Never thought I'd see the day with a post on DU

like this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4115575&mesg_id=4115575

22 Recommends to boot.

hopefully it'll get more recommends. :thumbsup:

This was once a progressive board, but it is failing right now.

But I guess it takes all types.

damn

When the DLC'ers moved in. :evilfrown:

Clinton and his DLC led directly to the current
extremely sad state of affairs within the Demo-
cratic Party and, to a large degree, the country.

Tesha

Clinton was not a god. He was simply the best Republican president since Eisenhower.

:shrug:

many acts of
'abomination'.

...wherein Democrats are beat up constantly and Republicans remain unscathed.

Nor was he a saint. Nor is he above criticism for his actions past and present.

and he was the best suited to win against Republicans.

Being here doesn't mean you want Clinton back, it means you want Bush out. Under Clinton I was apathetic leaning Green. I voted for the first time for Al Gore and now I'm here. I don't really disagree with any part of that post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2719271&mesg_id=2719271

Keep the economy sucky to enhance Dem chances of winning?

They want it to be part of the presidential debate.

As a teacher, I can't even describe how much this pisses me off.

Thank you!

Thanks for the link!

But I think my eyes are seeing something completely different than yours are. LOL

:thumbsup:

I never voted for him. When he was the Nom I chose not to vote for President that year. I just couldn't do it. I could not vote for him because he campaigned on a promise that the union jobs sent to Mexico and China would NEVER come back. I wanted a president that would balance the tug of war between workers and investors. We'd had 12 years of government favoring investors over workers - I did not want more of the same. Clinton was true to his word and continued to favor investors - at the expense of most blue collar jobs and many white collar jobs.

Was he better than another term of GHWB? Absolutely. Did he do a few decent things while in office? Absolutely. I don't think he is a "bad" person or a "good" person. I just think he was not the man many Democrats want to believe he was.

My own feeling is that anyone voting for Hillary Clinton is either a shallow dupe or an ignorant fool, or worse.

If it's any consolation, I feel the same way about Obama supporters.

And almost 200 others. Low post count candidate bashers, most likely.

I'm also ignoring anyone posting gender or sexuality based slurs.

I find it very helpful that I don't even see most of the crap.

babylonsister is one of the oldest and most popular posters on here afaik.

I would also bet she isn't on many ignore lists. LOL

and come back as a non-member, just to see what that thread was about.

I don't know if I have quite 200 on ignore yet. I bow at your feet ;)

:hi:

Having your worldview challenged hurts that much, eh?

:rofl:

of the most conservative minded people i have ever encountered was here on DU, and these threads just confirmed that belief.

In all three of your posts?? :shrug:

Priceless!!!

:rofl::hi::rofl:

on edit: WELCOME TO DU!

You've ALWAYS said??


Seriously- thank you. I always wanted to pee myself while laughing on the DU

Please toss the bogus Democratic patriotism. Threads like the one you decry have appeared here almost every day. Many people at DU reject Bill Clinton as "the best Republican president the country ever had" and understand the crucial role he played in paving the way for the Bush restoration. How can anyone still be blind to his corruption, after the spectacle of his international photo-ops with Bush Sr.?

55 recommends for that thread and zero for this. What does that tell you about DU?

:thumbsup:

for the link to the thread you so graciously provided!

I just gave it #93. And, I'm going to rec this thread too...hope to get it on the greatest page and give the other thread even more exposure.

I'm sorry, but in a country of 300,000,000 people there's no fucking excuse for people of the same family, related by blood OR matrimony, to be in politics, let alone to be in a race for the exact same office. It's just one of many reasons Bush is a fuckwad.

What the fuck is he, Cartman?

and vote for whoever we want - even if YOU don't like it.

Didn't we solve this problem a couple hundred years ago?

Inheriting elected office is not democratic, and is not occurring.

This is a fight for the very idea of democracy, not through hard power, but through soft power. The US Constitution may allow any native citizen of 35 years to become President, but is that actually true? What makes us different from a country where the aristocracy has codified powers instead of unspoken powers? I think we may even be worse off, because there are no mechanisms for regulating this and checking it.

There shouldn't be additional systems for regulating who can run for office.

It should be up to the electorate.

This is by no means a democratic model, it's aristocratic, and thousands of people have died to protect the system we at least made some effort to have before this aristocracy.

an election and the choice is made by the voters, it's not an aristocracy.

You had BADLY confused aristocracy with family relationship.

It seems the only thing less popular here than a Republican these days is a Democrat.

that Clinton, while never as bad as Bush, didn't promote progressive ideals. NAFTA instead of campaign reform, give me a friggin break. Why should we allow him back in the White House, why should we think his wife will do better? We have great alternatives that don't have a history of letting us down.

Rec number 113

Democrats that tell you they will support the middle class then approve NAFTA are not true Democrats. Bush loves NAFTA and the Clinton's love NAFTA. Democrats that betray us and support a war in Iraq are not true Democrats. Bush loves the Iraq war.

Edwards will stand up to the corporatists (fascists) will your candidate, or do you even care?

This gets better all the time. :popcorn:

counting the votes mainly because it might hurt Bush's chance of winning.

Probably just as well.

show before.

It's just like having the shopping channels programmed out on my cable box. Whatever it is they're selling, I ain't buying it.

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

...

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace."

- Bill Clinton

occurred due to his policies.

Forget NAFTA, Telecom Act and other messy details. Let's reaganize him. No thanks!