jail for treason if they vote the wrong way!

Throwing them out on their arses at an election is the way to go!

Or else you totally misunderstood my post. :shrug:

I realize that currently your government is controlled by Bush; so political dissent is on the other side, which I assume is what you're saying now.

However, BUSH is clearly not going to put Republicans and DINOs in jail for treason; so for this to happen, there would have to be either a change of government, or a rival revolutionary group that would put people in jail for disagreeing with them.

I don't think Bush should be able to put lefties in jail for treason, and I don't think that his Dem successors, or Revolutionary Headquarters, or whoever should be able to put righties in jail for treason (unless they plant bombs or the like).

I think that Thatcher and her supporters did enormous harm to my country; but I wouldn't want them jailed for it - it would do more harm to my country to become the sort of place where people with the wrong opinions and votes get jailed.

FYI: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2257705

about what ACTIONS constitute violating the constitution?

And also: could you say WHO you think should be prosecuting and throwing people in jail for treason, and what sort of evidence should be required?

you said: "I would rather be ruled by the fucking Blairites for the rest of my life, than live under a government that equates political dissent with treason!" Do you not see that the DLC, and our DLC-controlled Congress SIDES with those same people?

You can't ignore the fact that our "Democratic" Congress slapped Move-Ons' hands for expressing a POPULAR (remember us, the polis?) public opinion. They censured them! Tell me how that is different from what a Republican Congress would do. And that is one example of literally hundreds. When my choices are: Republican or Republican-lite, I say I need another choice (within the Democratic party).

but censuring a group, even unjustly, is not the same thing as throwing them in jail!

I am not arguing one bit about wanting another choice within the Dem party!!! Look, I haven't voted for either my country's two main parties in the last 15 years, because I think that New Labour are too far right and destroying most of the principles on which the party was based. I *would* vote for New Labour if not doing so would bring in someone like Bush, however. But it would have to be that extreme!

My argument was not with the statement that some Dems are too right-wing/ pro-Bush; or with wanting to replace them in primaries with more liberal Dems; or even voting independent in certain cases. My argument was only with treating them as traitors (in the criminal sense, rather than traitors to their party) and throwing them in jail.

throwing dissenters-in-jail-point -- well, at least not on a mass scale. The MOST important thing is to hold the REAL traitors (the BFEE and their Democratic lap dogs) to account for crimes against this nation and crimes against humanity.

The way we uphold our Constitution is by USING the Constitution. And we don't do that by choosing between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum on election day.

If/When the day ever comes that Americans experience mass political imprisonment Americans will have to decide, each and every one of us, if we have the meddle of our forefathers/mothers or if we've become the self-indulgent, stupid, lazy populace the rest of the world seems to think we are.

I wasn't replying to the OP, or to the general issue of centrism vs leftism. I was replying to a post which stated:

'I'm sick of the DINO apologists and enablers.

Send em to freeperville where they belong!

*If not to jail for treason for going along with the treasonous bastards in Washington DC*!'


This last sentence may well have been meant less literally, and more metaphorically than I took it; but in this world, where there ARE so many political prisoners, I think that it's very important to stand up for the principle that politicians, who support or vote for bad policies, should be removed by means of the ballot-box; not by political prosecution and imprisonment. (For that matter, I think American politics might be better off if, like us, you DID still use a ballot-box rather than voting machines; but that's a separate issue.)

"off with their heads". Aren't you the little totalitarian.

Imprisonment is a great solution for "treasonous bastards". They can join the other lonely inmates rattling around in huge, empty jails all by themselves. :eyes:

Dude, quit smoking your Lok-Nar.

:headbang: :yourock: :thumbsup: :wow: :beer: :toast:

that means we get to gracefully put up with those centrists and even worse, the DLCers. It's hard sometimes, I'll admit, but I've seen quite a number of them over the years come to understand that what has happened to their party is not good and have come to a more leftleaning viewpoint. Heck, we've even brought a number of Republicans to our side.

Notice that there are no longer any centrists in the Republic party. Where do you think they defected to?

That's where, for the very most part.

:applause: :thumbsup:

A few people on this board tsk, tsked us when we said Lieberman was a fucking traitor and a Republican in DINO clothes.

Well -- we were 100% correct!

I'm sick of that kind of get-along and go-along crap -- the head patting, now, now, dear, don't get yourself all worked up kind of shit we get from the "centrists."

To Chairman Leahy, Chairman Dodd, Chairman Levin, Chairman Kennedy, Chairman Kerry, Chairman Biden, Chairman Boxer and many others. Fill them in with the Repbulican of your choice.

So yes, you were right, but excommunicating him would cost a lot more than just his GOP votes.

now they complain about their slim majority.

...because they were :scared: of the alternative, which never materialized in polls or final results -- Schlesinger scored a mere quarter of Lamont's votes.

Fear of "possibilities" and ignorance of the true danger in electing DINOs is such a good thing to base a vote on. :sarcasm:

only something like 23% of us opposed it in the beginning. That's alot of currently active Hillary apologists and Lieberdems.

How fucked up is that?

The purity brigade bunts again.

and the DINO Dems who vote with Repugs time and time again. Think of who they are beholden to. Think about how we rebuild our Party to make it better. There is an enemy within who will not hold this P-resident/VP and their cronies, ACCOUNTABLE...

Look, my erstwhile Senator, Jim Jeffords was a true centrist- even if he was a repub for 95% of his political career. He voted against the IWR, was a strong environmentalist and supported a strong social safety network. Lieberman is out for Lieberman. And one way you can change the voting patterns of Senators who vote with the repukes, is by building a larger, stronger progressive dem majority in the Senate.

which you do not do by electing centrists. That is something that is accomplished by electing (gasp) progressives!

THey'd be rolling down their collars and placing there necks on the chopping block in the interest of compromise.

It isn't just that the "center" are a bunch of willfully blind invertebraetes, its that they are taking the rest of us down with them. If you were just screwing yourself I'd let you do it. You could screw yourself with a big red Hillary shaped dildo for all I care, but you're not just screwing yourself your screwing me to.
Maybe things are all pat, and nice in your world, and you figure we just need some tinkering at the margins to fix the system.
The system my friend is fucked, and it has been for a while. We need a sea-change, not some bullshit compromise that leaves in place the corruption.

pops in. First of all, chickadee, I'm not a centrist. I'm pro-impeachment, anti-corporatist, support Kucinich, and a massive overhaul of how campaigns are financed and conducted. I was against the war from the very beginning- just as I was against Gulf War I- and I've marched and organized.

Your vile little screed, is simply mindless. And an excellent example of what not to "think" or do. You simply jumped to a conclusion. And idiotically calling for a sea change without elaborating on how we get there, is as useless as the rest of your ugly little post.

I'm not going to say anything that will get my post deleted. And I'm not going to alert on your little piece of filth. It'll be deleted sooner or later, but I can't really overstate the contempt I feel for your expressed sentiments or your mode of expression.

"If you were just screwing yourself I'd let you do it. You could screw yourself with a big red Hillary shaped dildo for all I care,"

that's not debate. it's simply a mindless and ugly attack.

clearly you have so much invested in your liberal principles that you are willing to punt them away in the interest of unity. Sorry if my post seems crude, vulgar, or even "vile" to your tender sensibilities, but I'm sick of being inclusive of people who (generally) were on board with the Iraq war, who apologize for Sen. Clinton and the no-spine democratic Senate and who seem to think they are doing us a favor by watering down the Democratic message with platitudes about unity and compromise. I'm all for unity and compromise, but not when that is code for half-measures taken against fascism.

If they truly think that this war is wrong. If they truly despise Bush. If they truly think that we need change, they need to start carving up their crow and eating it, instead of lecturing us on unity. They WERE WRONG, and now they expect us not only to welcome them aboard and give them the lead.

You know a week or so ago I read a post which stated that those people who dislike Hillary and would rather vote for a third party candidate than her in a general election were "assholes." I responded in kind and my post was deleted. So maybe, I'm a bit harsh, but the cowards in the Democratic party need to be force fed a spine.

As far as being a pro-impeachment Kucinich supporter, kudos on that and congratulations on being on the right side of the issues. I would think that would give you some insight on how there is a large segment of our party which neither listens to nor respects us. Liberals represent a quarter of the population yet are treated as some wacko fringe not just by the GOP but by people who are (ostensibly) our allies.

Go ahead, sing kumbaya with the DLC while they trample over you, but don't try to tell me that I'm wrong for being angry that my party is the party of COWARDS. The "center" doesn't respect you no matter how much you kiss their ass. THey are enablers who think that they are "saving" the Republic by go-along with the tide - not unlike the vichy French.

So go ahead, alert me for vulgarity. I might have gone overboard with the "Hillary dildo" comment, but the fact is that they are not just screwing over themselves with their stupidity they are screwing over me and you as well. I don't expect you to be as strident as me, but I can't understand how you would enable the enablers. It doesn't make sense to me. I don't want unity with those who want unity with those who would destroy us all. If there was an alert button for dangerous naivete I would be hitting it on you.

I wish I could rec that post.

is typical of a certain mentality, as is your "with us or against us" thinking. Where have I heard that bullshit before? Oh, that's right, out of the mouth of george bush. I don't have any use for the DLC. That wasn't what I was talking about. There are plenty of moderates who liberals damn well should be seeking common ground with. That's how you build a coalition and oust those like bush and the neocons. And you certainly don't know much...... about anything if you tnink all moderates are akin to the Vichy.

No, I'm not going to alert on you. I do that rarely, and your comment doesn't meet my criteria for doing so. Funny that you'd hit alert on my comment if you could.