Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Does it hurt politicians who endorse a candidate who compared Biden to a BOWL-OF-SHIT?
Does it hurt politicians who endorse a candidate who compared Biden to a BOWL-OF-SHIT? What are voters to make of something like that?
Considering the fact that Nina Turner used the "bowl of shit" comment, not once... but TWICE (and in a very public way) it's not as though this is something that flew under-the-radar. It's not as though her endorsers were completely unaware of her vulgar anti-Biden comments. Therefore, it's very unlikely that any of Nina's endorsers had no idea of what she said.
It's also unlikely that any of Nina's endorsers didn't know about the fact that Nina refused to endorse or support Biden in the general election against Trump, and that Nina supported Jill Stein instead of Hillary in the general election against Trump.
It doesn't seem plausible that any of Nina's endorsers have no idea that she abandoned the Democratic party to start her own "People's Party" to undermine and weaken the Democratic party... and that she's now only grudgingly running "as a" Democrat because her People's Party didn't have what it takes to get on the Ohio ballot.
So, with all the negative baggage that Nina Turner has (and all of her anti-Biden and anti-Democratic Party hostility) does it reflect poorly on the politicians who endorse Turner? Does it suggest that her endorsers AGREE with her vulgar statements? Are we to assume that her endorsers also share Turner's hostility toward the Democratic Party?
Basically: Does it hurt politicians who endorse a candidate who compared Biden to a BOWL-OF-SHIT?
| 24 votes, 3 passes | Time left: Time expired | |
| Yes. Because of Turner's comments, it reflects POORLY on the politicians who endorse her. | |
23 (96%) |
|
| No. It's okay if the politicians who endorse Turner also agree with her vulgar comments. | |
1 (4%) |
|
| 3 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
82 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Bernie generally votes with Dems,
I guess it depends on what one means by "generally". Bernie ranks LAST in the Democratic caucus when it comes to his support/votes for the Biden agenda. I'm not quite sure what to make of that, but it's interesting to note that even Manchin and Sinema vote with the Biden agenda more than Bernie has.
I don't really trust Turner to do the same.
I sincerely agree with you on that point. She's made it clear that she has nothing but contempt for the Democratic party. She started her OWN party for pete's sake! And we have "on tape" a ranking member of the People's Party who spilled the beans and admitted that Nina Turner is using the Democratic party to get into office ("as a Democrat"
but as soon as she's in, she'll renounce the Democratic Party and declare that she's actually representing the People's Party.
All I'm saying is that's clearly bait-and-switch. Dishonest. Ugh!
That's not so bad.
Seriously? I guess I just have higher standards and expectations.
Honestly... last place among the Senatorial Democratic Caucus is really nothing to crow about. Of course it's bad. It's last place. We deserve better, especially from someone whose entire career is built on being "progressive". Right?
It's time to SUPPORT BIDEN and get things done! All-hands-on-deck!
I did browse the list of "votes" quickly but saved the link for later.
It's an interesting site. 
and his opposition was meaningless to the outcome, as both passed anyway.
The Senators that had 96.9% had ONE vote where they voted against the Biden stances. Many voted No on Lloyd Austin to become Secretary of Defense.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=117&session=1&vote=00004#position
Here are the votes for Sanders:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/bernard-sanders/
One Sanders NO vote was nomination of Tom Vilsack to be secretary of agriculture, a nomination opposed by many different Democratic-affiliate groups, especially black farmers. It passed 92-7.
Black farmers, civil rights advocates seething over Vilsack pick
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/09/black-farmers-tom-vilsack-agriculture-usda-biden-cabinet-444077
The other No vote was against the Endless Frontier Act (it passed 68-32) because it contained a 10 billion dollar pay-out to Jeff Bezos that was added in as an amendment.
Bernie Sanders wants to stop NASA funding for Blue Origin
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/05/bernie-sanders-seeks-to-eliminate-the-bezos-bailout-in-space/
That poster is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
The Senators that had 96.9% had ONE vote where they voted against the Biden stances. Many voted No on Lloyd Austin to become Secretary of Defense.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=117&session=1&vote=00004#position
Here are the votes for Sanders:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/bernard-sanders/
One Sanders NO vote was nomination of Tom Vilsack to be secretary of agriculture, a nomination opposed by many different Democratic-affiliate groups, especially black farmers. It passed 92-7.
Black farmers, civil rights advocates seething over Vilsack pick
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/09/black-farmers-tom-vilsack-agriculture-usda-biden-cabinet-444077
The other No vote was against the Endless Frontier Act (it passed 68-32) because it contained a 10 billion dollar pay-out to Jeff Bezos that was added in as an amendment.
Bernie Sanders wants to stop NASA funding for Blue Origin
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/05/bernie-sanders-seeks-to-eliminate-the-bezos-bailout-in-space/
An earlier amendment, submitted by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), modified NASA's Artemis Program. Cantwell's amendment, in part, called for $10.03 billion in additional funding for NASA to carry out the Human Landing System program. This legislation was filed as Blue Origin and Jeff Bezos were urging Congress to add $10 billion to NASA's budget—enough money to fully fund the development of a second Human Landing System.
That poster is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
wanted them to be blocked, as they were pro privatisation, pro wage reduction, etc and Sanders obliged. Moscow Mitch then blocked the rest.
You so often repeat the same things over and over and misrepresent them, and it takes people like me to have to come in and correct the record, as I do the actual historical research to show what revisionist games you are playing.
APWU, Federal, Civil Rights Groups Oppose Nominees to USPS Board of Governors
http://www.postal-reporter.com/blog/apwu-federal-civil-rights-groups-oppose-nominees-to-usps-board-of-governors/
September 30, 2015 APWU,
Federal Unions and Civil Rights groups sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid expressing opposition to USPS Board of Governors nominees —particularly James Miller III and Mickey Barnett.
Stephen Crawford (D) was nominated by President Barack Obama in June 2012 for a term expiring December 8, 2015
James Miller, III (R) was nominated by President Barack Obama in March 2012 for a term expiring December 8, 2017 . Miller was on the Board from 2003-2012.
David Michael Bennett (D) was nominated by President Barack Obama on April 23, 2013 for a term expiring December 8, 2018
David S. Shapira was nominated by President Barack Obama on October 8, 2014 for a term expiring December 8, 2019
In every Senate hearing regarding the nomination of James Miller III (R) to the USPS Board of Governors –his views on privatizing USPS has taken center stage? Does Miller still hold the view that USPS should be privatized? Yes and No. During his confirmation hearing Sen. Susan Collins asked Miller if he still holds the view that USPS should be privatized, this is what he said :
Miller also would like to explore the idea of hiring college students (similar to FedEx) during high peak seasons. And finally, Miller along with Carper would like for USPS to look into expanding the ‘Staples concept’ (this idea was discussed before all of the Staples protests). The plan would pay postmasters of these revamped offices $15 per hour instead of a $50,000 -$60,000 annual salary.
snip
Here is the letter:
Dear Majority Leader McConnell and Minority Leader Reid:
On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we write to express our opposition to the confirmation of the current slate of nominees to the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service (USPS).
It is our understanding that the Senate will consider as a package the four nominees approved by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on May 6, 2015. Our organizations are in agreement that it would be preferable to continue with a stripped-down Board of Governors than to fill those vacancies with a slate that includes nominees whose policy stances would be harmful to the USPS and ultimately to the public it serves. Given the harmful effects of payday lending on the communities we represent, and given the value of and need for a vibrant, public Postal Service that provides affordable, universal mail service to all – including rich and poor, rural and urban, without regard to age, nationality, race, or gender – we are especially troubled by the nominations of Mickey D. Barnett, who has previously worked as a lobbyist for the payday lending industry, and of James C. Miller, III, who dating back at least to his tenure as director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from 1985-88, has strongly supported privatizing the Postal Service.
Our opposition to Mr. Barnett’s nomination is based on his work on behalf of the New Mexico Independent Financial Services Association, where Mr. Barnett lobbied policymakers to oppose regulation of the state’s payday loan industry. His efforts included opposing a modest reform bill in New Mexico in 2007 that still allowed 400 percent annual rates on payday loans. He said that at that rate, “I guarantee you they can’t make money.”[ii] Several years later, Mr. Barnett represented the World Finance Corporation of New Mexico, a short-term lender, arguing that a customer was required to seek arbitration of any disputes – in this case, over the company’s misleading and abusive debt collection practices – but that the company itself was not. The Supreme Court of New Mexico unanimously rejected Mr. Barnett’s and his client’s position as unconscionable.[iii]
We are especially concerned about Mr. Barnett’s ties with this industry, in the context of his reappointment, because of the close relationship between the USPS and the communities of color that have been disproportionately affected by payday lending and other predatory forms of credit. Because the USPS is located nationwide in both urban and rural areas, it serves as an important employer in these communities and a potential lifeline to other essential services. It is no surprise that a Gallup poll released in November 2014 shows that Americans deliver high marks to USPS, rated highest out of 13 major federal agencies. [iv] This suggests the public’s willingness to consider the USPS as a potential venue for an array of important financial services. We would be deeply troubled if anyone confirmed to a leadership position within the USPS used that position to promote the sorts of practices we have seen in the payday lending industry, or to block the advancement of alternatives.
Mr. Miller, on the other hand, has been clear about his own troubling preferences for the future of the U.S. Postal Service. As OMB Director in 1988, Miller stated, “There is no good reason why [the Postal Service] should remain part of the U.S. government and no good reason why it should enjoy a monopoly over the delivery of letter mail.”[v]Speaking at his 2012 Senate confirmation hearing on his second nomination to the board, Mr. Miller stated that “I think it would be best for the world, for the economy, and for the American people if the Postal Service was de-monopolized and privatized.”[vi]Our organizations believe that a public Postal Service is vital to our democracy and to commerce. While proponents of privatization point to cost savings and efficiency, recent examples such as the privatization of parking meters in Chicago cast serious doubt on these assertions.[vii]
Furthermore, recent studies show that outsourcing government functions lead to a weakened infrastructure, insufficient oversight, crumbling tax bases, and a decline in wages and benefits.[viii]Privatization of our public Postal Service also undermines a fundamental tenet of democracy: a network that allows universal and affordable civic and political discourse, binding together each and every household in the country. At a time when the future of the USPS is unclear, largely because of Congress’s inability to pass a comprehensive reform bill, it is especially important that the Board of Governors be composed of individuals who have demonstrated a strong commitment to the public service role of this great institution, and who have shown an openness to exploring all reasonable, public service-oriented options which might contribute to the vitality and sustainability of the USPS. Unfortunately, on this basis, we must urge you to reject the current slate of nominees.
Thank you for your consideration of our views. If you have any questions, please contact Rob Randhava, Senior Counsel at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, at (202) 466-3311.
Sincerely,
Wade Henderson
President & CEO
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Lee Saunders
President
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
https://abcnews.go.com/US/years-turmoil-postal-service-governing-board-fueled-political/story?id=72482926
You so often repeat the same things over and over and misrepresent them, and it takes people like me to have to come in and correct the record, as I do the actual historical research to show what revisionist games you are playing.
APWU, Federal, Civil Rights Groups Oppose Nominees to USPS Board of Governors
http://www.postal-reporter.com/blog/apwu-federal-civil-rights-groups-oppose-nominees-to-usps-board-of-governors/
September 30, 2015 APWU,
Federal Unions and Civil Rights groups sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid expressing opposition to USPS Board of Governors nominees —particularly James Miller III and Mickey Barnett.
Stephen Crawford (D) was nominated by President Barack Obama in June 2012 for a term expiring December 8, 2015
James Miller, III (R) was nominated by President Barack Obama in March 2012 for a term expiring December 8, 2017 . Miller was on the Board from 2003-2012.
David Michael Bennett (D) was nominated by President Barack Obama on April 23, 2013 for a term expiring December 8, 2018
David S. Shapira was nominated by President Barack Obama on October 8, 2014 for a term expiring December 8, 2019
In every Senate hearing regarding the nomination of James Miller III (R) to the USPS Board of Governors –his views on privatizing USPS has taken center stage? Does Miller still hold the view that USPS should be privatized? Yes and No. During his confirmation hearing Sen. Susan Collins asked Miller if he still holds the view that USPS should be privatized, this is what he said :
Miller also would like to explore the idea of hiring college students (similar to FedEx) during high peak seasons. And finally, Miller along with Carper would like for USPS to look into expanding the ‘Staples concept’ (this idea was discussed before all of the Staples protests). The plan would pay postmasters of these revamped offices $15 per hour instead of a $50,000 -$60,000 annual salary.
snip
Here is the letter:
Dear Majority Leader McConnell and Minority Leader Reid:
On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we write to express our opposition to the confirmation of the current slate of nominees to the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service (USPS).
It is our understanding that the Senate will consider as a package the four nominees approved by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on May 6, 2015. Our organizations are in agreement that it would be preferable to continue with a stripped-down Board of Governors than to fill those vacancies with a slate that includes nominees whose policy stances would be harmful to the USPS and ultimately to the public it serves. Given the harmful effects of payday lending on the communities we represent, and given the value of and need for a vibrant, public Postal Service that provides affordable, universal mail service to all – including rich and poor, rural and urban, without regard to age, nationality, race, or gender – we are especially troubled by the nominations of Mickey D. Barnett, who has previously worked as a lobbyist for the payday lending industry, and of James C. Miller, III, who dating back at least to his tenure as director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from 1985-88, has strongly supported privatizing the Postal Service.
Our opposition to Mr. Barnett’s nomination is based on his work on behalf of the New Mexico Independent Financial Services Association, where Mr. Barnett lobbied policymakers to oppose regulation of the state’s payday loan industry. His efforts included opposing a modest reform bill in New Mexico in 2007 that still allowed 400 percent annual rates on payday loans. He said that at that rate, “I guarantee you they can’t make money.”[ii] Several years later, Mr. Barnett represented the World Finance Corporation of New Mexico, a short-term lender, arguing that a customer was required to seek arbitration of any disputes – in this case, over the company’s misleading and abusive debt collection practices – but that the company itself was not. The Supreme Court of New Mexico unanimously rejected Mr. Barnett’s and his client’s position as unconscionable.[iii]
We are especially concerned about Mr. Barnett’s ties with this industry, in the context of his reappointment, because of the close relationship between the USPS and the communities of color that have been disproportionately affected by payday lending and other predatory forms of credit. Because the USPS is located nationwide in both urban and rural areas, it serves as an important employer in these communities and a potential lifeline to other essential services. It is no surprise that a Gallup poll released in November 2014 shows that Americans deliver high marks to USPS, rated highest out of 13 major federal agencies. [iv] This suggests the public’s willingness to consider the USPS as a potential venue for an array of important financial services. We would be deeply troubled if anyone confirmed to a leadership position within the USPS used that position to promote the sorts of practices we have seen in the payday lending industry, or to block the advancement of alternatives.
Mr. Miller, on the other hand, has been clear about his own troubling preferences for the future of the U.S. Postal Service. As OMB Director in 1988, Miller stated, “There is no good reason why [the Postal Service] should remain part of the U.S. government and no good reason why it should enjoy a monopoly over the delivery of letter mail.”[v]Speaking at his 2012 Senate confirmation hearing on his second nomination to the board, Mr. Miller stated that “I think it would be best for the world, for the economy, and for the American people if the Postal Service was de-monopolized and privatized.”[vi]Our organizations believe that a public Postal Service is vital to our democracy and to commerce. While proponents of privatization point to cost savings and efficiency, recent examples such as the privatization of parking meters in Chicago cast serious doubt on these assertions.[vii]
Furthermore, recent studies show that outsourcing government functions lead to a weakened infrastructure, insufficient oversight, crumbling tax bases, and a decline in wages and benefits.[viii]Privatization of our public Postal Service also undermines a fundamental tenet of democracy: a network that allows universal and affordable civic and political discourse, binding together each and every household in the country. At a time when the future of the USPS is unclear, largely because of Congress’s inability to pass a comprehensive reform bill, it is especially important that the Board of Governors be composed of individuals who have demonstrated a strong commitment to the public service role of this great institution, and who have shown an openness to exploring all reasonable, public service-oriented options which might contribute to the vitality and sustainability of the USPS. Unfortunately, on this basis, we must urge you to reject the current slate of nominees.
Thank you for your consideration of our views. If you have any questions, please contact Rob Randhava, Senior Counsel at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, at (202) 466-3311.
Sincerely,
Wade Henderson
President & CEO
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Lee Saunders
President
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
https://abcnews.go.com/US/years-turmoil-postal-service-governing-board-fueled-political/story?id=72482926
would nominate people who openly said they wanted to privatise the US Postal Service (as I again showed) and/or had ties with dodgy financial payday loan services (again which I showed).
Moscow Mitch is the true villain as well (and as usual) but you tried to spin it like it was all on Sanders.
Also, your link in your post I am now replying to is a slanted screed by a goddamn RW asshole, former Rethug congressional staffer and a former Heritage Foundation stooge.
No idea why you are trying to fob off right wing talking points here.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/311113-post-office-loses-another-51-billion-bernie-continues-to
BTW, Sanders two votes that were not in alignment with Biden were simply symbolic and had zero effect on their passing.
BUT
Manchin actual DID block Biden's nominee for the head of OMB, Neera Tanden.
He said nope, I am not going to vote for her, and when no Rethug stepped up to save the nomination, Biden pulled it.
I would think that you would be much more concerned about a Democratic Senator who actually DID stop Biden dead in his tracks with a major nomination versus two symbolic votes that had zero impact.
But hey,... Bernie
White House pulls nomination of embattled budget chief pick Neera Tanden
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/white-house-pulls-nomination-embattled-budget-chief-pick-neera-tanden-n1258738
Two votes? omg, Omg, OMG TWO VOTES ???!!!
"LOCK HIM UP!"
lmao
"That poster" has a vendetta that goes back years. I may be a new membership, but I am a "long time lurker".
I think I actually joined DU first sometime in 2004, but I have no recollection of what username I had, so I lost it. lol
I was supporting John Edwards as a "reverse southern strategy" at that time.. although I loved the Howard Dean line,
"I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party"
I think Howard Dean was our best party chairman in the past 20 or more years, for dedicating the party to making a fight for "all fifty states".. maybe that strategy finally paid off last year, in Arizona and Georgia.. 
Perfect!
Do you have any understanding about how much you sound like a right-winger, when you talk like that ??!
Ridiculous! What I sound like is someone who has high standards and high expectations and who demands more loyalty from our elected representatives. No free passes just for showing up. It's time to SUPPORT BIDEN. It's time to present a UNITED FRONT against Republicans and their obstructionism.
Those were all "Faux Newx" talking points in the past.
What a cartload of horse shit. I haven't attacked YOU. Why do you feel that it's okay to attack and insult ME?
You should be ashamed of yourself for allowing them to come from your fingers to the keyboard to a post on this site.
So, what you're saying is you agree with the facts and that you cannot refute the numbers and the record, and that creates anger that is directed at me? Charming.
Get ahold of yourself, why don't you!
OMG! That's hysterical! Here's what I can tell you, DemocraticPatriot: I'm not the one losing my temper, and I'm not the one who's insulting others, and I'm not the one who's engaging name-calling.
So, please explain to me how it is that you believe I need to "get ahold of" myself?
It's nothing new. It never shocks me any more.
Anyway... I hope YOU are having a great weekend! 
You basically quoted talking points which have been repetitive on right-wing radio--- against giving "awards" to student athletes who didn't actually "win" contests, and aimed those same talking points, almost word-for-word, against a senator who caucuses with our party.
Bullshit. Everyone knows perfectly well that I'm not "quoting" anyone's talking points. I've made VALID points and LEGITIMATE criticism. Also, it's easy to see that my criticism is LESS about "a senator who caucuses with our party" and MORE about the fact that the over-the-top adoration is misplaced.
Instead of admitting I'm right, and instead of rebutting the facts... I'm being PERSONALLY ATTACKED AND INSULTED (yet again) as being a "right-wing" mouthpiece. Attacking the messenger is a lazy defense. Please stop. I haven't attacked you. Nobody is entitled to attack and insult me. Mature people should be able to control their temper and not use it as an excuse to lash out at others.
and you offered nothing.
The numbers don't lie. People can try to split hairs and "massage" new meanings into the numbers, but the facts are the facts and they're plain as the nose on someone's face. Right there for all to see.
Last place is STILL last place. It will always be last place. Nothing will change that. It's not subjective or in need of anyone's interpretation or excuses.
than the "least loyal" Democratic party senator.
I never said "least loyal" ... so what good purpose does it serve for anyone to put those words in quotes and attribute it to me as if it was something I said. Why? That's dishonest. Stop it!
I asked you to offer evidence of Sanders' votes that were particularly "wrong" for the Democratic party, and you offered nothing.
That's not true. Nobody ever asked any such thing of me. Please do not use false statement to try and score-points against me. Stop it!
I don't care much about your attack on Sanders...
I have not attacked him. I. Have. Not. Attacked. Him. Continually repeating something that's false does NOT make it true. Stop it! Just fucking stop it!
but using right-wing tropes to do it goes way over the line.
I do not use "right-wing tropes". Every word I've spoken or written has been carefully considered and is true. I'm very thoughtful and measured in what I say. I do not over-react. I do not attack. I do not smear.
I also do not make FALSE ACCUSATIONS about others on this discussion forum. I don't try to excuse bad behavior by claiming to lose my temper.
about how the "less than perfect" athletes should receive no honors for participating, as an attack against Sanders.
No, I never said anything of the sort. Stop making shit up! I never attacked Sanders. Stop making shit up!
Intelligent readers understand that the "youth soccer" comment is about a harmful laissez-faire philosophy, helicopter-parenting, my-child-can-do-no-wrong, and an intellectual trap, that the most ardent defenders have fallen into. This is POLITICS, not youth-soccer... and it shouldn't be treated that way. It should be results-based, not effort-based. It should be about doing things that benefit the citizens, not building egos or engaging in political stunts for fundraising.
In the real world, politicians should not get points for showing up and "trying"... or for "sticking to their guns"... or for "never compromising". Politicians should not be praised for voting against GOOD legislation simply because it's not "perfect". In the end, those types of politicians accomplish NOTHING (but inexplicably their fans praise them anyway.) Politicians should not be encouraged to "tank" bipartisan hard-fought-for legislation because it involved compromise. Their fans shouldn't encourage that type of destructive and regressive behavior either.
The hard work is not in "being stubborn" with a doomed-to-fail philosophy of "all or nothing". Instead, the HARD work is done by SMART legislators who know how to negotiate and make difficult deals... and who know how to swallow their pride and make compromises and find common ground. Wise legislators know that some progress is better than ZERO progress.
We accomplish things with an all-hands-on-deck attitude. We hold back the GOP by voting consistently WITH the Biden/Harris administration. Without fail. Every single one. There should be ZERO "last place" senators. Everyone should be TIED FOR FIRST PLACE!! Everyone!!
Maybe you did not realize the sources of what you were quoting?
What bullshit! I don't know how anyone could be more INSULTING to me than this is right now. Please be aware that I'm perfectly capable of independent thought, and that the words and ideas that I speak and write are my own. I live in the real world. Nobody speaks for me. I don't go around quoting right-wing sources. Do not treat me as though I do not have a brain. Fact of the matter is this... if someone is going to accuse me of quoting RW sources, then they need to PROVE their accusation. Otherwise, nip it!
I give you the "benefit of the doubt" on that, for the moment.
Oh good lord! You'll do WHAT? Spare me! Cut the sanctimonious and insulting crap, please.
What would be more productive is to explain to me why it is that anything less than fawning praise is characterized as an "right-wing"? Why is even the slightest criticism from perfectly RATIONAL and loyal Democrats characterized as an "attack"? It's ridiculous. Total farce.
