The DemocraticUnderground can say things the Democratic Party cannot say.

[kentuck]

DU does not have the same political restrictions as the Democratic Party and it shouldn't have.

Some may be of the opinion that our goal at DU is to get Democrats elected and, therefore, we should not veer too far from the Democratic Party talking points. In my opinion, that would not be a good idea.

For example, some may be inclined to defend Eric Holder instead of the First Amendment? In my opinion, DU should be open to discussion of both sides. That is the point of the First Amendment. But no one should be felt to believe they have to defend Holder because he is a Democrat and the President wants him to stay in his position.

This is just my opinion but I do not think DU should be too closely tied to any partisan positions. We should stand for truth and justice which may not always be the American way.

Also, we should not underestimate the power of the Internet and the power of the written word. The truth shines much brighter and larger than does shady propaganda or partisan lies.

If you notice, the television media is talking today about the issues we were talking about yesterday. This is a new media and DU has a role, as does everyone that posts their thoughts here, in my opinion.

[Ed Suspicious]

1. If all that bubbles up from the underground is an affirmation of party talking points... idiocracy

comes to mind. (It's got electrolytes plants crave)

[LWolf]

21. Yes. nt

[leveymg]

98. Basic fallacy at work - There is no monolithic opinion on all issues within the party.

So, how can DU reflect a consensus that doesn't exist? Obviously, opinions on issues, policies and actions are going to differ among Democrats, depending upon who you ask and their personal ideology.

Criticism within the party of government policies and actions is always allowed -- unless, we want to become Totalitarian Tea Party Types.

So long as criticism is reasoned and reasonably civil, it will always be welcome at DU, IMHO.

[kentuck]

102. Strawman...

No one has said there should be "monolithic opinion on all issues".

[leveymg]

134. Explain the difference between "we should not veer too far from the Democratic Party talking points"

and "monolithic opinion on all issues."

No strawman, unless there is a real distinction between the two statements that we can all agree on. But, there's that agreement thing that keeps popping up . . .

The only thing we can all agree on is to disagree without being disagreeable.

[patrice]

251. "There is no monolithic opinion ..." but there are basic values and those basic values include

respect for diversity and respect for diversity is NOT what DU is about.

[leveymg]

312. Overall, I think DU is a pretty diverse, tolerant place.

I wouldn't stick around if it weren't.

I'm open to contrary interpretations. What have you?

[kentuck]

322. Overall, I would agree with you.

We have to be open to contrary interpretations. Why is that? Don't all Democrats think just alike? No, they don't. But they try to compromise on set principles of the Party and are not always successful.

[graham4anything]

2. META. and I disagree with your post 100%. I myself back Eric Holder for SCOTUS. Wiki included here

Last edited Thu May 30, 2013, 08:43 AM - Edit history (1)

this is a smear against the esteemed Eric Holder

and your use of DU in the title makes this meta


by the way-edit to add wiki of democratic underground

Democratic Underground

Democratic Underground, also known as DU, is an online community for U.S. Democrats. Its membership is restricted by policy to those who are supportive of the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates for political office.[2] DU was established on January 20, 2001, the day Republican George W. Bush was inaugurated president.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. I'm shocked, shocked that you of all people would say that.

[Phlem]

224. I'm not.

-p

[Egalitarian Thug]

270. Beat me to it. +1 & LOL. n/t

[sabrina 1]

337. Lol!

[cali]

8. there's no smear. and if you don't like criticisim of your idols, tough shit.

don't come here if you don't like it.

And it is not meta. tough shit again. and stop fucking trying to dictate what people say here. go start your own little website and tell yourself what to say. It's not like anyone would actually bother trying to have a real debate with YOU.

[cherokeeprogressive]

24. This

[ChairmanAgnostic]

28. and That

[cherokeeprogressive]

30. And the other thing?

[RKP5637]

92. And this here one too! n/t

[RKP5637]

86. K&R!!! +++ 1,000,000 +++ and another +++ 1,000,000 +++ DU does

NOT have to be a bunch of cheerleaders for my democrats right or wrong. DU should have free-thought, NOT authoritarian-thought!

[Half-Century Man]

194. Not happy

My brain plays weird word association. I can't help it.

you said; "NOT have to be a bunch of cheerleaders for my democrats right or wrong"
my brain went from that....
to: democratic cheerleaders
to: ergo republican cheerleaders
to: Michelle Bachmann and Phyllis Schlafly in miniskirts with pom poms............


I believe I'll try a good bit of alcohol poisoning later.

[Viking12]

217. I think you need to scrub your brain with bleach

Yikes, that's a scary thought.

[clarice]

229. That's true...D Feinstein would look MUCH better in a mini skirt. nt

[Half-Century Man]

279. Wow.........I was trying to be funny

For this post; I wrote that the current Governor of New Jersey (I called him by name) would look more appealing in a miniskirt than Bachmann & Schlafly. Just after I clicked the icon, my spell checker committed suicide.
Rebooted after 15mins though....

[Dragonfli]

364. It was an attempted suicide then, I'm glad your computer lived

It is a cry for help! I would call geek squad and ask if they can provide group... er I mean... "network therapy" for its depression.

[clarice]

497. lol. thanks nt

[RKP5637]

235. LOL! "I believe I'll try a good bit of alcohol poisoning later."

Save one for me, I'll join you on those images.

[tavalon]

381. I don't know about "should" but most assuredly it "is"

Depending, of course, on what your definition of "is" is.

[marble falls]

118. Watch the language, please. It was uncalled for and definatelly way out of bounds....

I've haven't seen a thing written here that deserves this kind of treatment.

[Puglover]

158. "Watch the language,please."

Thanks for the laugh.

[cali]

383. I fucking watch the language shit all the fuckass time.

[Puglover]

426. LOL you were the star of this thread Cali!

[RetroLounge]

347. Watch the language?

What kind of bullshit is that?

fucking hell...

RL

[Dragonfli]

365. Which language would you prefer? In all fairness most of us speak english and remain unharmed.

[Puglover]

153. +a brazillion!

[Autumn]

171. Oh cali, you so nailed it

[laundry_queen]

193. ^^^^^^^^^ nt

[CokeMachine]

222. I think I love you +1000

[AnotherMcIntosh]

263. Well said,

although I don't always agree with what you say.

[Phlem]

298. what about this

"That's just wrong to look so effortlessly relaxed, happy & handsome ", more prophetic words from your truly.



-p

[rhett o rick]

309. I hate to add another post agreeing with you but I must. Dont let it go to your head.

[sabrina 1]

341. Lol! You said it cali ....

[hootinholler]

82. Eric Holder is a prissy timid mouse who sucks lemons and is afraid of his own shadow

Unless he is busting a Medical Marijuana Dispensary.

Now it would seem he has appointed you to be the DU cop, or did you just step into that role?

The one thing we need way less of around here is authoritarian groupthink.

[suffragette]

340. Oh my, I loves me some hoot!

Well said , my friend, well said!

[lob1]

479. Yes! And lets not forget all the Bankers he threw in jail. Zero.

[LondonReign2]

83. Yeah? Well I disagree with your post 1000%

So it looks like I win.

[choie]

181. "supportive of the Democratic Party..."

does not mean blindly following...and if Eric Holder deserves strong criticism (which I believe he does) then he should be criticized.

[L0oniX]

201. "esteemed Eric Holder" LMFAO ...hey can I buy some of that LSD you're taking?

[Dragonfli]

366. It's that rare shit you can only get from the CIA

I wonder if they told him about "the experiment", I'd bet no, they usually don't.

[tblue]

277. If we don't stand up for Dem Party principles

then NO ONE will. The only voices will be the Party's and that of people the right of the Party. What good would that do anybody?

[derby378]

450. First, we need to have a clear message about what those principles are

Right now, the Democratic Party is in danger of branding itself as being "the party for everybody who isn't a Republican," which doesn't even address what we stand for at all. We have a party platform, but a lot of us disagree sharply with articles in the the platform and ignore them as needed. If you're wanting us all to unite behind something that's unmistakably Democratic in terms of message and principle, that would be great, but it's also going to be hard work, indeed.

[tblue]

459. It's only hard because the tent is too big

and porous.

I'd be happy to start with the California Democratic Party platform:

• Promote peace, rule of law, and human rights by instituting and funding time-tested and cost effective tools and strategies for peace, which address the hate, vitriol and violence that are rampant in today's society, which interfere with our security and prosperity, both at home and abroad.
• Seek the safe withdrawal of U.S. troops from all foreign engagements and the full reintegration of veterans and our tax dollars into civilian life;
• Create a 21st century economy built on a diverse workforce educated in quality public schools by teachers enjoying the right to organize;
• Respect the civil rights and liberties of all American citizens, including rights to freedom of expression and assembly, as well as the inherent dignity of the person and the equal and inalienable human rights of all peoples;
• Ensure universal, comprehensive, and affordable health care for all Californians, preferably through a single- payer plan;
• Protect a woman’s right to choose how to use her mind, her body and her time;
• Secure a dignified retirement for our seniors, protecting Social Security and Medicare now and for future
generations;
• Promote energy self-sufficiency, building renewable energy industries to counter global warming and
pollution, and protect our natural resources;
• Build smart, sustainable, safe, equitable, environmentally sound, aesthetically pleasing, and caring
communities;
• Insist upon fiscal common sense, responsibility, and accountability in California and Washington, through
restoration of appropriate regulation and elimination of corporate personhood;
• Seek abolition of the death penalty through conversion of all death sentences to terms of permanent
incarceration and reform aspects of the penal system that have contributed to prison overcrowding and
abuse of prisoners;
• Promote a reasonable path to citizenship for immigrants and demand respect for the human rights of all
residents;
• Withdraw the profit motive from healthcare delivery, imprisonment, and war;
• Restore our fundamental civil liberties by reversing the evisceration of the Magna Carta, which created the
right of habeas corpus in 1215 AD; oppose the assassination of U.S. citizens and any policies that grant to a government the unrestrained power to arrest, detain, transfer, or interrogate U.S. citizens without charge or trial;
• Promote the restoration of a fair and equitable system of taxation.

I'd add some gun control regs too.

[derby378]

461. That's not really a set of principles, though

The Tea Party, for better or worse, has hammered us with a set of principles that they may or may not follow (more likely it's "not&quot , but they make it easy for people to understand: Less Government, Traditional Family Values, and all that bullshit. We are having trouble coming up with something short and sweet (like "Prosperity for All&quot that we can sell to the public. Bill Clinton tried with his MMEE strategy of Medicare, Medicaid, Education, and the Environment, but it really didn't speak to a set of core values for his party.

[Eleanors38]

493. Right you are. The more sure of your outlook, the less you need to explain.

[RetroLounge]

350. "the esteemed Eric Holder"

Wow, did you spit or swallow?



RL

[tavalon]

382. Duzy!

[gtar100]

375. Now where is that sarcasm tag....hmmm, not there. I was all set to get a good laugh out of that.

Damn Democrats are like a bunch of cats - can't herd a group of them into a corner for anything.

Worse than cats - they aren't so easily fooled by a lot of sweet talk and are much more willing to give you a piece of their mind.

And Eric Holder - oh yea, he'd be perfect for the SCOTUS. He'd keep the banks and big businesses humming right along. They've got nothing to fear from him - as he's so well proven. He's been worthless to the rest of us who would like to see the right people held responsible for stealing so much of our national wealth, our homes, our dreams and our futures. But Holder? He refuses to go after big businesses no matter how egregious their actions. So if he became a Supreme Court justice, it wouldn't surprise me a bit here in the good ol' USA, Inc. But I won't support him just because he calls himself a Democrat. Not my kind of Democrat.

[tavalon]

384. Yeah, that's like saying we have to support the sociopathic Rahm Emanuel

because he pretends to be a Democrat. Wait, I think someone here did demand that. Didn't work out so good, as I recall.

[graham4anything]

428. come election season, why yes, you do.

Just out of curiosity, what if say( though I don't believe she will even run, but lets say the impossible happens, and Elizabeth Warren is the nominee. And let's say she picks Rahm as her VP and assuming one doesn't like Rahm, that person would find it distasteful).

What would you do?

(Reminds me of 2004, I enthusiastically supported John Kerry, yet, my worst fears in history were realized when Kerry
picked the abysmal ticket ruining John Edwards.
I still enthusiastically voted for John Kerry.

(now note, I 100% support Democratic Senior Senator Elizabeth Warren to lead from the left in the senate for 24 years or 32 years or so.)

I support any and all Democratic candidates in 2013.
and unlike some, I don't mind if they were something else like Elizabeth Warren was voting for Reagan and I think Bush41 in the 1980s and prior).

But I do support any and all democratic candidates in every single year and have voted as such every single time.


You won't ever find me, LOL , voting for or supporting Ron(Republican) or Rand(Republican)Paul or any other vote taking away from the democratic party third party person.

It's like those that don't like the NY Yankees.
If the NY Mets were to pick up a healthy NY Yankee (boo hiss) Derek Jeter, instantly I would root for Derek once he put on a NY Met uniform.

Which is why I heartedly welcome Lincoln Chafee to the democratic party, if he is the nominee, I will support him 100%.

Because as the 97=0 vote for the Court of Appeals (and future SCOTUS) nominee showed, we do not have to live
in a faux media world of 50-50. We can live in and with an 80-20 world.

imho.

[tavalon]

455. I'm sorry, but I would abstain and that would hurt because Elizabeth is great

OTOH, I can't for a second see her having Rahm as a running partner but for the sake of the argument, I'll play.

While politicians are pretty self centered as a rule, Rahm Emanuel is a sociopath and I draw a line in the sand about sociopaths. My own father was one so I'm only too familiar. Cheney is one and Rahm is just as bad. I don't care what letter is after his name, I will never vote for a true sociopath. I bend my moral compass for this party on a daily basis but my moral compass doesn't bend that far. Rahm Emanuel is our Turdblossom and if we had the common sense, we would throw him in the gutter. He would be comfortable there, he loves gutter politics.

Lincoln Chafee was never, ever a sociopath and was one of the few Republicans I still admired. When they drummed him out of Congress, I was happy to see him continue his political career and am thrilled to welcome him to the Democratic party. The only thing that would make me happier is if we gave Rahm the bums rush he so richly deserves.

[Bonobo]

460. Better question:

What if Marco Rubio declares that he is now a Democrat.

Would you suddenly support him?

A "Yes" or "No" will suffice in lieu of a word salad.

[graham4anything]

462. I will ponder this statement and give it all the thought it deserves. Ask me again on Wednesday.

[Bonobo]

463. Rather cowardly. nt

[graham4anything]

464. Nope.

please note-this was written by
one word graham.

[Bonobo]

465. I LOVE your new personae!

I think you should stick with it.

[graham4anything]

467. ok

one word graham

[bobduca]

466. "IMHO"

"IMDO"

fixed it for you

[sabrina 1]

468. Do you support Republicans being appointed to powerful positions in our government

rather than Democrats?

Here's something you might understand. I support DEMOCRATS in powerful positions, I don't support Democrats so THEY can put Republicans back in power. How about you? How do you feel about Ron Paul?

[graham4anything]

472. Well look at Lincoln and LBJ-

LBJ needed republicans to get past the Wallace(aka today's Ron Paul) John Birch Society like Dixiecrats.
Lincoln needed the other party to get past the then John Birch Society like in his party (parties were switched back then).

I am supportive of all democratic candidates for elective office.(except as stated here, in the rare instances where the democratic candidate is known to not being the one to win, or there is no democratic candidate and the 3rd person has sworn to caucus with the democratic party(as Florida w Charlie Crist(who spit in Jeb Bush's eye twice and is the reason the Bush's hate him so much and have slandered and libeled him time and again).

If I go into a record store and am looking for the Soundtrack to the new Great Gatsby movie wanting it for the Lana Del Rey
song "Young and Beautiful" which appears in 3 separate versions on that soundtrack, however, Jay-Z and Florence & Machine and thirteen other cuts are also on it,
do I look in the Rock section? The soundtrack section(which mostly contain instrumentals), the Rap section? The World music section?
etc.
I myself would have everything alphabetical like in the old days as music is music and people are people.

Hence, the 80-20.

Congress can again vote 80-20 on legislation like in the past.

Regardless of what Rand or Ron Paul want (and if they were not republicans, then why in the world did Ron Paul keep getting
reelected in the state of Tom DeLay all these years? WHy? Because Ron was a useful republican tool. IMHO

But for President and all other ELECTIVE OFFICE, I vote democratic.
It's not like the republican house lets the democratic person subpoena anyone.
It is Darrell Isaa who does so, and who can be rendered obsolete with an 18 point switch, even if,
all 18 would be Max Baucus (if he were in the house) types.

Because then majority speaker Pelosi won't give Isaa the power.

And remember one thing-
one of the best SCOTUS in 1980after times was David Souter.
And he was picked by Bush41. (he was so stealth, Bush41 didn't even know who he was).
Yet Souter himself cried the hardest attempting to render the 7 to 2 decision to send it back to Florida, the last SCOTUS decision,
and NOT the 5 to 4 which he voted against, which said, ha ha time is up, the 7 to 2 is meaningless.

What if back in 2004, John Kerry did as many believe he asked and was slapped down after a possible deal was already broached,
what if John Kerry picked John McCain(at that time some(not me) thought of him as a maverick really, and it might have led to
a very easily won 2004 election. Would you have voted for Kerry/McCain?
(I would NOT have voted for a McCain/Kerry ticket in 2004 myself.)

[sabrina 1]

473. That wasn't my question. It was a simply question actually, 'do you support Republicans in

powerful positions in our government'.

I don't recall that LBJ appointed Wallace to any powerful position, did he?

I support DEMOCRATS, I do not support REPUBLICANS. So, since electing Democrats now means putting Republicans back into powerful positions in our government, how do we stop Republicans from getting back into power AFTER we throw them out??

The other question I asked was 'do you support Ron Paul'. And if not why not if you support all those other Republicans, at least HE agrees with us on some pretty important issues.

[graham4anything]

481. Ron Paul and Rand Paul and Jorg Haider agree with me on NOTHING.

[sabrina 1]

485. So you support Bush's wars, torture and the Drug War then? Well, now I understand

where you're coming from.

You support Republicans in power so long as they are put there by a Democrat.

If Obama appointed Ron Paul to his cabinet, you would support Ron Paul.

How about Comey? You support him based on what? He's a very Conservative Republican so, what are the issues you and this Conservative Republican have in common?

[graham4anything]

487. Ron Paul voted FOR Afghanastan. Ron Paul did NOT sign onto Kucinich's impeach Bush

Ron Paul did NOT sign Kucinich's impeach Bush attempt(because of course, Ron and Rand Paul
are part of Team get Jeb Bush elected President in 2016(and Rand Paul would happily accept the
VP from Jeb Bush.

Ron Paul voted for Afghanastan.

Last I heard, Rand Paul has his own websites, and his own board.
Rand Paul is his fathers son.

And Rand Paul is NOT against war.
Rand Paul already is on record as saying what he would do to Syria and Iran.

Last I heard, Ron and Rand Paul were NOT on the side of Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War.

I myself support the esteemed honorable Eric Holder, and believe he should be nominated to the US Supreme Court.

I myself support Janet Napolitano and Kathleen Sebelius (both of whom would make a great vice President choice for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and 2020).
And I myself truly hope Janet Reno is selected by President Clinton for her cabinet in some/any post
in 2017.

[gtar100]

439. Ah yes, Rahm... proudly trying to redefine the Democratic Party

as the lesser of two evils.

[tavalon]

380. I agree. Your post is completely meta and completely

supports the OP by not supporting the OP.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. We're not dependent upon contributions like the Democratic Party.

Somewhat during fundraising, but not dependent for existence. We have the ability to disagree with each other.

[patrice]

247. I don't think "we" do have the ability to disagree with one another, because you can't disagree with

something that you refuse to understand, and credit to whatever degree necessary, in the first place. To try to do so is to disagree with an illusion or a lie, which does absolutely nothing constructive for the motive for one's disagreements.

[Eddie Haskell]

5. Things like ...

Why is Obama nominating Bush Republicans rather than Democrats?

Or, why is Obama continuing to pursue the PNAC plan's goals?

And, was the government sequester orchestrated by both parties to hide the first signs of collapse?

[Sunlei]

15. good ?s.Then we can ask, 'who would you suggest the Pres. noms. for the position?'

[Eddie Haskell]

26. Anyone that didn't work for Bush. For example ... a democrat.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. And the only answer needed is 'not someone from the torture and invade crew'

Why do you desire a Bush administration holdover in the job? Got any specific reasons for supporting folks from Bush times? What do you see as the advantages in using war criminals? Do you support invading random nations and torturing thousands?

[Sunlei]

59. who do you suggest? (a name not just a political party)

and by the way, I think bush/cheney and their main admin who condoned torture/murder should be in prison for war crimes. so please don't give me any of that 'you support torture crap' thanks.

[Octafish]

70. Coleen Rowley

Brains. Spine. Integrity.

[Sunlei]

78. who? I had to look her up and looks like bush/admin smashed her in 2006

for a Col. Klink-joke picture, she posted on a campaign website and then the bush people crucified her for a joke pic.

guess if she wants a position in Obamas admin she needs to go to the white house website and there is a FORM to ask for an Admin. position...Tell her, she needs to ask for a position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleen_Rowley

I'll find the white house form for you but it is easy to find on President Os white house website.

[Octafish]

100. She's the FBI lawyer who wanted to prevent a hijacking before September 11, 2001.

Obviously, she's overqualified. Judge for yourself: a memo she wrote on the subject.

For those new to the subject that Corporate McPravda so studiously ignores:

Know your BFEE: Moussaoui Must Die for Bush and 'His' Government

Going by your response, Sunlei, it's clear you have a lot of catching up to do.

[Sunlei]

123. there were so few whistle blowers in those days, just didn't notice her.

I did notice all the federal employees the bush-gang fired from their jobs when they spoke-up about killing off salmon for example. Bush did so much damage to America and our world standing, doubt we will ever recover fully.

America doesn't have a press or political parties that promote these 'good guys' enough.

[mattclearing]

145. She was a TIME Person of the year.

You are mistaken:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1946375_1947772_1947759,00.html

[Sunlei]

152. ask her to fill out Pres. Os app for white house apointments. or ask if she did.

right there on the white house website.

I doubt he picks apointments off the cover of time.

[mattclearing]

164. I never suggested she be nominated for anything.

I'm just pointing out that you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

[Sunlei]

225. good thing I know enough to vote Dem and republicans are usually dangerous to the usa people :)

Powell did write some good books and he didn't do the old republican trick either.

Write a crappy book and have republican party 'donations' buy all the books. Then claim you have a best seller and are rich. Another republican 'trick' to give bribe money to their buddies.

[sabrina 1]

469. Republicans are dangerous to the usa and the world. That is why no one here would have

voted for Comey as head of the FBI. Would you?

Powell lied to the UN and that got us into the illegal, disastrous war in Iraq. That wasn't a 'Republican trick'?? That was probably one of the worst Republican tricks, he is even more responsible than anyone else from that criminal organization because he KNEW they were lying, yet presented those ridiculous drawings to the world, knowing they were fake.

[Dragonfli]

367. I wonder how many times Comey had to fill out that form before

Obama decided he liked the cut of his Republican jib.

[tavalon]

385. Have you checked your nether regions lately?

You seem to have had something crawl up your butt.

[sabrina 1]

471. How could you not have noticed her? She tried to stop 9/11 from happening. She was

well known to Democrats and even ran for office as a Democrat. I would vote for her for any position she chose to run for. SHE would have been a great, Democratic nominee for the position Comey just got. She is a Democrat, a former FBI agent, a person of integrity who had the guts to stand up for the truth when few others did not.

It is precisely because there were so few whistle blowers during the Bush years that she stood out.

[Bluenorthwest]

79. I asked you to be clear, you seem to be supportive of nomination of Bushco regulars

Are you? Is it fine with you to rehire all those who did all of that or is it not? You seem to be taking issue with those who say 'no more Bushies'. Is that an incorrect impression?

[Sunlei]

85. Gen. Powell also is one I really like.. and he is a personal friend of Pres.O

President O said they speak all the time. I don't think they are all bad, especially the ones who support President O. though I wish Powell would switch to Dem or be more outspoken about how criminal evil republicans are and have been.

[bullwinkle428]

94. Sorry - Powell played a key role in the deception of Congress & the American people

when it came to whipping up sentiment to invade and conquer Iraq.

[Sunlei]

97. how many Generals or anyone stood up to Bush/Cheney WMD lie/set-up?

How many have written books explaining how they were also deceived by them with the info they had at the time. Info that was faked at the time?

[HERVEPA]

130. If I knew it was a lie then, why didn't Powell?

[Sunlei]

137. you knew at the time? decades ago? and you don't know if there were serious questions asked then.

At that time Cheney didn't stand up and say..I'm gonna steal billions of Americas federal funds for my war-profit corporations and end up a citizen of Dubai, immune from my war crimes sitting on a cool trillion of Americans money. With Bush sitting there like a drunkin whimp.
Then, I think Powell would have went AWOL. (thats a joke I doubt a General would do that)

I just can't lump cold blooded killers, war criminals like Cheney/Bush in the same handbasket as people like Powell.

I even think McCain asked Powell to run with him and he refused. Someone shoved Palin at him and for some reason he had to take Palin. lol, republicans are such losers. A McCain/Powell ticket would have won that election. America would have been worse off than today even.

[HERVEPA]

169. A McCain Powell ticket would have won nothing

As mentioned below, Powell was in the My Lai coverup, anyone paying attention knew Cheney was a lying SOB.
I think you might need to work on tyoue naivete or your history.

[Sunlei]

228. good thing McCain got "Palined" tm..that was the kiss of death along w Saturday Night Live Palin lol

palin should have had another pray me to the president session in her church, bad karma like hers takes several exorcisms. even one a week won't wash the dirt from the 'kills wolves woman'


of course that was the election where romney showed his tax returns to mccain and mccain rejected him for palin

[tavalon]

388. There was a small minority of us who knew many things were lies after 9/11

It became bigger with the years, but being one of the original 10%ers, I just wanted to make sure you understood that there were people right here who knew about PNAC before 9/11 and if you don't, you need to stay after school. PNAC needed a Pearl Harbor and they got it on Sept 11 2001 and it was off to war! woot!

[sabrina 1]

470. Powell lied to the UN to get us into Bush's invasion of Iraq. He KNEW they were lying.

Every last one of them should have been prosecuted, including Powell who went ahead and lied for Bush despite knowing they were lying.

And no democrat in their right mind ever doubted that Cheney, Mr. Halliburton himself, was in politics for the good of the country. He was in the Nixon administration, so was Rumsfeld. Another bunch of criminals who should have been in jail for the crimes they committed also.

A McCain/Powell ticket would not have won. Too many people know what Powell did, he knows it himself which is why he would not run.

[Eddie Haskell]

144. I was at the DC protest in Oct. of 2003 ... 100,000+ of us knew.

Nothing but lies.

[Sunlei]

157. yes, Bush ignored millions of Americans at anti-war protests.

He didn't care about the American citizens, ALL of 'the people' -much the same as todays republican party.

'selfish' as President O said.

[ieoeja]

143. Quite a few, actually.

A whole slew of Generals resigned in protest at the time.

And for a bonus there was the retired US Marine General who roll played Iraq during the prepatory war games and won.

[Fuddnik]

160. Powell's original claim to fame was covering up the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.

Hundreds of witnesses, and bodies, and he couldn't find a crime.

[Sunlei]

231. even today the soil holds the agent orange and thousands of kids born w/ birth defects

Vietnam will always be a crime. The faces of thousands of babies with cleft palate will remind us forever.

[tavalon]

389. Is this your oblique way of saying you now recognize that Powell

is unfit to serve in any capacity. If so, kudos.

[tavalon]

387. Powell stood up, all right, he stood up in front of the UN

with a little glass vial of white powder and lied his fucking ass off. He is as guilty as Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld. The only place Powell deserves a position is in the Hague, behind bars.

[Bluenorthwest]

110. So you support former Bushies. Now can you answer the question I asked, which is why

you support them in those jobs? I didn't ask who, I asked you why. So why do you support the man who went to the UN and presented lies as reason for invasion? It is a simple question and one that you should be able to answer.

[Sunlei]

126. because a trusted friend/associate of President Obama is a friend of mine.

If President Obama trusts a person enough to apoint them to a position, I have to trust his judgement. If President Obama says he speaks to someone regular (Powell), Powell endorses Pres. O, and I have read Powells books I won't hang that republican along with the likes of rovecheneybush.

[Bluenorthwest]

139. When I asked you why you support Bushies for new offices, you should have just posted

this. That would have been honest.

[Sunlei]

148. I don't call all republicans who were in office at the same time as bush 'bushies'

So sorry if some messageboard post or question is misunderstood. We're lucky to have a place to post political thoughts like DU.

Who knows, someday some wealthy republicans will offer 100 million for this board (everything has a price.) when they get tired of paying their 'media people' to post sway topics.
.
These isn't anywhere else except facebook/twitter and republicans can't afford to buy those social media places. (yet)

[Bluenorthwest]

163. Well a Bush appointee is a Bushie, you can make up language to suit your shifing posts

if you like, but Powell was Bush's go to guy. Your posts are self contradictory, but this one I don't even understand. I see a jab at the owners of DU, but the context is muddled. You support some Republicans, which I'd never do, then jabber on about others selling out to Republicans?

[Sunlei]

253. I like bushie and 'shrub', lol like that one.

[tavalon]

391. You know nothing Sunlei Snow

I have met two of the three people who run this amazing site and been able to take their measure. They aren't like that Facebook jerk. They wouldn't sell to Republicans for any price.

Might they sell to someone like Alan Grayson? Perhaps, if they finally got tired of all of our whiny, complaining. And heaven knows, I would have gotten sick of it by now, but we're heading into the 12 year and they just keep upgrading and putting up with our shit. It's utterly amazing.

[tavalon]

390. Rahm Emanuel should have cured you of that niavete

President Obama is brilliant and he sucks at picking advisers. And I do mean sucks.

So My Lai didn't convince you? I guess Powell forgot to mention that one in his books.

I used to admire Powell. Hell, before I knew his sordid past and before that awful day at the UN, I might well have voted for him for President. Now, I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher.

That's called becoming educated. Something that a long tenure at DU can do for anyone who is willing to listen to opposing POVs. This place has sharpened my understanding of politics and of the Beltway, a truly sociopathic area, if areas can be called sociopathic.

[marble falls]

136. And Sen Hilliary Clinton supported W's legislation that a lot of Republicans voted against ...

like Homeland Security, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Patriot Act. I trust the President even if I disagree with some of his actions and appointments.

[SomethingFishy]

192. You can't be serious..

The man stood before the UN and lied his ass off. He was part of a deception that killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands Iraqi's.
How is he going to speak out on "how evil Republicans are" when he is firmly entrenched in that "evil"?

[tavalon]

386. Well, Powell turned out to be a Bush Lackey, for which he may feel extreme

remorse, but I want him away from the beltway pretty much for good.

[rhett o rick]

308. Asking that we provide a specific name is absurd. It implies that there are no other

choices and to prove it you want us to pick someone specific. There are lots of capable Democrats.

But your friend Comey isnt someone I would want my Democratic President to nominate. Neither is Penny Pritzker.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022923831#post1

[RC]

39. Centralest & Liberals, Left of Center people. People with the welfare of common citizen more in mind

Why do we allow Obama to cave so often to the treasonous enemy, the Republicans. Especially with bu$h appointees? Aren't there any actual Democrats left in this country that Obama can appoint?
bu$h did a real house cleaning of appointed offices. Those appointees did a turnover of upper management to better adhere to the bu$h administration agenda. Obama left most of those people in place. We have been paying for that mistake ever since.
All that is going on is that Obama is following the Republicans move farther to the Right. That does not sound like something a Democrat would do.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

42. He can't get ANY of his nominees confirmed. None of them. He went for liberal/progressive

nominees like Gina McCarthy (EPA) or Tom Perez (Labor) confirmed.

I repeat: He has submitted very progressive agency heads. Very few of them can get confirmed.

Tell me what he should do. I'm all ears.

[Eddie Haskell]

146. Give me a break

If he called for it, this President could have a million man march on Congress next weekend.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

150. Sure...

[Tarheel_Dem]

223. He called for us to show up at the polls in 2010. That didn't work out so well. So, in your own...

words, "Give me a break". "A Million Man March"? I think you're exaggerating just a wee bit. Democrats tune out between presidential elections, and that only leaves the self appointed "activists" chattering amongst themselves, cuz nobody else will listen.

[Eddie Haskell]

252. Guilty as charged, but Obama had a mandate and wasted it.

He ran such inspirational campaigns, but as President he has failed to reach out to his supporters. Rather, he seems intent on reaching out to Republicans. His willingness to compromise has led to unilateral concessions and a weakened Democratic bargaining position. Obama's diplomatic approach has weakened his Presidency and demoralized the party.

[Sunlei]

254. how so, you have examples of the big failures you notice?

[Tarheel_Dem]

256. Demoralized the party? And you're "The Party" now? You don't speak for me, and I've been a Dem....

my entire life. So don't presume to think you can speak for me. You made the ridiculous claim that he could cause a "million man march, if he wanted to". And now you're saying he can't because "the party is demoralized"? You can't have it both ways. I now recognize that your screenname is more than just a moniker, it's obviously a lifestyle. Talk about "speaking out of both sides of your mouth". Utterly ridiculous.

[Eddie Haskell]

273. I pled guilty to exaggerating ... They probably wouldn't all be men.

How many people went to his inauguration?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57565054-10391739/how-many-attended-obamas-second-inauguration/

Neither of us speaks for the party, but I know more than a few die-hard Democrats who feel Obama has let them down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/opinion/sunday/dowd-president-obama-is-no-bully-in-the-pulpit.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1&

[Tarheel_Dem]

282. Well, if Maureen Dowd says it's so, then it must be so. This isn't about people feeling "let down".

How many people get divorced because they "felt" let down? Expectations are purely subjective, and if you're one of those "die-hard Democrats" who thought Obama would have turned us into Venezuela by now, then you're right to feel "let down".

On the other hand, Obama can't make you vote. He can't make you show up on the steps of the Congress. He can't make you show up in the midterms. Some things should just be a given. You Obama detractors are always telling us he's just a flesh & blood politician, but then you argue that he can assemble millions? OFA sends out pleas on behalf of the president's agenda almost everyday on issues Democrats claim to care about. And you come to DU and hear "Democrats" screeching that I won't do "x" if Obama doesn't do "y".

Hey, here's a thought. Perhaps, in your spare time, when you aren't making grand declarations about Obama's all encompassing ability to assemble millions, you could organize that million man march on your own? Beats pecking away at a keyboard, and it's certainly much more productive.

[Summer Hathaway]

377. Your replies in this thread

have been like so many gems.

If I could K&R every single one of your posts in this discussion, I would.

[appacom]

307. Then what? The same backward teapartiers in the same gerrymandered districts will keep

voting in the same vermin and nothing will change. The only solution is to pour massive amounts of attention, time and money into those areas to educate the people. Otherwise, welcome to amerika.

[rhett o rick]

195. Your implication is that all the good candidates are Bush's friends. Would you care

to elaborate? Or not? Probably not.

[Sunlei]

245. I didn't say they were bushes friends. I think President O appoints people he trusts.

republicans obstruct anything/everything the President does. Bush is a non issue these days..old bush seems like he has dementa along with his leg problems and younger bush is so afraid of cheneyroveromney he never ever stood on the same stage with them or for his own party. Cheney does visit our congress regular, that shouldn't be allowed.

They do build up jeb bush like a cartoon characters history. I don't think americans will ever accept a bush again. I hope not but maybe if they spend a couple trillion on next president election and find a way to exclude millions of Dem votes. republicans may not care much who's in the white house , these days they have most local and state control locked up.

[tavalon]

392. Yeah, it's kind of sad

A man that brilliant who can't be trusted to pick decent advisers. He is certainly an overachiever in so many ways it is a shame that he has the character flaw of being unable to pick useful advisers. Darn shame, really.

I mean, really, I hold our President to a very high standard because he is likely one of the smartest men ever to walk on this earth and he certainly can exercise good judgement from time to time (First Lady Obama being a fine example) but then he trusts Rahm Emanuel. That gets him an instant F for judgement in my book. And he went on to appoint a lot of stupid and or sociopathic advisers. OTOH, he put two great people on the Supreme Court so either he did his own research or he just got lucky.

Overall, if this were High School and goodness knows, sometimes it really feels that way, I would say he has a solid C and is capable of so much more. Now, had Bush gotten a C, it would have been a shocker for two reasons: One, he didn't give a shit and never, ever did his homework and Two, he has a developmental disability (thanks Barbara Bush for drinking your progeny into Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Mom of the year!). So, I would never hold Bush to the high standard I hold Obama to, it wouldn't be fair. Bush was always going to be the President of low expectations. Obama should be the President of the highest expectations and still he pulls a C. What up?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. Yeah, because liberal Democrats that we want will sail through the nomination process.

[Eddie Haskell]

149. Yes we can.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

151. Of course WE can. Not just HE can! Not a dictator. Just the president.

[Eddie Haskell]

162. He has to lead.

He has to demand respect in order to get respect. He has to advocate those principles upon which he campaigned. Instead he's cut the legs from under his own army. No one follows a leader without cause.

Yes we could, but he didn't even try.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

182. Your opinion and I accept that.

[Eddie Haskell]

178. Dear Rosa

What made you move from the back of the bus? And would you please lend a pair to our President?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

183. Be careful. I am a black woman. You racism is showing.

[Eddie Haskell]

184. Nothing racist about it.

I regard Rosa Parks as an American heroine.

I just wish our President had what she had.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

187. Your post was offensive. You are now on IGNORE.

[dflprincess]

329. I'm sure that will just crush the poster n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

345. Frankly I don't give a shit. I have a right to use ignore. Don't like it. Tough!!

[tavalon]

396. Has it been a bad day for you?

You seem touchy.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

420. A bad day because of jerks on a message board?

Never!

[tavalon]

458. Well, actually, you've been the jerk

I was wondering if something in real life made you want to come here and act silly. BTW, why did you read all my comments after you supposedly put me on ignore. It's kind of creepy. Amusing, but creepy.

[tavalon]

395. A little dumb and actually a combination of

male chauvinism and female chauvinism. He probably shouldn't have used a black hero for his example but I think your racist dial is set too high.

To translate: What he said is Rosa Parks had balls and he wishes that Obama had balls too. Sexist? Yes. Racist? Not really.

I don't really care if you put him on ignore, but if you are this sensitive, how many people here do you have on ignore? It's a rough and tumble group until you put everyone on ignore, then, it's just eerily quiet......

[rhett o rick]

198. Oh wait. The racism card comes out. Did you alert? I'd be curious what a jury would say.

His post indicated that Rosa Parks had guts to fight for her rights. And he suggests the President should do the same. Not racist in the least. Shame on you.

Might have been some sexism in there but I wont go there.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

203. Sexism and racism. Why bring up another person of color at all? Not all black people

think and act the same, nor should we. That's what is racist. It is sexist to talk about balls.
You should be ashamed to even walk down that road.

Welcome to IGNORE. This is not the first time you harassed me. Stop following me. I'm starting to think you're stalking.

[rhett o rick]

208. Good grief. I agreed that the suggestion of balls or lack of is sexist. Hello.

And heaven forbid I should respond to you and you accuse me of stalking.

I disagree that the subject post was racist.

[sabrina 1]

349. The post was not sexist or racist. It was criticizing Obama for his seeming unwillingness to

to stand up for the people who elected him. Rather than make a case against that accusation which has to be very difficult and rather than direct their anger at him for putting them in a position of not being able to defend his putting Republicans in positions of power when he was elected to be a Democrat with a Democratic administration, the only way out was to go on the attack. The post was neither racist nor sexist and I have no doubt the commenter knows that herself.

[rhett o rick]

359. I agree with you sabrina. It was definitely not racist. The poster was pointing out that Rosa Parks

had more fortitude than the president. However, I do not think it necessary to talk about "having a pair" or "growing a pair". While I dont think that is sexist, I would respect others that might. In fact, I think that Rosa was braver than Obama and we can assume it didnt have anything to do with male genitalia.

[tavalon]

397. Only because he didn't spell out the sexist part

It wasn't racist. But he was talking about Balls, er, testicles. Stalwart seems a little overwrought.

[Number23]

452. Hey L_S, aren't you glad that we have so many white people here to tell us what is and is not racist

Last edited Fri May 31, 2013, 07:50 PM - Edit history (1)

And for extra bonus flavor, so many white men to tell us what is and is not sexist?

For the record, I though the comment you called racist was completely inappropriate and stupid but I don't know if it was racist. But nothing, and I mean NOTHING warms the cockles of my heart better than white people who leap into a conversation to tell a black woman what is and is not sexist and/or racist.

And the fact that at least one of the people doing so had a fairly epically spectacular melt down in Meta when it was still around is once again trying to tell black people what is and is not racist/bigoted just makes it that much sweeter. What on earth would we do without their help?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

454. This place is getting worse. Ridiculous!!

[tavalon]

393. High heel shoes?

You lost me.

[rhett o rick]

196. Let me get this straight. He nominates conservatives because that's what will make

Republicans happy. Yeah, or maybe he is conservative himself.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

197. Might be both, but the bottom line is that he can't get any of his nominees through. Do you have a

solution?

[rhett o rick]

202. Yes. He should nominate who he thinks will do the best job.

You said he cant get them thru anywayz. Do you think his continued nomination of conservatives is because he is afraid of the Republicans? I think he nominates conservatives because he agrees with their ideologies. He ran in 2008 as a left of center. He is presiding as a right of center where he believes.

Penny Pritzker calls herself a Democrat, but her behavior is similar to Mit Romney's. Can we spell DINO.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

205. He has the right to pick whomever he wants. You're on IGNORE. Please leave me alone!

[rhett o rick]

209. Wow.

You are on ignore as well. Wow.

[Eddie Haskell]

261. Just for the record ...

My family is black, native American, Hispanic and white. We are Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Atheist, Muslim, Mormon and Baptist.

[rhett o rick]

283. I think she was having a bad day. Best of luck to her, honestly. nm

[tavalon]

398. So you confabulated earlier when you said he was on ignore

Can't stand to leave him on ignore or what?

[In_The_Wind]

6. Yes, we can.

[Eddie Haskell]

147. That says it all!

[HereSince1628]

7. Duers may love the kitteh stories more than the avg network producer

DU picks up on many of the stories that serve the networks news in the role of filler, and we can see them weeks before they get pushed onto the t-vee.

IMO, with respect to getting stories of local origination a national viewing, DU is at least as good, and often faster than, the wire-services.

[stillwaiting]

9. The Tea Party sure seems like it successfully dragged the Republican Party to the right.

I think not doing so successfully from our side ensures the Democratic Party can EASILY veer to the right (like they clearly want to do).

We have to apply the pressure unfortunately or the 99% will continue to lose economic security (and with that loss all of the other uncertainties of life that follow).

Failure to advocate from the left of the Democratic Party is extremely foolish in my opinion. We have to build larger and broader consensus to the left of the Democratic Party (like the left did during the Great Depression) if we are ever going to reverse the horrifying trend we've been on for so very long. We will have to make them do it or they'll continue to go more right. Anyone that tries to prevent broader consensus building to the left of the Democratic Party is obstructing true progress (but maybe they just don't want truly progressive solutions).

[Le Taz Hot]

51. The Tea Party has no power on it's own.

It's been GIVEN powers, money and a megaphone to the MSM by very wealthy, unprincipled people. The Tea Party was a grass roots movement for about 45 minutes when Dick Army and the Koch Brothers moved in as they figured they would be useful tools for their agenda. And they were. Look at these people. They're illiterate. They're uninformed. They're racist assholes yet they supposedly move the entire Republican Party to the right? I don't think so. They are being used to advance an oligarchic agenda and they and the MSM are too stupid to peek under the surface to see who is REALLY behind this "movement."

[stillwaiting]

56. I agree with some of your post.

I think it's very possible that the Tea Party was manufactured to provide the excuse to drag the Republican Party to the right (without the Tea Party actually being the reason why it was done).

However, I do not believe the MSM is stupid. They purposefully created the framework which currently exists where very little thought or effort is given to uncovering truth. They allow for politicians to say whatever they want to with little to no oversight, and it successfully keeps the population divided and uninformed. Yes, the oligarchic agenda clearly owns our MSM in my opinion which makes them complicit and not stupid.

With that said, during the Great Depression the left was very, very strong and to the left of the Democratic Party. I do believe they were the catalyst behind the great progressive legislation that the Democrats ended up passing. I believe they had to do it because the movement that had been created was simply building to a level that could not be ignored. From that perspective, a movement building that is to the left of our very corporate Democratic Party is essential.

[Le Taz Hot]

81. I agree with your post with one addition:

Roosevelt. HE wasn't scared of his own shadow -- afraid he might piss off someone from the reich wing. Roosevelt took them head on AND THE COUNTRY WAS BEHIND HIM. See, that's what the current batch of Third Way "Democrats" don't understand. MOST of this country IS to the left -- they've just been brainwashed so deeply by the corporate-owned MSM that "liberal" is a dirty word and they don't want to be a dirty word. Roosevelt actually LED the party to the left -- for the most part kicking and screaming all the way but he did it.

Political parties, by nature, need strong leaders and the Democrats haven't seen one of those since Clinton. The problem was, Clinton was/is a corporate sell-out (see NAFTA, Glass-Stegall repeal, welfare "reform&quot . We haven't seen a true leftist President since Carter. Unfortunately, he was a victim of timing (Nixon's inflationary policies that were bound to jack up inflation -- which it did AND the Iran Hostage Crisis). It was about that time that the word "liberal" became a dirty word and the idiotic Democratic Party ACCEPTED that meme and, consequently, pretty much ran FROM Carter so he didn't get the fight he deserved from the Party Machine.

The problem isn't the Democratic Party itself, it's the lack of liberal leadership. When Clinton moved to the right and started accepting barrels full of corporate monies there was a quid pro quo. The Republicans had always had that understanding with big bidness but the Democrats were always the party of the people, of the unions, of the poor, middle-class, minorities, the unrepresented. But that all changed with Clinton and you can see where we are today. Democrats advocating drone murders, torture, the Patriot Act, Monsanto, ad nauseum. Those aren't Democrats, they're the worst kind of Republicans. That needs to change or there needs to be other alternatives for We the People to turn to. Beyond that I can't say more.

[RKP5637]

101. Extremely well said!!! n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

117. Thank you.

[kentuck]

120. I think you have your finger on the pulse.

[Le Taz Hot]

125. Now that's a

scary-ass thought.

[kentuck]

131. I know.

[navarth]

161. One additional point, if I may:

Carter wasn't just a victim of timing. He was victimized by TREASON committed by the Reagan gang. The 'October Surprise' will live in infamy. Just like Nixon did, as revealed by the LBJ tapes.

[Le Taz Hot]

168. It was the beginning of the end for

American Justice. The Watergate prosecutions were the last time we saw the A.G., Congress, Senate, and USSC actually uphold justice. October Surprise was the first treason allowed, followed by Iran/Contra and all the rest. Nixon/Kissinger should have been brought up on war crimes after they covertly halted the peace process but, not surprisingly, they were never held accountable. Kissinger -- who our current president considers a "senior foreign policy adviser." Don't get me started.

[navarth]

185. 'Don't get me started.'

I'm afraid we're BOTH started, nothing to be done about it.

I have enjoyed your posts.

[noiretextatique]

186. 3rd way types abandoned liberal principles

which is way there is no powerful democratic wing of the democratic party. unfortunately, obama is continuing the third way trend, and it just sickens me. i wasn't expecting him to be liberal, but i sure as hell expect him to be a democrat.

[tavalon]

400. Thank you

That's why I think we need to get rid of the third wayers. They are pulling the party to the right and that isn't what the public wants.

[noiretextatique]

448. agreed

there is little difference between the 3rd wayers and republicons.

[tavalon]

399. Please OP this

Yeah, you'll get push back but this is something that shouldn't be buried in this post. It's so spot on.

[derby378]

451. BAM.

I may have trouble walking after that gut punch. The whole party needs one of those. Thanks.

[Sunlei]

72. republican teas..they are republicans, a group funded by koch like his john birch society.

JBS, who by the way was allowed by republicans to fund their primary venue and set up a booth at the door.

we should have hung ALL the kochs/nazi leadership in the neuenberg trials and we wouldn't have so much of this evil today.

[Scootaloo]

212. What do you mean "dragged"?

The Republican party has been lurching further and further to the right since 1980. The Tea Party is nothing but a bunch of dumbasses who are dancing in the street about that.

[Roy Rolling]

10. We are

The Democratic Underground, not the Democratic Party.

We do not worship the idols of the Democratic Party but the principles of Democratic ideology.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

44. You make a point that should be hammered: We are NOT the Democratic Party.

And thank God for that!!

[RC]

48. There are many here that worship the idols of the Democratic Party.

And get upset when others don't have the same fixation on these idols.

[LondonReign2]

93. And some are gainfully employed

to be upset when there is any criticism of The Party.

[RC]

124. You notices too, huh?

I don't get the all or nothing hero worship ideology. To me, that is lock-step conservative/Right-Wing thinking. What's that doing on DU so prominently anyway?

[LondonReign2]

177. It is curious

Some want to put Party before all, even when the policies are far from the Democratic party ideal. I agree, to me it seems to be a mirror of those that on the right that insisted there should be no criticism of Bush.

But, follow the money.

[tavalon]

401. And Roy Rolling takes it home for the win!

You aced it, dude!

[treestar]

11. False choice

It is not the first amendment vs Eric Holder. You simply do not or refuse to understand.

[kentuck]

12. Can we discuss it?

As I stated, we should be able to discuss both sides: "For example, some may be inclined to defend Eric Holder instead of the First Amendment? In my opinion, DU should be open to discussion of both sides. That is the point of the First Amendment. But no one should be felt to believe they have to defend Holder because he is a Democrat and the President wants him to stay in his position. "

Since we are promoting free speech, what do you think it is about? In my opinion, the more ideas we can get, the more we can weigh the value of each of them?

[graham4anything]

27. META

[hobbit709]

50. " Go To The Mirror, boy"

[ieoeja]

154. We can discuss it.

The people Holder has pursued:

- were entrusted with Classified information
- passed that information to the press
- the information was not indicative of anything illegal.


I believe the Department of Justice should pursue these people. They broke the law without good reason.

I include, by the way, Manning in this. The first item published as a result of Manning's action betrayed unethical behavior on the part of the prior administration. Had it stopped there, I would call him a whistleblower and say he should be protected. But it turned out he released pretty much everything he could get his hands on. Some of which did harm to diplomatic efforts to PREVENT war.

Unfortunately, by that point he was a hero the the anti-warriors. So they defend his other crimes. You accuse Democrats of defending Holder just because he is a Democrat. You might do better accusing the anti-warriors of defending Manning just because he is anti-war.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

210. As a slight correction... you've overstated Holder's responsibility

The Attorney General did not pursue these people. The people who engaged in Felony leaks of classified information were pursued by professional Federal investigators whose job it is to pursue these things. All Eric Holder did was fail to stop the investigation and the prosecutorial conduct in this case. He recused himself from the decision.

It's ironic to see people who want the Administration to jail bankers for legal (though despicable) actions, but somehow not go after people who committed a felony that endangered American lives overseas. They were the first to scream about Bush's political use of prosecutorial discretion but now blame Obama for not abusing prosecutorial discretion.

This case involves the First Amendment about as much as legal private nuclear bombs involves the Second.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[tavalon]

402. Nope, you're correct

It's not a vs. The first amendment is sacrosanct and must remain so. Holder is an idiot and will likely remain so. Not much of a connection really except that the DOJ, under Holder, gave the First Amendment a hell of an ass reaming.

[watoos]

13. Real, liberal media sites, like DU, need to be preserved.

The right wing propaganda machine controls all of the narrative in the MSM.
Right wingers are moving into the internet to purge liberals.
The Huff Post wasn't exactly liberal but somewhat middle of the road. It has now been taken over by AOL, a CPAC sponsor. Thank god for sites like DU. It's hard to fight the Murdochs, Petersons, Kochs, billions.

[ctsnowman]

191. +1 NT

[Dustlawyer]

14. Eric Holder is a Wall Street, corporate shill! He could have busted a lot of crooks in NY and

did not even try! The law firm I work for was the only one to take BP to trial in the 2005 Texas City explosion that killed 15 and injured thousands. We found the document where they lied (in a big way) on a permit application. They had to plead guilty to a felony and were put on probation. Fast forward to the BP oil spill that killed 11 more and has/is screwing 100,000 plus more and our office was meeting with Holder and his cronies. BP was still on probation and had killed several more people in their plants in the interim since the 2 "accidents." We handed over all of the dirty, incriminating documents such as the one where they came up with what it cost them each time they killed a worker so that when they had to decide which budget proposal to choose to implement for the run down Texas City plant. They chose a budget where they expected people to die because it was still more profitable than a couple of other proposals where they repaired more of the most dangerous problems in the plant and did not think anyone should die.
Holder refused to revoke BP's probation and in fact let them off early, months after the spill!
Obama blessed BP's 20 billion dollar Fund (they never had 20 billion in a fund and still have not paid 70% of the victims) and the Fund administrator, Ken Feinberg to avoid a mid-term 2010 debacle (we know how that turned out). On February 4, 2011, the Federal Judge in New Orleans over the case ruled that Ken Feinberg had never been "Independant" as Obama and BP claimed, and had always been BP's representative!
Holder and Obama sold out as do most Democrats and Republicans in Washington!

[RoccoR5955]

17. Forget the banks,

Holder should have gone and investigated the Bush Crime Syndicate.
I guess they are responsible for the corporate welfare that was doled out to the banks, just before Bush left office.
Why this was not investigated, is way beyond me.

[Dustlawyer]

432. It was not investigated b/c it would incriminate some of the same people that tell Obama what to do!

[Sunlei]

23. none of them, oil/mines clean up after themselves if they aren't exposed.

Remember back when BP refused to put a camera at the wellhead and Pres. O made them? If that camera wasn't there another oil company would have got away with massive damages.

I wish Pres. O put more time into our DOI and BLM who manages our Public lands for us. They have been pandering to the oil/mining interests forever and that has hurt/killed Americans because we aren't 'stakeholders' as they call themselves. Even though the lands are called 'Public Lands' and we ARE the Public. Those are all our lands and we should have a say over our Federal employees.

[forestpath]

84. +1000

[Sunlei]

16. I like Mr. Holder, I think he's done a good job. I think it's the republicans who hate him.

IMO so far

[liberal_at_heart]

128. oh, there are plenty of us democrats who don't like him. Medical marijuana patients and people who

want to see bankers prosecuted for example.

[rhett o rick]

287. Republicans hate all Democrats including those that are taking the

same actions they would take. Holder is in the pocket of Wall Street, which is not a surprise if you look at his background.

But as crazy as the REpublicans against him because he has a D behind his name, there are Democrats equally as crazy for him for the same simplistic reason.

[tavalon]

403. There are few politicians I can say I actually hate

Holder isn't among them, but he is yet another example of Obama's inability to pick good candidates for positions. This DOJ is either going rogue or Obama doesn't believe in the Constitution as much as he would like us to believe or he's fucking with it for Goddess knows what reason. I won't say he doesn't understand the constitution, because he does, completely.

[another_liberal]

18. I defend the Obama administration . . .

When it deserves defending, I defend the Obama administration enthusiastically. When it deserves criticism, I can criticize it with the best of them.

There is no doubt our President has given his liberal and progressive supporters the short end of the policy stick on more than a few occasions; nevertheless, he is, with all his faults considered, a far-and-away better man to be leading this country than either of the Republicans who ran against him. No matter how unhappy he may make me, that fact is never far from my thoughts.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

47. I agree with you. But I do think that Obama has been the most liberal president we have had

in a very long time.

[RC]

54. At least since bu$h.

Obama Liberal? Not since he took the the oath of office.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

61. I didn't say liberal. I said he's been the most liberal we have ever had. Since LBJ.

Obama was never a liberal. It's not my fault if people didn't do their homework in 2008.

[Le Taz Hot]

91. Since Carter.

And lots of people "did their homework" in 2008 but the Party Bosses wanted a corporate shill to keep the spigot flowing and that's what they and we got. Who were the final two candidates in 2008? Corporate Shill A and Corporate Shill B. We did our homework alright. But the game was rigged and we ended up with the best president money could buy. Lucky us.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

103. Most of Obama's money came from small donors.

I'm proud of the president. He has done an outstanding job.

[Le Taz Hot]

119. Yeah, we get that.

Have a nice day.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

127. In order to compete, you expected him not to form PACs, not to have large donors?

This problem existed long before Obama, the Clintons, and the Gores.

The problem is money in politics. It has little to do with any one politician.

Get the money out of politics and you'll have better candidates.

You have a nice day, too!

[tavalon]

406. He's capable of doing an outstanding job

He has occasionally done very acceptable at this job. Often, his risk averse personality gets in his way.

[RC]

113. Did we even have a choice in 2008?

No, because anyone not DLC enough were eliminated.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

116. I supported Dennis Kucinich. He now is a commentator for Faux News. Who knew?

[tavalon]

407. Correct you are.

We didn't have a viable choice in 2004 either.

[another_liberal]

189. On the contrary.

I think it can be easily argued that the Obama administration has been the least liberal Democratic administration since the eighteen hundreds, perhaps since before the Civil War. He has almost always been ready to strike a deal with the far right at the expense of those who elected him. His now withdrawn offer to actually put Social Security cuts on the table during budget negotiations is the latest (and perhaps most galling) example of this.

[tavalon]

405. Yeah, Carter was quite a long time ago

[tavalon]

404. That's a very low bar to set for such a man

Obama is one of the most intelligent politicians ever. He is a Constitutional Scholar. Saying he's better that the other guy is close to damning him with faint praise.

I'm often seen as being against Obama because I rail against his abuses of Executive power (given to him by Cheney/Bush) and I rail against Obama when he refuses to confront those who desperately need such confrontation, in other words, refuses to use the bully pulpit appropriately.

But here's the thing. I hold a very high bar for Obama because I know he has it in him. That he rarely exercises his skill and acumen is very frustrating to this Democratic Socialist. I knew he wasn't a liberal but I give it to him when he doesn't even act like a Democrat.

[Puzzledtraveller]

19. Good post

Was just down at the canteen getting my coffee. I work in a state government building and GMA, I think that's waht is was, was on talking about the admin and Holder in less than flattering terms and people were listening and commenting in less than flattering terms. These are mostly dem coworkers who do not spend their time on political discussion boards. I'm just saying what we think does not always reflect what the average dem thinks and though some here would rather put their head in the sand I'd rather we face things like this head on. If we need to clean house then let's clean house. We have one term behind us, no gaurantee in 2016, times a wasting.

[Pragdem]

20. Just because you can say something doesn't mean that it's right or you should. nt

[kentuck]

22. And vice-versa...

Just because you say nothing doesn't mean you are right or that you should remain silent. Free speech gives us the opportunity to weigh all ideas and make independent judgements.

[frylock]

190. silence is consent

[patrice]

262. Not necessarily, because that depends upon what a person is DOING.

[marions ghost]

25. +++

[ProSense]

29. Yes,

"The DemocraticUnderground can say things the Democratic Party cannot say."

...remember when Fox Noise was a hack organization?

CREW Challenges Fox D.C. Licenses (petitioning FCC to revoke NewsCorp broadcast licenses)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014203760

Fox's U.S. TV station licenses challenged
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021201498

CREW asks the FCC to revoke Fox's broadcast license
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002636094

How To Stop The Father Of Fox News From Entering Your Living Room
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021907140

Robert F. Kennedy Jr: Fox News Has Divided Country In A Way Not Seen Since Civil War
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014330084



It still is.

CONFIRMED: Fox News Hack James Rosen Is A Political Operative, Not A Journalist
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022897356

News Corp. vs. Fox News? (the Rosen story gets even more bizarre)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022910478

CNN: DOJ Has Proof It Alerted News Corp. Of Rosen Subpoena
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022918692


The "point of the First Amendment" is not to defend propaganda, the criminal leak of classified information, or issues people have with Holder.

[kentuck]

34. If A = B... then

A + B = C ?

"The "point of the First Amendment" is not to defend propaganda, the criminal leak of classified information, or issues people have with Holder. "

What is the "point of the First Amendment"??

[graham4anything]

40. the first amendment is NOT absolute. There is no right to yell fire in a theatre not burning.

one cannot make a joke about terrorism in an airport

and Eric Holder UPHELD the constitution (though of course the NRA wants him out 24/7/365 and is like a rabid foaming mob
to railroad him out of town

and it is hypocritical on anyone who was against the leaker of Valerie Plame as individuals were in mortal danger
from the leak and the republicans themselves told Holder to get to the bottom of it.

Where is the outrage?

[graham4anything]

35. +3000

[Bluenorthwest]

38. The point of the First Amendment is that people get to speak for themselves, even you

are allowed to characterize others and spit at the First Amendment by lecturing us that the First is not intended to protect unpopular political speech which is your own propaganda, reckless and flavored with anti democratic spice. The First Amendment is specifically intended to protect those who have criticisms of officials who abuse the power that is given them by the people. Without the people, Holder is some second rate corporate lawyer, defending banana growers for hiring terrorists.

[graham4anything]

41. one cannot yell fire in a theatre or make terror jokes in an airport. It is NOT absolute.

and rightly so

Valerie Plame leak was the exact same here, and all "progressives" were against the Plame leak.
The leak here was 100% the same

[ProSense]

69. Yes, which

"The point of the First Amendment is that people get to speak for themselves, even you"

...is clearly why there needs to be a thread whining about people doing just that, right?

Well, at least this one isn't complaining about people being paid because they disagree with the unofficial official Democratic Underground opinion shapers' rules, those who determine what the appropriate opinion should be.

For example, some may be inclined to defend Eric Holder instead of the First Amendment? In my opinion, DU should be open to discussion of both sides. That is the point of the First Amendment. But no one should be felt to believe they have to defend Holder because he is a Democrat and the President wants him to stay in his position.

This is just my opinion but I do not think DU should be too closely tied to any partisan positions. We should stand for truth and justice which may not always be the American way.

Laughable.

[kentuck]

74. You're laughing at my opinion?

I had no idea it was so funny...

[ProSense]

80. Yes.

IMO, it's funny.

[Bluenorthwest]

99. Pro, you said the First Amendment is not about protecting those who criticize Holder

'The "point of the First Amendment" is not to defend propaganda, the criminal leak of classified information, or issues people have with Holder."

And yet, that is exactly what it is for. You should be ashamed to type that protection of political speech is not the point of the First Amendment. That is exactly the point of the First Amendment.

[graham4anything]

108. Propaganda is Fox and the media. Defending Eric Holder is American & the first amendment.

Why on a site that wiki describes as defending the Democratic party, do I have to made to feel uncomfortable and
have names daily called on me while I defend the President, his cabinet and the democratic party.

[Bluenorthwest]

122. Why do you watch FoxNews?

The fact that you do sort of explains you.

[graham4anything]

132. Huh??? I don't watch Fox. Fox/NRA is against Holder. No one else should be.

IT is as simple as that.

but thanks for another adhominem.

[Bluenorthwest]

140. It was you who introduced FoxNews as part of your routine here, you wrote as if you

know what they say and do, if you don't want people to think you watch FoxNews, perhaps not bringing them up in unrelated discussions is a good idea? Because in the adult world, when YOU bring a subject up, YOU have made that subject part of the conversation. I ASKED you why you watch the station you claimed to know about. Because YOU brought it up.
Good lord.

[graham4anything]

142. Those against Holder are regurgitating repudiated smears against Holder time and again.

[ProSense]

121. No, I didn't

"Pro, you said the First Amendment is not about protecting those who criticize Holder"

I said the First Amendment isn't about those who have "issues" with Holder. Hate speech is protected. By issues, I meant feelings, not speech. You're free to express your dissastifaction with Holder, but that is based on your own subjective criteria. For example, some people want Holder fired because they believe he isn't doing his job. Some people disagree, including the President, who believes he is doing an excellent job.

Perception and speech are not the same thing.

[graham4anything]

133. + zillion

[Bluenorthwest]

138. What? That makes zero sense at all. You said what you said and you were wrong.

The First Amendment is there to protect political speech, no matter what those who disagree think the reasons for that speech to be. It is about protecting feelings expressed as speech, ideas, emotions, any speech spoken for any reason, no reason, various reasons.
The First Amendment exists to protect unpopular speech, very specifically, so very often the protected speech is extremely vile and not anything either of us would agree with. But I for one will defend the right of others to speak it and for me to counter with any sort of speech I wish to use. It is not there to protect the powerful or the popular, but to protect everyone without regard to what we might think of that which is expressed.
The President often says he is a pragmatist. In pragmatism, the 'perception' of another is unknowable, uncertain, and moot, as it exists within the other person. The only thing a pragmatist counts as real is that which is expressed as action, such as speech. What you are thinking is beside the point,what is said is what counts along with what is done. Perception, under the law or under pragmatism, is a moot and perhaps even nonexistent thing. So unless we want to put aside all that prattle about being a pragmatist, that crap about perception vs speech is just balderdash of the first order.
The First Amendment is a very important thing. It does not address 'perceptions' nor mitigate rights according to your perceptions of other's perceptions.

[ProSense]

159. Hey,

"What? That makes zero sense at all. You said what you said and you were wrong.
The First Amendment is there to protect political speech, no matter what those who disagree think the reasons for that speech to be. It is about protecting feelings expressed as speech, ideas, emotions, any speech spoken for any reason, no reason, various reasons."

...it's not my fault that you don't understand my point. Free speech and legitimacy are not the same thing. You're free to say anything, but that doesn't mean your opinion rises to the level of legitimacy: Holder should be fired.

Some people believe President Obama should be impeached. They are free to express that opinion. That does not mean they have a legitimate case. Their perspective and perception are clouding their judgment.

Citizens Grand Jury Indicts Holder For Perjury And Obstruction of Justice
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022921734

[dembotoz]

32. i should fricken hope so

[HappyMe]

36. I don't understand what your complaint is.

Are people disagreeing with you and you don't like it?

Generally, people do say what's on their mind here. All of us that post here are DU. As far as you saying we shouldn't be tied to partisan positions, maybe some are, others aren't. Your opinion about what we should discuss is no more important than the next person's.

[kentuck]

43. Is this meant to be an ad hominem attack?

Which sentence did you most disagree with?

[HappyMe]

52. Attack?

It's just my opinion. Just like your OP is your opinion.

Plenty of people here don't exactly toe the party line, others choose to.

[kentuck]

55. "I don't understand what your complaint is."

"Are people disagreeing with you and you don't like it?"

[HappyMe]

65. I don't particularly care if people agree with me or not.

At least not enough to start an entire thread about it.

[kentuck]

67. Well that's your opinion.

I'm sure there are many that agree with you.

[HappyMe]

68. Probably.

Oh well.

[Bobbie Jo]

207. No, actually....

This is an ad hominem attack:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2920908

Simply disagreeing with you doesn't qualify.

This thread is just full of ironic moments.

[kentuck]

213. It wasn't "complaining"...

How did someone take my post as "complaining"? I certainly did not mean for it to sound that way.

[Bobbie Jo]

221. I was referring to

...and responding to your post suggesting that you were the target of an "ad hominem attack."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2921124

I provided an example of an actual ad hominem attack to demonstrate the difference.

[kentuck]

239. Yes.

I wondered why the poster that accused me of "complaining" came to that conclusion?

But thanks for the clarification.

[tavalon]

409. Innit?

I've really enjoyed this thread. We've got two people ignoring each other and many, many others disagreeing, showing that DU is a place where one can have discussion and discord, no problem.

[tavalon]

408. Actually I see this thread as a beautiful example of how DU

handles issues. Clear down to the way we turn it into glue.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

37. I think, act, and speak on my own behalf. I don't need DU to do that for me.

And yes, I support this president and his attorney general 100%! No amount of DU hate, liberal bloggoshere whining, or ODS influences that.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. So does that gusto you express mean that when Obama and Holder opposed equality

in marriage, you also supported them 100%? Because if not, then that 100 is self serving bullshit, and if so, well you opposed basic human rights for your neighbors because the Kool Kidz told you to. Which is it?
Those who oppose the rights of others on demand from above are in my view lacking all ethics. Those who proudly state that they will support anything done by another person, as you state, very much the same thing.
I'll never forget the anti equality crowd on DU pushing discrimination as the only way, 'you want a pony' they taunted us, and called any opposition to their bigotry 'poutrage'.
That was hate, kid, hate that costs real people real rights. Rights you have. You, of course, got yours.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

57. I think, speak, and act on my own behalf. The president supports marriage equality. He has directed

his attorney general not to enforce DOMA. As for DOMA, it requires an act of congress to repeal. Luckily, state legislatures are beginning to implement their own marriage equality laws. I'm so thankful to live in one of those states. And as a black woman with a father who is gay, I am very proud of how far we have come regarding civil rights.

I do not believe for one second that the president and his attorney general are as evil as DU and the liberal bloggosphere may them out to be.

I also did not say that I support EVERYTHING or EVERY decision made by this president. I have a broader view. I look at the larger picture. I see how extreme forces on both the political left and the political right have advanced against this administration. And I don't think it's just a coincidence that the two people that each side has targeted just happen to be black (three if we include Susan Rice).

I have made this point many times: I DO NOT SUPPORT EVERY DECISION MADE BY THIS PRESIDENT!!

However, considering the *LARGER CONTEXT*, the broader picture, I can say with certainty that I will never turn my back on him and not ever support him. I think he is a good man who is trying everything in his power to get things done and do what is right.

That is my opinion.

Let's agree to disagree.

[Bluenorthwest]

76. So basically what you are now saying is that you do not 100% agree with them and you

do have criticisms, just like others do, but you expect others to have exactly the same criticisms as you do, or you will characterize their criticism as 'saying he's evil' while your own is valid criticism. You are claiming that you yourself are the metric, the standard by which criticism is judged. If you say it, it is fine, if others say it, not fine.
We can not agree to disagree when you are not speaking your mind, I don't know what you think, we might agree, might disagree, how would I know? You say you support 100% then you say you think for yourself. No one, listen closely, no one has said they are evil, that is you ascribing crap to other people and wailing about it. Speaking for others is not speaking for yourself, nor is shouting that you support 100%.
If you support 100% then you opposed equality and now support it. If you always supported, then you are not a 100% supporter anymore than anyone else who has any other disagreement with policy, this is about policy, it is about my rights becoming equal to your own, you have rights I don't have and that is what is important, not the personalities of the temp workers in office. Evil? That's just about the largest piece of bullshit I have seen on DU.
Part of speaking for yourself means do not try to put words into other people's mouths to argue with.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

109. No. I expect others to have their own opinions and accept that mine are different from theirs.

If I don't think the president is an evil man or a horrible president or whatever, I want others to accept that fact, just as I accept that they don't like the president or don't agree with him. You didn't say "evil," but the characterizations of the president here on DU and other liberal blogs make him out to be. If you don't fall into this category, then you shouldn't take offense.

I don't want people to think like me; I want them to accept that I have a different opinion from them.

That doesn't seem to go well here on DU especially.

I suggested that we should agree to disagree. That doesn't meant that you continue to bagger me. Again, you can't change my mind and I'm not looking to change yours. So, let's just disagree and leave it at that.

[Bluenorthwest]

175. If you really want people to just accept your opinion, then you must do the same for them

This is why flinging characterizations of others such as saying people call Holder or the President 'evil' because you don't care for the other's opinion, when they have not said any such thing, when you can not support your assertion is not a good idea. The response to such a made up hyperbole is often going to be in kind. It is called the Golden Rule.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

176. How have I not accepted your opinion? I have stated TWICE that we agree to disagree.

Please, let's leave it at that. Stop baggering me or I will put you on IGNORE. Please stop.

[Laelth]

135. Very well said. n/t

-Laelth

[Bluenorthwest]

107. Your inaccuracy has to be addressed. You say DOMA is not enforced and that is false.

DOMA is the fully enforced law of the land, we just filed taxes, yet again as singles, we've been together for decades. Why? DOMA and your community's other laws say my family is not a family like yours is.
Holder is no longer DEFENDING DOMA in the courts as he did for nearly 4 years. But it is very much incorrect to say they are not enforcing it, if it was not enfoced we'd have marriage equality right now in the States that have made it legal. It is DOMA that requires the Federal government to discriminate against us and they do. Fully.
I am so sick of straight people claiming DOMA is not enforced. It needs to end.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

111. 1. How has the attorney general enforced DOMA? Do you have evidence of that?

2. Which branch of government is responsible for repealing DOMA? The Executive or the Legislative?
3. Why are you assuming that I'm straight?

[Bluenorthwest]

156. I assume you are straight because you think DOMA is not being enforced.

If I'm incorrect, all apologies. But either way you should get the language right.
The legal discrimination against gay couples continues because DOMA is the fully enforced law of the land. Because of DOMA, if you are married in WA you are still single in the eyes of the Federal government. That means you do not have the right to file jointly with the IRS, you can not know your partner will get survivor's benefits from Social Security if you go first as straight couples take for granted. Just last week our esteemed Moderate Centrist Democrats along with their Republican pals in the Senate removed from the immigration bill the amendment that would extend to same sex couples the right straight couples have to bring a spouse from another country to live in the US. Because of DOMA, even those who are married legally in other nations or in a US State are denied this right.
All of these things are fully enforced and one can go to jail for pretending otherwise.
The fact that Congress must repeal it has nothing to do with the fact that it is enforced and enforced by the Federal Government in many ways, many divisions. After years of full voiced defenses of DOMA in the courts using really ugly arguments, Obama asked Holder to cease defending the law in court. This is good, very good. But the law is still enforced, we still need to get it repealed, if people think it is not enforced they will not ask for change.
I assume you don't know that this 'DOMA is not enforced' meme is two years old already and often hurled from the 'center' toward LGBT folks who dare say anything about anything. 'Dan Choi, what's he complaining about, DOMA is no longer enforced, he has his rights' and that sort of thing.

[tavalon]

411. Correct

A little wordy but a necessary correction to the other poster. Apparently, though, if you rile that one, he/she puts you on ignore.

[ieoeja]

167. Both you and Bluenorthwest are completely off base here, guys.

DOMA is currently before the US Supreme Court. And Roberts angrily accused Obama of being too cowardly to simply stop enforcing it. Hence, your statement that he stopped enforcing it is, according to Roberts, 100% wrong.

Though you are 100% correct about the Attorney General being uninvolved. The AG doesn't make IRS decisions. In this case, however, I think Bluenorthwest is referencing the administration, not Holder specifically. No need to pick that nit.


Bluenorthwest is missing a couple of points as well:
- If Obama stopped enforcing DOMA, it would simply be re-inforced by the next President.
- If the Legislature repealed DOMA, the next Legislature would simply re-impose DOMA.
- When the US Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional now and forever. Not just until the next election. Forever.
- As evidenced by Roberts anger, he blames Obama for forcing his Court to make this ruling.

Conversely, Bluenorthewest blames Obama for letting this go to the Court.

If Roberts thought there was a chance in hell that the Court would rule DOMA constitutional, does anybody think Roberts would be angry?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

172. Thanks, but I don't believe anything Robert says. The fact that DOMA is before the court means

something.

On your last point, I do agree.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

174. One more thing: DOMA is in the courts because a state SUED the federal government on the

grounds that the law is unconstitutional.

Obama doesn't have the authority to interpret the law; he enforces it through his AG.

My larger points stand: First, I do not see any enforcement from the AG on DOMA. And, DOMA is still on the books and will remain on the books until it is repealed by Congress or ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

[Bluenorthwest]

179. Your characterizations of who I 'blame' are incorrect.

Here is my point. People need to cease claiming that DOMA is not enforced until it is not enforced. It needs to be repealed by the Congress, and that goal is not supported by folks who run around claiming it is not enforced. I did not blame Obama for letting it go to the courts, I don't even see him as having done so.
My issue is with folks who want to declare a victory yet to be won by claiming it is not enforced. It is enforced. That is my entire point about the 'enforcement' is that it is fucking enforced and yet again and again people claim 'DOMA is not enforced' when they wish to make some random argument about any number of things. They need to stop doing so, because it is false.
I don't like to make court predictions, but I actually tend to agree with you about why Roberts is pissed off. Which is why I did not say any of the things you are ascribing to me.
DOMA is enforced by every level of the Federal Government, that is just a fact of the place we are in history. That fact must not be forgotten until it is in fact not enforced. That's it.
Oh, I do blame Holder for some of the language he used when he was defending DOMA for two years. The way he did it was not kind at all. It was also his choice. And yeah, I credit him with that.

[patrice]

266. K&R especially for all of the bullshit about how evil PO et al are. Dehumanization is PROPAGANDA. nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

58. ^^this^^

[graham4anything]

53. +1zillionbillionmillion

I have Eric Holder's back and won't let the President or any member be railroaded.

(and its because of the pro-gun/pro-NRA faction and has been from day 1).

[RC]

63. Anyone that supports any political anything, 100% needs to step back and reanalyze things.

Thinking like that is a large part of what is wrong with this country. There is nothing Liberal with Lock Step thinking.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

64. I don't need to do anything but stay black and die! And I damn sure don't need advice from

someone sitting behind a keyboard.

I support this president 100%! If you don't like it, tough!!

[RC]

284. Blind loyalty does no one any good.

This is what the Republicans, Conservatives, Tea-Baggers, etc. strive for. Blind Loyalty

For instance, I'm drawing Social Security. Obama is the one that came up with the chained CPI, that further reduces the already deficient S/S COLA. I have never received a S/S COLA that even came close to reflecting the true Cost Of Living.
Social Security is a separate line item and has absolutely nothing to do with the debt or the deficit. Yet, Obama put Social Security on the table at the first bargaining chip, with no prompting from the Republicans. How is this something to support Obama on? And this is just one example. The list is long.
I don't care what color Obama is, or you are, or anyone else. That is immaterial to the respect people give each other. Obama is disrespecting senors of all colors, races, nationality, with his stance on S/S, especially those that need S/S to live on.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

321. Not blind loyalty at all. I criticize the president when he should be. I praise him when he does

well. I see the larger picture and that bigger picture is that he has been dealt a horrible hand and is trying to do what's best for this country.

It's really just my opinion.

I support the president. Period.

I don't take advice from people behind keyboards.

[tavalon]

413. Then you are wasting your time here

There is so much knowledge to be gained from your fellow DUers but it requires a willingness to think through what the other is saying. Without that, it seems pretty pointless to be on a debate site such as this. I've said so many stupid things over the years and I've had to walk them back. That makes me a person who can learn. If I choose to fight against any opinion but my own, it's time to move on.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

424. Not only do you make assumptions about me, you are very condescending.

Look, I come to DU day in and day out and am confronted with opinions different than mine. In fact, if you've been around long enough, you'd see that the majority of threads and posts are critical of this president, even to the point of derision. You don't and will never see me go into those threads attacking people for their opinions of this president. I don't go around calling out people who don't share my views, suggesting they're stupid, "impervious to facts," or "need to learn". But if you go back and read my posts from yesterday, there seems to be this recurring pattern: because I won't demonize the president or hate him, even if I have expressed disappointments in him from time to time, something is wrong with me. I don't have the facts. I lack critical thinking, or whatever the charge is. These people know nothing about me. Nothing about my background. They just assume based on the fact that my opinion is different from theirs. It is THEY who cannot accept others' views, not me.

All I am asking is that people accept differing opinions. As for coming here to learn, this is not a one-sided thing. We all come to learn from each other regardless of background or political persuasion. I joined the Democratic Party because there are liberals, moderates and conservatives in this party. Even socialists such as yourself.

We come to discuss and often argue. If those exchanges are constructive, I'm all for it. But I don't come to DU to be baggered, personally attacked, and receive condescending feedback from you or anyone.

Accept that we're not all socialists. Accept that we're not all the purist form of liberal. Accept that we all have differing opinions about this president, his cabinet officials and agency heads. Accept that we are different on a host of issues and topics.

What I won't tolerate is personal attacks and condescension. You have responded to me now several times, each time with a self-righteous, arrogant tone. I will not accept that or put up with it.

If you cannot discuss issues with me in a more civilized manner, then we don't need to talk.

Welcome to IGNORE.

[tavalon]

456. Ah, my goal achieved

I wonder how your echo chamber sounds? LOL

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

435. Blah, blah, blah...

[RC]

431. Then why are you here?

There is a lot of excellent advice coming from people sitting behind keyboards.

BTW, aren't you sitting behind a keyboard too? Aren't you then telling us not to take any of your advice?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

434. I'm here because I want to be. I'm not here to force someone else to accept my opinions.

I am a grown-ass woman and I do what I want to do when I want to do it. Taking people behind keyboards seriously? That's just not me. I like the discussion. I won't tolerate personal attacks. I accept those who's opinions are not like mine.

[Douglas Carpenter]

257. +1zillionbillionmillion

I don't know what is so difficult about the principle that when the Party leadership and the President are right - we try to keep them right and when they are wrong we criticize their policies and try to make them right -- This is stuff people in a democratic culture should have learned by age 10. Clearly there are some people here who are too quick to advocate jumping ship - too fast to assume the worst of motives - and too reflexive in their opposition to anything and everything. But if anyone thinks we can change the world and make the world a better place by marching lockstep behind anyone - they are part of the problem that goes much deeper than who wins what election. I don't know how a free society could create anyone who think like that. This sounds like Lenin's writings on "democratic centrism" not the thinking of people reared in a western democracy.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

425. You've made my point brilliantly!! Thank you so very much. :)

[tavalon]

412. Thank you. We have too much black and white thinking going on here

and frankly when a person "thinks" in black and white, I question whether they are thinking at all.

[tavalon]

410. So you're pretty impervious to facts and new ideas and new positions?

Why be on a discussion board then? If you aren't here to learn and to teach, why are you here?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

421. I do this because its fun, not because I need

to learn. I don't take this message board seriously at all. I'm not impervious to facts. I'm impervious to dribble behind a keyboard.

[tavalon]

457. I'm supposed to be on ignore with you

I can teach you how to use the ignore function if you would like.

With careful consideration, this board is so full of articulate, intelligent people who have taught me so much. Sure, there's a lot of ambient idiocy, of which you have contributed within this very thread, but except for occasionally playing with silly mice, I stick to the smart people here. Without which, I would have had a much harder time becoming a wonk.

[kenichol]

46. DU should maintain standards of

My understanding of DU is that we are an organization that, among other things, holds government accountable to the citizens of our country. That demands that we be critical of the Democratic Party that, in its liberality, sometimes is too accommodating to the politics at the expense of doing the right thing.

[Coyotl]

49. The only way to advance the democratic party is to speak truth

and to rant loudly at any diminution of the light of truth.

[wandy]

60. Yes we need stand for truth and justice. We must also keep in mind what a mess things........

things would be RIGHT NOW were Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan in full control of a republican house and senate.
It must be remembered that Teapublicans fight neither fair or honestly.

It is good to take the high road, but we can not allow ourselves to pave that high road to hell with good intentions.
Eric Holder is an Embarrassment.
Who would Romney appoint.
Would that name end in Koch?

[kentuck]

66. "First they came for the Socialists.."

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

[wandy]

104. Hopefuly a time will not come where we are forced to make the choice of........

surrendering to the Teapublican ideology.
Or.
Becoming exactly like them.

Craft, diligence and choosing our battles wisely are necessary less our ideology can be summed up in the same two words that embody the Teapublican sense of ethics.......


Mark Sanford.

[patrice]

241. Around here it's "First they came for the Democrats..." and there's support for thinking so in

seeing how little Self-fulfilling Prophecy is credited with driving who/what -ever the current object of attack on an issue is in the direction that is the opposite of the one such posters putatively support. As a political base is eroded by negativity that really amounts to propaganda in its 100% negativity, decision makers move in the direction where their support is . . . to the right, in this case, and everyone here will deny having any part in making that happen, so it is either their ignorance, in which case why are we crediting such so much, or this behavior is intentional and more and more lately, I think it is intentional = a movement characterized by an attitude that goes under a heading something like "Let its corruption destroy it, so we (whoever the fuck "we" is) can start over from scratch and build "our" utopia."

[Live and Learn]

62. Why would it be underground if it was just party talking points? nt

[TheDebbieDee]

71. My two cents regarding the DOJ and the First Amendment.........

With regard to the foiled airplane bombing plot in Yemen: Everybody seems to focus on the DOJ wire-tapping of phone lines into the AP angle and seems to completely ignore the fact that the DOJ was trying to follow the trail of info back to the leak/source.

What if the leak is not an Obama staffer but someone on the House Intelligence Committee? Do we really want an elected pol (which would makke the leak treasonous with an extra helping of treason berries) leaking national security sensitive info blaming an admin staffer for it while saying that the info was leaked to make the President look good?

BTW, my scenario would apply regardless of what party the President belonged to......

[H2O Man]

75. Outstanding.

Thank you for this.

Recommended.

[Hotler]

77. .........

[LWolf]

87. On second thought,

why can't the Democratic Party, be open and honest about issues? Why can't they discuss and debate them with integrity?

Only because they are bought and owned in a corrupt system.

Why should we let that system stifle us?

[RKP5637]

88. YES!!! n/t

[fredamae]

89. There are Democrats and then there

are Corporate Dems.
Voting records are the guide to determine "who is who".
Yes, Dems needs purging also. With the GOP moving so radically far to the Right-it leaves an easy opportunity for the Third Way/New Dem Coalition/21st Century Dems to move their Own "Rightward" advancement with little to no notice by the base--imo

The leadership in the Dem Party is listed as a member of the "New Dem Coalition"--
http://newdemocratcoalition-kind.house.gov/
I believe this was started by Clinton in the 90's

We have Rendell who I once considered a "good Dem" now on the board with the Erskine/Bowles Austerity group
http://www.fixthedebt.org/who-we-are

Again, their public records speak volumes and should not be ignored.
Is it difficult to accept? Yes, I personally struggled for Years over this-constantly "excusing-rationalizing-ignoring" always with the excuse "they know best-they're "there".
I'm way past that, now. I have come to the cold realization that there are roughly Half of the Dems in the Senate that must be voted out and about 150 +/- Dems in the House that need to be voted out.
We Must start recruiting Now and Vet carefully-based upon their actual Records-not "pretty all dressed up in pink" sweet words they use to bs every one of us.
I find it Absolutely pathetic that Neither party's leadership allows their bases to select the Person(s) they want to run in Any election at Any level-I know First hand if you "ain't" monied and famous? You Will NOT Get Dem Orgs Support, no matter How Good you are and No matter that the local electorate wants you. They refuse to even acknowledge an unknown candidate, let alone send them a buck or two--or even endorse.
The Democratic Wing of the Dem Party at least at the Elitist Leadership level is a thing of the past.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

90. I am amazed that anyone would view DU as a mere tool of the party.

The party has moved so far right as to be indistinguishable from the GOP of the 1970s and 80s. It would seem to me that DU would better serve the nation as an engine of change, pulling the Democratic Party back to liberalism and rationality.

[ProSense]

95. Poll:

If you agree with the DOJ in the Rosen case, you're anti-First Amendment
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022921294

[railsback]

96. I got banned a couple of times, one permanently, for my opinions

Obviously, there are some serious limits here to individual thought.

[RKP5637]

106. Yep, it can be a slippery slope. I have some real misgivings with the NEW

Democratic party, but I don't air them much on DU.

[Eddie Haskell]

155. Permanently banned ...

This site is only underground with regard to one issue and if I say what it is, I'll be banned.

[In_The_Wind]

166. Right

[img][/img] Something isn't clear about that.

[tavalon]

414. Well, it made sense when it was 2001, now it's just an entrenched name.

9/11

[Bobbie Jo]

236. No, obviously there is

an issue related to the meaning of "permanently."

Welcome back. Better luck this go-around.

[railsback]

240. No, you can get permanently banned from certain topics

if the admin running it doesn't like it when you don't toe the line. I'm a star witness to that fact.

[Bobbie Jo]

249. Understood.

My apologies for the presumptuous tone of my post.

[railsback]

286. My fault for just assuming everyone knew that.

[Eddie Haskell]

278. I didn't know that.

[Fearless]

105. Oh they CAN say everything we do

They don't. Conflict of interest.

[Drale]

112. DU is on the internet so I could say the moon is made of mustaches

and someone would believe me.

[liberal_at_heart]

114. luckily when I am filling out my ballot I don't give a damn what DU thinks.

I don't care what DU will or won't allow me to post. I am a free thinker, and I always vote with my conscience. My vote is my vote, and I don't give a damn what some would say about how I feel about Eric Holder.

[MannyGoldstein]

115. DempcraticParty Underground? Or DemocraticPrinciples Underground?

We look forward to the happy day when those two options are the same. But for now, they are extraordinarily different.

[LondonReign2]

199. +1

[MynameisBlarney]

129. My take on this site.

Is the word Democratic, represents the process, not the party.

[ProSense]

141. Howard Dean Goes Off On ‘Thin-Skinned And Sanctimonious’ Press...

Howard Dean Goes Off On ‘Thin-Skinned And Sanctimonious’ Press...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022921486

[johnlucas]

165. I agree. That's why I always say I'm more part of the Underground than the Democratic

I love the name of this site. It captures the totality of this place perfectly.

DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND

Half of this place is pretty much cheerleaders for the Democratic Party.
They never question whether what the party is doing right or wrong.
They just believe in supporting the party, supporting the team.

I think of these folks as the DEMOCRATIC of Democratic Underground.

Half of this place are the ones who fight for principle no matter if it hurts the Democratic Party or not.
They frequently question the party leaders, the President, whoever.
They are many times at odds with the party line or President's actions.

I think of these folks as the UNDERGROUND of Democratic Underground.

And both of these halves may hate to admit it but both halves need to exist & need each other.
The problem with the DEMOCRATIC half is they can follow the party right off the cliff since they are loathe to question their motives & actions.
But the GOOD thing about the DEMOCRATIC half is that they work as a solid unified team & give you the numbers you need to win elections & get like-minded people in office in the first place.

The problem with the UNDERGROUND half is that they are too individualistic & fractious to ever build a cohesive coalition for stemming off the wrong-headed opposition.
But the GOOD thing about the UNDERGROUND half is that they correct & restore the moral principles of the party reminding you of why you got behind the party in the first place.

I learned this especially in the aftermath of the 2010 elections & in the midst of the 2012 elections.

I was so disgusted with Obama's & the whole Democratic Party's capitulation that I sat out of the 2010 elections.
I had never failed to vote in a state/national election before in my life.
But here I was giving up on the voting thing in 2010.
As a Black man this has significant importance since I value what my people fought for to get the right to vote.
I had even stopped keeping up with politics. Hardly even coming to Democratic Underground.

After Osama Bin Laden was killed in 2011, I started to get back into it a little but even then I was still just too disappointed to care.
But as the lead-up to 2012 got underway, I slowly got back into politics bit by bit until I was full-in.
I understood that no matter how disappointed I got in Obama or the Democrats, I could NEVER sit out another election like that.
Sitting out in 2010...It's gonna be something I will always regret & I ain't big on having regrets.

I understood why the DEMOCRATIC cheerleaders were there & what purpose they served.
I understood why the UNDERGROUND fighters were there & what purpose they served.

The cheerleaders post endless picture threads about President Obama, the First Family, & other Democrats then swoon with lovestruck eyes.
But those pictures are the fuel that keeps the cheerleaders in this game.

The fighters argue everyone through the ground griping about how this wasn't done right, that wasn't done at all, that should be done, this could be done now.
But those arguments are what remind all the players why we're in this game.

It's a beautiful family, this Democratic Underground family.
I believe this is one of the most important sites on the internet.
It's a form of media after all & media—AKA the message—can change the world.
John Lucas

[Autumn]

170. The DemocraticUnderground is awesome. It gives members the

knowledge and information needed to understand laws and bills and information to contact our representatives in Congress and the Senate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

173. In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place. - Gandhi

When I registered as a Democrat in 1965 I remember no loyalty oath or contract stating that I should support all it's actions or candidates.

[Puzzledtraveller]

206. Thanks for the quote

For many (D) is the team letter and blue the color of the jersey and of course the mascot It's my team your team, and both sides are like this. I have begun to question if this isn't by design. Better to keep us polarized than to ever work together, our masters would lose the ship.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

218. Which is why I vote principles/issues rather than party/politician.

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

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

[Spitfire of ATJ]

180. I'm a Blue Collar Democrat....

That seems to have become part of an "underground" in the Clinton Era.

A dose of where this party once was:

http://server4.whiterosesociety.org/content/malloy/MalloyMemories/JFK.mp3

(BTW: This was broadcast when Dubya was in power)

The attitude now is "screw the world, we've got our own problems" and those problems are often of our own making,....for sport.

[Dragonfli]

371. I would love the party to return to representing the working class

Last edited Fri May 31, 2013, 05:14 AM - Edit history (1)

Since the DLC Reagan emulations began, the party began shifting it's support from it's constituency to it's corporate and financial industry election financiers.

Passing bank deregulation, and negotiating "Free trade" deals to serve up cheap labor abroad at the expense of most of our factory work and their unions with them. Now middle class blue collar, which was once an extremely large class has been reduced to "the working poor" - service labor fodder, forced to work 4 jobs between a couple just to earn a place in a rental after losing the ability to afford homes, quit a change in a lot of neighborhoods.

This was IMO the biggest wholesale sellout of what was once a core constituency of the party, now they sneer at us from their neo-liberal limos and spit, "who else ya gonna vote for, Republicans?" My answer of late has been, "you are the same on outsourcing and corporate raping of the commons, you crow about replacing jobs lost in a crash caused by Clinton era bank deregulation with part time minimum wage new ones paying less and wonder why we don't kiss your feet".

Our party rewards criminal bankers rather than convict them, and every few months asks us to give more of our SS trust fund via stealth cuts to be sacrificed on the altar of continuing to spend our money on assassinations, a bloated military and perpetual tax evasion by the corporations and the obesely wealthy. So far our outrage has squashed these yearly attempts. but the grand bargaining tactic remains ever on the DLC back burner.

The blue collar has no party in the US, some of us are underground continuing a Quixotic battle to regain even the smallest plank in our traditional home, pathetic yes, but when we finally give up, the unhonored coalition with the blue collar workers will fully collapse and the whole country will suffer for the betrayal of what was once, and could have remained, the largest and most faithful of the Democratic constituencies. A party can't live on Bankers and hedge fund managers alone and our party leadership has forgotten that.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

442. Some group made a decision without us....

Could have been any of a number of shadowy organizations including the Trilateral Commission but SOMEBODY made the decision long ago that the United States was no longer going to manufacture actual things. It was going to shift its economy to financial instruments alone and become a paper pusher. Have you ever watched business news? These guys HATE the idea that America is making cars. To them, it's BAD NEWS to hear the price of gas is falling at the pump. These people are the types most Americans would pelt with rotten eggs and tomatoes but they are the ones both parties are courting.

[harun]

188. I hope we always keep the Underground in DU

[azurnoir]

200. what strikes me in particular is that we seem expected

to support actions which had they been taken by the other side would be condemned, it's ummm 'confusing'

[kentuck]

204. It's also hypocritical...

in my humble opinion.

[Puzzledtraveller]

211. and it greatly weakens our arguments

even now, any possible justification is found for things we would have been up in arms over before. The other thing I see is outright refusal to even consider contrary information and opinions, particularly about our own politics. That is what I think is most dangerous.

[patrice]

234. + an outright refusal to consider positive information and opinions, so that's what we do here,

negatives react to positives and positives react to negatives, while the REAL boat, which doesn't fit our neatly biased little categories, sails.

[kentuck]

244. Did you find anything positive or negative in the OP?

I would say this: I do think we do ourselves a disfavor when we restrict our discussions along Party lines. I think this does great harm to the Democratic Party and is disingenuous at best. As I said before, this is just my opinion.

[patrice]

255. I rec'ed your OP, because I feel like you are talking about both sides of the wars here at DU.

I don't think we should restrict ourselves to discussions along Party lines, because that would be as much a perversion of the truth as doing nothing but characterizing them in negative terms.

Reality really is much much much bigger than "Obama-love vs. Obama-hate", pro-Democrat vs. anti-Democrat. It's bigger and more complex than all of our words for it, so if we hide behind our polarities there is much to lose. That doesn't mean that polarities aren't part of reality, but just that they aren't the only, nor necessarily, the truest thing all or even most of the time.

[patrice]

259. Uniformity is not possible nor desirable, so what is hypocritical to you can be another person's

adherence to a principle that you either do not recognize or you reject.

Not all contradiction is principled, nor is it hypocritical. The positives and negatives of various positions, within their whole context, are what we need to make our individual determinations about what is principled and what is hypocritical. We never get that far here at the DU because the average tendency to balkanize one's self and others has become too strong.

[kentuck]

272. To me, it is hypocritical whenever...

someone speaks out against torture or eavesdropping or war-mongering whenever the other Party is in power but somehow find it unpalatable whenever their Party is in power. In fact, those same folks are more likely to criticize you if you are consistent and take a principled stand. So, yes, hypocrisy.

[patrice]

285. Imagine the kind of president you'd like best dealing with these same issues in exactly the manner

that you wish. How many dead, hurt, sick people would it be worth to you if that president happened to be wrong? Where's the line between acceptable and too many?

No one likes or wants any of this. No one thinks any of these powers should be used indiscriminately, but pretending that the world isn't what it is doesn't get us any closer to changing these things and can in fact lead to horrendous situations in which change becomes geometrically LESS possible than it is now. I'm not saying that makes this okay. I just need to see some recognition that the hypothetical I pose is possible. Let's be honest about the negatives of the path that you propose, so that instead of trying to destroy someone who is trying to manage what he was handed, and that's not just this issue, but all of the interconnections between it and between all other issues (after an entire history, from day one, of various kinds of corruption that cause this, corruption that won't be going away just because we get Obama to stop whatever) . . . instead of only trying to destroy someone who has everything he can possibly do to manage what he's been handed, let's consider a broader approach that does not require anyone to abdicate their principles but to, instead, address the challenges of those principles in a more realistic context, a context that recognizes the positives and negatives of any and ALL positions.

[kentuck]

288. I think you read a lot between the lines...?

But I do tend to agree with Jim Hightower that the only thing you will find in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead armadillos...

[patrice]

292. Well, maybe that's because people are doing "middle of the road" wrong, pretending, instead of actua

ly trying to connect right and left.

Funny how we all seem to agree that things have not been right from the first (and that DOES include a fucked up Constitution that gave white propertied males a 200+ year lead in the economic rat race) and now just presto changeo whatever anyone thinks should be different should be different tomorrow, now excuses, no explanations, no mitigating factors and whatever harm an ideology produces, well that's all well and fine in the name of what SOMEONE ELSE says is a principle, especially if they hang the word constitution on that principle, or something like that. Again, I don't expect you to agree with me, I just think that we need to be honest instead of reducing everything to the over-simplified bullshit and then punishing anyone who doesn't play along with the side that I/you are on. That means that Democrats have good cause to say exactly what you said in your OP, only from the Democratic perspective instead of just from the anti-everything Democratic perspective.

[kentuck]

294. Can you explain this further?

"That means that Democrats have good cause to say exactly what you said in your OP, only from the Democratic perspective instead of just from the anti-everything Democratic perspective."

[patrice]

299. Not all opposition is about reforming Democrats, some of it is about destroying Democrats, so

Democrats have a "free" speech right to defend themselves and say that pressure to conform to the so-called "reformers" can be dishonest or at least mistaken about party positives.

Trying to pretend that the reformers and destroyers are the same thing looks very suspicious and when no one appears to want to admit that, it becomes even more connvincing that reform is not the REAL motive.

[tavalon]

415. Not confusing to me in the least

I don't play that game. I hold both parties to the same rules, the rules set up by our founding fathers.

[L0oniX]

214. Eric Holder is a fucking _______________________________! (fill in the blank)

Suggestions:
coward
serf
corporate pawn
liar
wimp
asshole
snake
bankster wannabe
ect

Bottom line is that he would never be voted into office by an informed common majority of people who still suffer from the downward pressure from the 1%.

[Dragonfli]

372. I will take all of the above please. I would also like to buy the vowel U

to be placed before the word traitor and after the Name Holder

[Corruption Inc]

215. My serious question re what posters on DU cannot say...

Why are so many posters who support republicans allowed to support republicans here, as in the suggested appointment of James Comey, a registered republican who donates money to republicans?

There are a lot of posters supporting the guy even though he's a republican and that is clearly against the DU rules. Is support of republicans for public office allowed only if the republicans are not elected?

I don't support any republicans for anything, they are clearly corrupt as a whole which is why they are republicans. So why is support for them allowed?

Serious question.

[dreamnightwind]

233. Good question

Just guessing, but I imagine if an elected Democrat nominates a Republican, the site then allows support of that nominated (not elected) Republican.

My question is a little stickier. We're required to support Democrats against Republicans, but anyone at all can call themselves a Democrat. Chafee, Arlen Spector, Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, etc. So basically if someone decides to run as a Democrat, to call themselves a Democrat, regardless of any positions they take, we're obligated to support them in the general (not the primary) election. That's a little weird. There are currently no Republicans I would support over any Democrat I know of, but there are sometimes third party candidates that I feel represent what the Democratic Party does or used to stand for more than the Democratic Party's nominee. Yet it would be against site policy to support that candidate. That doesn't feel right inside. What if a Democrat ran against Bernie Sanders (maybe one did, I don't know)? I would certainly want to be able to support Bernie.

[Dragonfli]

373. Stickier still, why was support of Charlie Crist(R/I) allowed over Meek(D) in 2010?

Or Lieberman(Lie/I) over Ned Lamont(D) in 2006? For some reason the rules about supporting Dems only, only applies if the support is left or Green which has resulted in bannings; right Independant support over Democrats appear to be the exception, no bannings resulted from supporting Lieberman or Crist over the Democrat. How sticky does that make it?

[dreamnightwind]

374. Yes, what's up with that?

Good points. Makes me sick to think of anyone supporting Lieberman. I don't recall who Crist was up against, but it's more about the general case anyway, not these specific races, but thanks for those excellent examples.

Anyone know?

Mostly though, I resent the hell out of any implication that, since Obama and/or party leadership supports unsupportable issues like indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, attacks on whistleblowers, cuts to the safety net, Heritage/Romney/ObamaCare, etc., that people here should get on board and support those policies, or even that we should keep quiet about our opposition to them. I've seen plenty of that on DU, and it shouldn't be so.

[Dragonfli]

378. IMO those that think I'm required to get on board with policies that I hate and have consistently

opposed AS a Democrat for many years should chastise their children. Either argue logically for rendition or whatever I oppose (I doubt I'll agree) and there may be debate (even hard hitting doesn't bother me) but that is all they get, demanding my loyalty or chastising me for having a consistent opposition to bad policy, they don't get, no 180s on demand.

I am a grown citizen, registered in the party over thirty years, if I find issues like indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, attacks on whistleblowers, cuts to the safety net, Heritage/Romney/ObamaCare, etc. unsupportable, I will not (and don't actually) support them. I will also not be shy in openly opposing them here, just as I have openly since they were Bush policies. In regards to the health plan, I have opposed that Heritage Foundation shit sandwich since it was the Heritage/Newt/Dole plan in '93, not here obviously because here didn't exist then but consistently.

So far, they can't force anything else, some still demand blind issue loyalty but you get to tell them to pound sand - they don't run the place. Same goes with politician loyalty, they may demand, but you don't have to blindly agree with any one Democrat on every issue, in the case of right wing Democrats I oppose them on almost all financial and trade policies sometimes.

Where it starts to concerns me, and I think you as well, is that we can not be so sure during election season - if criticising a bad policy put forth by the Democrat will get you a granite pizza or not that is a question. I feel secure that I can support his position, oppose the Republican position or even remain silent - but criticizing the Democratic candidate's position openly on an issue or certainly agreeing with the R's position on an issue is risky here at best.

I am concerned but can understand and live with that during elections, but only because a .7 on the less evil scale is still better than the usual 1.1 on the Republican more evil area of the scale and in the end one of two bad choices WILL win.

I just hope that not voting for a particular Democrat on a ticket because I feel he is really a Republican in policy, while voting Democratic on most of the ticket will keep me safe because that's all I can promise. Hell I may even vote third party or I in some spots.

I think that if I don't use this forum to promote the non-Democrat or oppose his (Democrat in name only) opponent it should still be my vote. My vote disclosed after the election should not be grounds for banning. Some talk like it is, like there is a post election full ticket loyalty test and if I don't pass it they feel it's a banning offense, I didn't used to be. I hope it stays that way.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

216. I and others agree with you, but there are a signifigant number of DUers who don't and who want to

suppress speech.

The speech-suppressors include those who take positions contrary to the 2012 Democratic Platform regarding the private ownership of firearms ("We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms&quot . The self-appointed spokesmen for the Democratic Party regularly implicitly claim that their position ban private firearm ownership represents the view of the Democratic Party and that no other voices should be heard.

The speech-suppressors also do not want things said that would have been said to criticize Bush and Bush offiicals when Bush was in office and acting in furtherance of the same or similiar Bush policies.

[kentuck]

219. And there are some...

that believe the 2nd Amendment is etched in stone and cannot be amended or repealed? If enough people wanted it and had enough political allies, it could be done. I don't think that is going to happen but the people have a right to believe that and they have a right to talk about that with out someone threatening them with an assortment of semi-automatic weapons and pretending only they have the right opinion as stated in our Bill of Rights in our Constitution. Yeah, I'm familiar with those types of "speech-suppressors"...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

258. Art V describes the process for amending the Constitution. It does not include adopting a statute

in conflict with the Constitution.

You implicitly say that you know of encountering someone who has threatened others "with an assortment of semi-automatic weapons" because someone has expressed an opinion?

I don't think that is going to happen but the people have a right to believe that and they have a right to talk about that with out someone threatening them with an assortment of semi-automatic weapons and pretending only they have the right opinion as stated in our Bill of Rights in our Constitution. Yeah, I'm familiar with those types of "speech-suppressors"...

This is important, if true.

You should report the threatening persons to the authorities.

Threatening people as a means to surpress speech "with an assortment of semi-automatic weapons" (or even one) is against the law. This is true even if such threats are made on the internet. It's probably even against DU's Terms of Service.

[kentuck]

269. As we speak...

there are plans to march on Washington and talk of a "revolution".

Now they are not just going to march on Washington, they are going to take their guns. Why are they taking their guns?? Odds are that all of these people with guns are not the most stable individuals. They are a threat to a civil society. They try to intimidate and scare people - or they just want to show off their new guns?

[heaven05]

220. +1000

thank you

[patrice]

226. Being intellectually free enough to address both sides of anything means being able to demonstrate

one's authentic and valid understanding of BOTH positives and negatives of BOTH/any/all perspectives on an issue.

I don't see that here at DU. For the most part we appear to replicate the same alienation and false dichotomies that comprise the systems that oppress us all.

It seems to me that "freedom", here at the DU, translates to being against what/whomever, like a reactionary, incapable of discovering anything that is different from, for example, "Obama-love vs. Obama-hate", or any polarity for that matter, even though in many cases that could be where the answers that are functional for more people could be in that ability to create something as new as possible, instead of yet another REACTION to some- one/thing else.

[Tarheel_Dem]

227. What are you not allowed to say that you think you should? No one except the Admins can shut down..

dialogue here. And in case you haven't noticed, DU hasn't been "Democratic" in quite some time. Many Democrats fled with the influx of Greens and Paulites, and if that's the direction Skinner wants to move his enterprise, it's certainly his prerogative. The Old Elmers have been trying to take over this board since they stormed off. Mission Accomplished! Enjoy!

Let's be honest, there's no activism taking place here. This is a place where disgruntled folks can gather to dump on Democrats. Why not just call what it is? Green/Libertarian/Troll Underground?

[patrice]

232. Sadly agree. nt

[Le Taz Hot]

238. You forgot "Naderite."

That's important.

[Tarheel_Dem]

242. I think "Green" covers those fools.

[kentuck]

280. Yep.

These "fools" are all full of "crap". I'm glad we can agree on that.

[kentuck]

248. Which one of those categories do you fit in?

Just curious?? Perhaps you can further enlighten us? I think you may be prone to exaggeration?

[Tarheel_Dem]

264. And I think you're full of crap. You've challenged the Admins, and sidestepped META in the process.

No poster here has the capability to shut down your desire to discuss anything you want, other than the ADMINISTRATORS. And since you didn't have the courage to take them on, you produce this "show me some love" vanity thread that naturally attracts all the Dem haters from across the internet. You don't want discussion, you never did. This is a call out thread to appeal to the Elmers, who have been trying to change the terms of service for DU since Obama was elected.

You want everyone to agree with you? You should take cali's advice, and start your own site, where you & only you make the rules, where you get nothing but the love an adoration you're so obviously missing IRL. There's not a thing activist about you. The mere fact that you know how to peck on a keyboard is not activism.

As for your question? I am a 4th Generation DEMOCRAT. Always have been, and always will be, because I know the alternative is too dreadful to contemplate. And third parties, especially on the left, are mostly useless endeavors full of overeducated white folks with too many degrees and absolutely no common sense. It's the mirror image of the teabaggers, who are mostly undereducated white folk who operate solely on their hatred of anything or anyone not like them.

[Bobbie Jo]

271. Spot on.

[dreamnightwind]

332. There's another alternative

" I am a 4th Generation DEMOCRAT. Always have been, and always will be, because I know the alternative is too dreadful to contemplate. And third parties, especially on the left, are mostly useless endeavors full of overeducated white folks with too many degrees and absolutely no common sense. It's the mirror image of the teabaggers, who are mostly undereducated white folk who operate solely on their hatred of anything or anyone not like them."

As a 4th generation Democrat, what does that mean to you? Are you loyal to policies or to party? Sounds like loyalty to party, because the Democratic Party represented very different things 4 generations ago.

re this statement: "because I know the alternative is too dreadful to contemplate", I can envision a return to an earlier, pre-corporate Democratic Party, with full support for civil liberties (I believe that was a problem in the past). A more democratic Democratic Party. What's so dreadful about contemplating that kind of alternative? It has to agitated for, worked for, the forces of capital are not going to just hand it to us, but it's what I think this whole thing is really all about.

[Tarheel_Dem]

346. Ugh. More liberal/libertarian hybrid claptrap. I'm a "loyal" Democrat.

I wouldn't dream of voting for a Republican, or any third party loser, in any situation, as I despise them equally. As an African American, the Democratic Party has been loyal to me, and I return the favor at every election (including midterms). The party that best serves my interest is the Democratic Party. Therefore, fuck all the rest, and that includes the liberal/libertarian hybrid that has tried to infiltrate the party I love.

Time marches on, and so does the Democratic Party! Hope that clears it up for you.

[dreamnightwind]

362. Wow, that was rude

Bye (ignore).

[Tarheel_Dem]

363. Thank God I'm not responsible for your feelings. Come on back anytime now, ya hear?

There's more where that came from.

[tavalon]

416. You place liberal with libertarian?

I do not believe you understand what the two words mean. They are not interchangeable.

[Bobbie Jo]

441. Tell these folks.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022802897

[Tarheel_Dem]

444. Thanks Bobbie Jo. You didn't get a response. Perhaps the poster should click the link & define

liberalism/libertarianism for them. I know I'll be waiting, with bated breath, for the poster's response.

[Bobbie Jo]

445. Apparently

They just don't understand. I'll await the lecture as well.

[Tarheel_Dem]

446. I hadn't seen that thread. But it further confirms what I already knew! They've taken over!

[Tarheel_Dem]

443. I see you didn't respond to this? Why's that?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2926869

[Number23]

344. I'll just go ahead and put some Glad Wrap on this thread so you can take it home with you.

That and a big chunk of the OP's behind.

[kentuck]

353. Yeah, you and whose army, Bozo?

You are nowhere close to Number 23. Keep trying.

[Number23]

368. Asinine and bewildering as always.

[Tarheel_Dem]

355. We know what some of this is about. Sadly, the teanutters didn't corner the market on "it".

[Number23]

369. I actually thought you were being exceptionally kind by calling them "educated."

But I'm bemused as hell that someone on a web site whose purpose is clearly stated as "helping elect Democrats" has a problem with posts that are supportive of Democrats.

If someone were to take this OP and change it so that they were bemoaning the abundance of critical posts, do you think it would be sitting on 200 recs? Even though an OP that did that would be actually far more in sync with the STATED PURPOSE OF THIS WEB SITE than this OP?

I just think the whole conversation is so meaningless. But as long as the recs pile up, who cares how stupid the topic is? I honestly stopped caring about who/what gets posted here a long time ago and think it's precious that the Perpetually Peeved finally have a place they can feel powerful in. I'm like 99.99999997% of the world's population in that regard, I guess.

[Tarheel_Dem]

370. You & the many Democrats who gave up caring about DU. I figure it like this....

DU is all they have. They tried to thwart our 2012 election victory. EPIC FAIL! Underground seems to suit them, because above ground, nobody gives a shit about their petty purity b.s. The president's sitting on nearly 90% approval among his true base, and that number doesn't change much. So one has to ask, is the problem really him? Or is it his smattering of increasingly impotent & bereft critics, on the left? You know which one gets my vote.

Give 'em DU, they don't have much else. I'm off to bed now. Hope to chat tomorrow.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

430. Hello!!!!

[Puglover]

265. No kidding.

Such an unhappy camper. And yet here he is.

[kentuck]

276. He would really be pissed off if I posted something controversial, I guess.

Must have got up on the wrong side of bed?

[Phlem]

311. yes but

there is something to be said at watching heads explode. How dare you question their world view. I mean just exactly what is the color of the sky in your world pal!

Pink flying elephants are the norm and how dare you speak ill of "our leader"!

Oh you will be punished!



-p

[Phlem]

315. Also

could be the because of the EPIC smack down of his leader up thread.





-p

[patrice]

230. The strength of any position is enhanced by authentic valid recognition of the POSITIVES of

opposing positions. That understanding makes one's own negative case MORE VALID, not less, but that kind of recognition is considered a weakness here at DU. Anyone who says anything positive about who/what-ever the latest object of contempt is is insulted and accused of being unprincipled. While it is true that it is quite possible that some such posters are trollish or dishonest and unprincipled, it is also true that not all are and some people may just be trying to take a stand for the truth since that's where the REAL solutions are to be found.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

237. I've learned that the Democratic Party welcomes participation from all ideological perspectives

DU? Not so much.

[tavalon]

417. I'm a socialist who caucuses with some, not all Democrats

I've been here a long time and never had my "free speech" hindered in any way.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

422. That's the beauty of the Democratic Party

We all shouldn't agree. The party should and must allow for all points of view.

I don't see that here at DU and I've been around here for awhile.

[dreamnightwind]

243. Where do the site's owners stand on this?

"But no one should be felt to believe they have to defend Holder because he is a Democrat and the President wants him to stay in his position."

I don't think Holder is a Democrat. I know he used to be a Republican. Did he ever change that? Not to my knowledge. If anyone has evidence I would be interested, I googled it a little and it wasn't obvious.

Another that people assume is a Democrat but isn't (she admitted this on Colbert's show) is Justice Kagan. Probably others we're not aware of too. Kagan would not say what her party identity is, but said people would be surprised to learn that she "believes in the constitution", which could be innocent enough, or it could have been meant in the way the right-wing justices use that phrase.

But generally to your question, it's a good one. I certainly agree with where you're coming from.

I think it really goes to who owns and runs this site. I've never felt support of the Underground part of the site's name from the site's owners, they seem to me to just be party supporters rather than party principle supporters (it should be the same but obviously isn't). There have been a number of people that I considered the very best representatives of what this party is supposed to be about banned from this site for refusing to toe the line. Others have left because of the constant attacks of the party apologista.

Personally, I don't consider Obama a Democrat. I know he calls himself one, but that isn't enough for me. Arlen Spector, Chafee, Lieberman, anyone can apparently call themselves a Democrat, and that garners them some protection on this site regardless of what they really are. That's an issue I would like to see corrected on this site, it should be about actual positions more than about what party someone says they are, IMO.

So I don't know, I like where you're coming from, but I don't know if it's actually where this site is coming from. If not, it should be. It is, after all, about the policies, not the politicians, otherwise we're all just rooting for laundry, to quote Seinfeld in a team sports analogy.

If we're just here to support whatever positions the corporate leaders of the party try to shove down our throats, we have no business using Underground in our site's name.

[patrice]

267. The site owners are doing the very same thing so many hate Obama for, only they are doing it in the

opposite end of the political spectrum and getting the benefit of calling it "Democrat" just like PO does, when actually it's not. So this could just actually be a fight for what "the third way" actually turns out to be.

[dreamnightwind]

301. Can you say that more clearly?

Without knowing where you're coming from, or frankly where they're coming from either, I can't parse your statement. I have no idea what it is you're saying so many hate Obama for, for one thing (the right hates him for being him, the left hates him for having campaigned as an agent of change but having governed as another triangulating corporatist), or which end of the political spectrum you're attributing to whom. The "third way" is an expression that implies corporate "centrism", though from what I've seen it's more concerned with the upward movement of capital than it is with being in the center of the left-right spectrum.

[alfredo]

246. Honesty is preferable, so if Dem officials read this site, they will get a true picture of the

feelings of the Dem activist.

[99th_Monkey]

250. Thank you for making these points. I TOTALLY agree with you.

I have had these very same thoughts so many times, but was actually a
little leery of putting them into a post -- though I have several times here
and there -- as I don't want to get tombstoned.

I believe DU is in a VERY UNIQUE position to exert considerable influence
on Democratic office holders and candidates; and should put that to good
use (especially on crucial constitutional issues) rather than just be a DLC
echo-chamber.

Of course DU needs to be "loyal" to Democratic Party values, but when
office-holders and/or candidates themselves are operating well outside of
those values, is especially when DU should be clear and standing strong
for Democratic values, NOT dithering and equivocating, or even worse,
be apologists for these Democrats.

[dreamnightwind]

327. +1

Good post, agree entirely.

[Fire Walk With Me]

260. Emphatic agreement. Hold their feet to the fire, hold them to FDR values.

It's not Democracy if they don't listen.

[patrice]

275. Yes, but it's also true that listening means nothing if we can't WIN and I'm just not

going to tell fairy tales about what "Let the corrupt system destroy itself without my vote, so we can start over on our own terms" means in terms of what happens to people.

[tclambert]

268. Whatever Elizabeth Warren says. That's what I agree with.

And unfortunately that is not always the official party line, or Obama administration position.

[ProSense]

274. Right-Wing Media's Fake Narrative About Rosen Warrant Now Even More Incoherent

Right-Wing Media's Fake Narrative About Rosen Warrant Now Even More Incoherent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022923192

Truth and justice is important.

[kentuck]

281. Why did people get so angry with this post?

What did I say that pissed you off this time, Ba-beee!

Perhaps it was this: "In my opinion, DU should be open to discussion of both sides." ??

Or this: "This is just my opinion but I do not think DU should be too closely tied to any partisan positions."??

Or was it this? "DU does not have the same political restrictions as the Democratic Party and it shouldn't have. "

I am truly confused by a lot of the responses.

[patrice]

289. You don't think people should be angry about the fact that DU is partisan against Democrats?

There's too much plausible deniability in what you said, kentuk.

You, perhaps, are not partisan, but that does not mean that partisans of ALL kinds are not here doing what they can to destroy Democrats. Pseudonyms make anything possible.

[kentuck]

291. I can understand that some people may not like the direction the Party is going...

But who gets defensive when you say there should be no restrictions on free speech? And why do they feel like their position is the only one that is pure? I think we should search for the facts and the truth. In regards to the Holder controversy with the NYTimes and the media in general, I will admit that I do not know all the facts. But I tend to lean to the protection of the First Amendment and I tend to be skeptical whenever any politician uses "national security" as an excuse for anything. I do know that a lot of "new rules" were created under the Bush Administration and the present Administration would not be setting any precedent if they eavesdropped on Americans, including journalists.

But what is wrong with stating that DU can say things that the Democratic Party cannot say?? Is that not true?

[patrice]

295. Free speech would be speech that doesn't acquire a benefit of any kind. I don't think we see that

much actually free speech. People say things for effects, without the effects they'd way less likely say whatever. That makes the effects the objective, not the speech itself.

If people said things without regard to their effect, but simply to express a truth, I'd consider that closer to being free than what I see going on on this board.

[dreamnightwind]

303. Huh?

I have never seen that take on the term "free speech" before, and in this context (or most any context) it makes no sense. The customary use of the term "free speech" has nothing to do with whether or not you're saying something for effect. It just means nobody is going to stop you from saying it.

[kentuck]

324. .....

[Douglas Carpenter]

296. yeah that's kind of mind boggling -- what you said should be about as controversial as praising

the virtues of good parenting.

[kentuck]

297. I was not trying to be controversial.

I thought it was a rather tame post.

But where did the anger come from? If it is just me personally, then perhaps I should stop posting?

[Douglas Carpenter]

302. i'm guessing it's a kind of paranoia - "You are either with us or you are with the Republicans!"

Last edited Fri May 31, 2013, 01:04 AM - Edit history (1)

People who raise doubts are like an annoying skeptic at an Evangelical Bible study.

[Bobbie Jo]

305. Exaggerate much?

[Douglas Carpenter]

316. never... I tell you a million times - never

[Bobbie Jo]

318. lol

[dreamnightwind]

333. That's hilarious

and spot on.

And I have been that annoying skeptic at a fundy (though not Evangelical) Bible study, not a fun gig at all. After a few questions (I was a child) you find out they're not at all interested in the issues they're teaching you, they just want conformity and blind acceptance.

[Eddie Haskell]

313. I thought it a great post.

Democrats need to think about what's being done in their name.

[kentuck]

325. Thank you Eddie!

When we stop thinking, we may as well hang up the guns and go home.

[tavalon]

418. Naw, you just pointed out something

and people started proving your point. We've had some reasonable debate here and we've had some people dig their heels in and put people on ignore and we've just done what we always do. Debate and yell and scream and in the end, we come together and vote for the corporate candidate with the D after his/her name. Same as it ever was.

[Bobbie Jo]

290. Take it up with Admin.

Seems they have defined the objectives for this site quite sufficiently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus


About Democratic Underground
Mission Statement

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
Having fun!
After more than a decade online, Democratic Underground still hosts the most active liberal discussion board on the Internet. We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic Party. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards. There is no other website quite like it anywhere on the Internet.

We are always looking for friendly, liberal people who appreciate good discussions and who understand the importance of electing more Democrats to office. So sign up today!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Terms of Service
By registering a Democratic Underground account, you agree to abide by these terms. A single violation of any of these terms could result in your posting privileges being revoked without warning.

The Democratic Underground Administrators have a great deal of confidence in our system of citizen jurors and software tools, but we are well aware that trolls are constantly on the lookout for new ways to cause trouble and therefore on rare occasions it may necessary for us to revoke a member's posting privileges for reasons that are not covered by these Terms of Service. Because of this necessity, we retain the right to revoke any member's posting privileges at any time for any reason.

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.


etc....

[kentuck]

293. I guess I am disqualified after the first bullet point?

"Interacting with friendly, like-minded people; " Sorry.

[Bobbie Jo]

306. I don't know....

All I'm saying, it is what it is.

You can completely disregard it as you see fit, apparently.

[Corruption Inc]

314. Thanks for posting this "right-wingers in general are not welcome here."

I thought I had read that in the terms of service. It also reads "Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government."

So it seems odd to me that so many people here support the nomination of James Comey, a registered republican, a republican donor and a former Bush official. Just sayin'.

[Bobbie Jo]

317. Looking for a gotcha moment?

So he's running for what office?

Good grief, people.

[Phlem]

320. No

but it is absolutely a riot.



"Come On People!"

WTF!

[Bobbie Jo]

330. WTF

Your damn self.

Do some more reading, there must be dozens of excerpts to twist and misapply for shits and giggles.

[Phlem]

335. ahh

but what comes around goes around and that's more entertaining.



yee haw!

-p

[Bobbie Jo]

338. Except

This one didn't quite make the trip.

[Phlem]

343. oooo

nice grade school rebuttal.

Can't wait for the rest.



-p

[Bobbie Jo]

351. Yeah

Says the guy who just posted....

"but what comes around goes around and that's more entertaining."




Clearly I'm dealing with a member of the varsity debate team.

[Phlem]

354. yup

I know people like you, shit, I lived around them all my life. Go ahead double down on the D6mb@$$ and fling it everywhere.

If you don't mind I'll retire from said "debate" and move on with more important things in my life oh... like math where 2+2 = 4, not some imaginary bull sht. You know Varsity debate team and all.



-p

[Bobbie Jo]

357. ...and I know people like you

I just don't let them dump on me with their condescending, smart ass remarks. When you jump into a thread with your WTF's and "that's an absolute riot" nonsense, there's a reasonable expectation that you will elicit a response.

Well, you got one.

[Phlem]

358. Shhh

don't call me condescending. I know you want the last word so go for it but when you call me condescending you sound like a hypocrite.

Now reply to me harshly one more time and I will be silent!

-p

[kentuck]

326. You make a good point.

For however long you decide to stick around? But, you should be careful messing with all those beautiful minds...

[Bobbie Jo]

328. No he doesn't.

It's a weak stretch and both of you know it.

[kentuck]

331. Yes, he does.

"So it seems odd to me that so many people here support the nomination of James Comey, a registered republican, a republican donor and a former Bush official."

How is that not a good point?

The FBI appointment is for 12 years.... 12 years. It's not a decision to be hastily made. He was admirable when he stood up to the Bush mob in Ashcroft's hospital room, as I recall... But he did say that he voted against Obama both times he had a chance to vote, by voting for McCain and voting for Romney.

Also, we should note that all the stuff they are blaming Holder for was done by the FBI, not Holder. He just happens to be over the FBI Director. So it is an important nomination.

[Bobbie Jo]

334. Then criticize the nomination,

raise questions, have dialogue. No problem there.

But to associate this particular nomination as support for RW'ers is just asinine.

[Phlem]

336. you will get no where with this one grasshopper.

don't waste your energy.

-p

[sabrina 1]

342. It's not many people who support these Republican nominations, it's just a small group who

are very loud. The hypocrisy of those who slam anyone who agrees with something a Republican might say regarding the war in Iraq eg, then cheer loudly when the President appoints yet another Republican to some powerful position is unbelievable. The excuses and twisted logic we get is simply stunning and at this point few DUers engage them at all.

As you can see from this OP, they are in the minority and are generally not the happy Liberals the rules posted above states as desirable members of this forum.

You can predict who will be out there supporting the next Republican nominee so no one is ever surprised, and you can also count on those same people attacking someone who might have the guts to say that Ron Paul eg, is right about the Drug War and about all of Bush's Wars. I think at this point most people either have them on ignore.

[Blue Owl]

300. Oh hell yes!

n/t

[Enrique]

304. the Democratic Party has their own spin doctors

and they pay them very well to spin us, and they are pros at it. They don't need us to spin each other for them for free. We're better off just saying what we think.

[AAO]

310. It would make more sense to be Progressive Underground.

Regardless of what the Democratic party does, we have progressive principles that are not being met. I just realized we'd be called PU. Maybe Liberal Underground would be better.

[Flying Squirrel]

376. Then we'd be the LUnies. Whatev n/t

[AAO]

474. Yup. Might as well just be DU.

[summer-hazz]

319. The OP, and post that followed

are very enlightening for me.

I will say this.. if someone always agreed with me, or liked
everything I did, I would question their credibility, and wonder
what the hell they were up too!

That's just me though..
hank goodness for ..." I will agree to disagree"...
Those words can solve many issues.



Warren 2016

[zentrum]

323. Agreed. Need to defend Democratic Party

......values, but not individual Democrats who in fact are subverting those values.

[YOHABLO]

339. PEOPLE ARE TOO AFRAID TO PROTEST .. AMERICAN ARE CHICKEN SHITES. NOT IN FRANCE !!

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

348. "Hillary Clinton is not the best candidate for 2016" is the first thing that comes to mind.....

...when I think of things that can be said on DU, but not by members of the Democratic Party.

[kentuck]

356. You can't be a Democrat unless you think Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for 2016??

Is that what you are saying? You can't be a member of the Democratic Party if you believe that. Well, fuck me running!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

360. In 2002 we were talking about things on DU

that are only coming to light in the mainstream now!

[midnight]

361. I agree! Let's be able to discuss both sides...

[Summer Hathaway]

379. As I understand it

this site was started as a base for discussion among Democrats. Hard to believe now, but there you have it.

The main reason DU can now say things the Democratic Party cannot say is because a great number of people who post on this site are not Democrats - never have been, never will be - and therefore say all kinds of things the Party wouldn't say, because they are not even remotely connected to what the Party is all about.

"We should stand for truth and justice which may not always be the American way."

"Truth" and "justice" by whose definition? I've seen a lot of posters here who have very differing views of what constitutes either. Who would you suggest be the final arbiter of defining those terms? Anyone you know?

"... some may be inclined to defend Eric Holder instead of the First Amendment."

Just the kind of thing I'm talking about. The question is posed as either/or; either you defend Holder OR you defend the First Amendment - as though the two are automatically mutually exclusive.

Label-Maker Inc. has obviously made a shit-load of sales on this site: disagree with a certain contingent here, and you'll get a Third Wayer, Conservadem, or, Water-Carrier for the 1%, label slapped on your post so fast, your head will spin.

I read this site for years. It used to be a great resource for determining what Democrats were thinking, feeling, upset with, or satisfied with. It is now a gathering place for people who have absolutely no idea what Dems in RL are doing or thinking - but like to play being "Democrats" on websites.

[graham4anything]

394. Best Post of 2013 so far. Plus a million.

I could write a million words here, but your post says it all.

[tavalon]

419. I've been here for ten years

And it is the same as it ever was. Same fights, same dichotomous idiocy, same thoughtful discourse, same hypocrisy. Same, same, same and people were up in arms then and now. Occasionally, I leave when the stupid rises. But the tide falls and I come back.

Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.

And I am grateful for that.

[ProSense]

423. Case in point:

The main reason DU can now say things the Democratic Party cannot say is because a great number of people who post on this site are not Democrats - never have been, never will be - and therefore say all kinds of things the Party wouldn't say, because they are not even remotely connected to what the Party is all about.

"We should stand for truth and justice which may not always be the American way."

"Truth" and "justice" by whose definition? I've seen a lot of posters here who have very differing views of what constitutes either. Who would you suggest be the final arbiter of defining those terms? Anyone you know?

"... some may be inclined to defend Eric Holder instead of the First Amendment."

Just the kind of thing I'm talking about. The question is posed as either/or; either you defend Holder OR you defend the First Amendment - as though the two are automatically mutually exclusive.

President Obama Richly Deserves to Be Dumped
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100219446

President Obama Richly Deserves to Be Dumped
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100251866

K&R if you feel President Obama Richly Deserves to Be Re-elected!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100256245

Some, not all, proved to be trolls.

People throw around the phrase "truth and justice" in a self-righteous way, as condemnation of other people's opinions here. Does that mean if you don't agree with them you're not telling the truth?

"some may be inclined to defend Eric Holder instead of the First Amendment"

Case in point.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

427. The best post in this thread!! Thank you so much! I am relieved that the "Democrats" on DU are not

representative of the larger Democratic Party. The Democratic Party, at least in theory, allows for all points of views and ideological persuasions. The "Democrats" on DU--not all, but many--have this litmus test (e.g., The Label-Maker, Inc.) for who is and who is not a real Democrat. That's not what the party is about. We're not the Republican Party that prides itself on kicking out all the liberals and moderates, daring anyone not to toe the party line.

And when you don't agree, you are charged with lacking critical thinking skills, accused of being a part of the Establishment, and my favorite one: you're shutting down debate because you don't agree with "LIBRUL PURISTS" like me!

I do tire of it. I come here to have fun and discuss different topics, not to be lectured to by people who think they know more than I do. Not to be patronized. Not to be subjected to self-righteous indignation just because I'm not "purely liberal" or don't demonize the president on every single issue and on every single thing he does (or doesn't do).

As you brilliantly put: this is a website. It is a discussion forum. This forum does not dictate what I do in my real life. The people here don't put food on my table. They didn't send me to graduate school and certainly haven't paid for my school loans. And they damn sure can't prevent me from having to take more furlough days. It's just a discussion board, nothing more, nothing less. I'm afraid of those who take it so seriously to the point that it is necessary to engage in personal attacks, snide remarks, and name calling.

I'll say it again: I am truly relieved that this forum is not representative of the larger Democratic Party.

[Puglover]

429. So maybe you should consider finding a forum that is

"representative of the larger Democratic Party." since you seem to find DU and it's posters so utterly loathsome and out of touch.

Seriously, you seem truly pained by this place as do some of the other posters in this thread. I can't imagine why some of these folks continue to post here. Pretty much the sum total of their posts consist of how much they don't care about DU, it's posters etc etc. Again and again and again and again.

Really, it's a tired meme.

Oh and BTW it's tiresome when anyone does it. No matter where they fall on this particular issue.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

433. Not pained by "this place" at all. Again, I come here to enjoy fruitful discussion. TO DISCUSS...

Not to condescend, name-call, or ridicule those who don't think like me.

The Democratic Party is comprised of all types of Democrats. I'm here at DU because I believe that it should also allow for various expressions and not just the " I'll only accept you if you're purely liberal like me" crap. That's not the Democratic Party. We don't kick out moderates, conservatives or liberals. This is not the Republican Party. I'm not going to let the purists win by leaving. We need ALL kinds of Democrats here on DU, not just the purists.

As you can see, I've been here for quite some time. I still enjoy DU in general, even though I may not enjoy the smugness of some people here. And I clearly stated that not all are like that. Nevertheless, I will stay here because, again, all perspectives should be welcomed. And even when we disagree, perhaps there's something we can learn from each other.

In sum, I am a grown-ass woman. I do what I want to do when I want to do it. I don't need people on DU suggesting what I should do or not do.

[Puglover]

436. Well alrighty then.

Have a nice day!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

437. And you too...

[Puzzledtraveller]

496. Well said Stalwart

especially

I am truly relieved that this forum is not representative of the larger Democratic Party.

[LWolf]

438. Your understanding might be limited.

This site was started in response to the 2000 selection. It welcomed Democrats AND OTHER PROGRESSIVES. It identified itself as a "left-wing" discussion site. Please note that, with DU3, that self-identification as "left-wing" has disappeared.

When I started reading DU in '02, I was quite moderate compared to much of what I was reading. These days I'm way too far left for the site, and the interesting thing is that my positions haven't changed. I've seen so many long-time posters from the left leave, voluntarily and not. There was always tension between the dual identification of "supportive of the Democratic Party" and "left-wing," because the Democratic Party is NOT left-wing. When push came to shove, the party always won. And still does.

While all primaries tended to be ugly, the '08 primary was the ugliest I've ever seen, pitting race against gender and leaving issues behind. So many supported Obama because "he's not dlc," when he's more of a neoliberal than HRC ever was. Still, the need to evict the pretender and get a Democrat into the WH overrode all of that ugliness; DU came together to elect Obama.

Once a Democrat was in the WH, the site quickly moved above ground and began to mirror the president; it became more and more centrist, more and more mainstream, and those of us from the left who were still speaking out from the left against the neoliberal actions of the new administration became the enemy. Some left. Some were evicted. Some of us stayed, and kept speaking out, but censored what we had to say a lot more strictly. It's only recently that more and more DUers have become disenchanted with their neoliberal office holders, and the voices against the neoliberal takeover of the party have been growing.

I see that as a good thing. I think you can be a Democrat, support the Democratic Party, AND FIGHT LIKE HELL TO REVERSE THAT TAKEOVER. A"D" next to a politician's name does not make him or her a good Democrat, and a party that cannot be held accountable to party members is dangerous.

[ucrdem]

440. I don't see Obama as a centrist but I guess it depends on your priorities.

HRC promised in a televised debate to bomb Iran. Obama was not a senator when the IWR was voted on but he did say something about "dumb wars" and that in my view is what got him elected. He hasn't bombed Iran and he has scaled back the military. Would HRC have done that? Her enthusiasm for the Libyan invasion suggests not. That to me puts Obama far to the left of HRC on any meaningful scale. YMMV.

[LWolf]

484. If your priorities

have anything to do with things like:

reversing the privatization of every public service

domestic infrastructure

labor

education

civil liberties

social safety nets

narrowing, and then closing economic gaps

putting people before corporations

then you recognize that he is a neoliberal.

I don't need to argue the ridiculous fight about hrc and obama; I didn't support EITHER of them, and I thought the gender/race wars back in '08 were humiliating to the Democratic Party.

If you think Obama was against the war on terror, then you obviously weren't paying attention to what he said about Pakistan before the election, and to what he's done after being elected; more than 5 years in, we're still fighting in the middle east. GB is still in operation. The Patriot Act still stands, Homeland Security is still operating.

[ucrdem]

486. OK. You said in #438 "he's more of a neoliberal than HRC ever was,"

and that DU had "became more and more centrist" after Obama was elected. That was about the only substantial point I could divine, and since you didn't offer any specifics, I addressed it using an issue I personally value highly: shrinking the US military footprint, or less euphemistically, getting out of the global shakedown business.

Now in your second post post I see you have in mind mainly domestic issues, and I gather you feel that Obama has a more neoliberal economic policy than you'd like, i.e one more inclined toward free trade, open markets, and globalism generally. Fine, but what makes you think HRC or anyone else would be any better? Judging by the Bill Clinton presidency I'd expect HRC to be exactly as neoliberal as Obama, if not more. If you have some metric you're using to compare them let me know, but domestically I think we're doing as well as we could hope -- better than in Bill's day when you consider ACA, and economic indicators are surging, so I expect the Obama recovery to soon make itself felt by all.

That leaves foreign policy, and in that realm Obama is measurably distinguishable from HRC, or "to the left" of her if that makes you feel better, as I discussed just above. This being the case, I'm not sure what everyone is so exercised about.

[LWolf]

488. You haven't seemed to divine

the point I made quite bluntly: I don't much like HRC OR Obama, and am not going to re-fight the '08 debacle that represented a primary. Neither of them are worth my time or effort, and neither of them are left of center. To help you understand, I'll post this, which has been posted repeatedly over the years. I find it the most accurate measure of its sort:




Since this compass is based, not on words but record, you'll notice how far Obama's placement has moved since his first term:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/us2012.php

[ucrdem]

489. We get it already. Now the problem with that graphic is this:

a) It's just a graphic, and doesn't tell me a damn thing about any of them; when I click the link, I get the same graphic with a few different names, but still as wordless and mute as a globed fruit, to paraphrase Mr Macleish;

b) I have no idea which issues the cartoonist is using to plot these politicians, or what votes, or whose assessments, or how much weight s/he's giving anything, that is if s/he actually used any objective criteria, which I doubt; and finally

c) Sticking Ron Paul in the same quadrant as Obama makes the whole thing utterly ridiculous, even malicious in the sense that it feeds the stupid and toxic meme that politicians are all alike and that R and D are meaningless distinctions. That's a lie designed to confuse and discourage Democratic voters, as I imagine this graphic also is, and I strongly recommend that you reject it.

[LWolf]

490. Simply search the site.

It explains the compass in great detail. I'm sure you are up to it.

If you did so, you'd see that your limited perspective is not the only way to classify politics.

[ucrdem]

491. What site?

[ucrdem]

492. Okay, found it, searched it, found it worthless, sorry.

Basically it's some kind of personality test and really has nothing to do with politics. Also, the plotting criteria are nowhere to be found. F#ck that sh#t, if I may say so. It has nothing, but nothing, to do with this discussion, sorry.

[LWolf]

494. Well, that explains that.

One who can't read, comprehend, find information, think outside a narrow personal perspective, or acknowledge anything that doesn't fit that perspective isn't worth the time talking to.

[ucrdem]

495. It explains exactly that, yes.

But I didn't want to say it.

[Summer Hathaway]

449. My point exactly ...

I'm way too far left for the site

he's more of a neoliberal than HRC ever was.

it became more and more centrist

those of us from the left

still speaking out from the left

the neoliberal actions of the new administration

Sadly, this site has become a place where nothing else is as important as affixing labels to ones self and to others.

"It's only recently that more and more DUers have become disenchanted with their neoliberal office holders."

I can't fault you for saying that, if you are looking only to DU for your perspective. The truth is that many of the Obama and Dem Party supporters abandoned DU quite a while ago, having been replaced, to a great extent, by trolls - trolls who post anti-Obama/anti-Dem spew and are therefore embraced by the leftier-than-thou as one of their own. You'd Better Believe It.

But, hey, thanks for choosing the genuine Label-Maker TM for all of your political posting needs!

[Number23]

453. The Label-Maker gets so much work here he can now put his kids through college!

Label-Maker Jr. is pleased.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

477. The place does not run itself.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but we now have Ask the Administrators, and it is always busy in there. Skinner and EarlG are on site during the week, and it shows.

I doubt very much that they are drawing a nice paycheck. Most people can't afford to give much.

I wish you well. I hope they don't revoke your posting privileges.

[LWolf]

482. My perspective doesn't come from DU;

that's just what I've observed here in more than a decade of reading. Which is more than you can say.

You present a pretty damned hypocritical perspective on labels, imo.

The truth is that many of the Obama and Dem Party supporters abandoned DU quite a while ago, having been replaced, to a great extent, by trolls - trolls who post anti-Obama/anti-Dem spew and are therefore embraced by the leftier-than-thou as one of their own. You'd Better Believe It.

[YoungDemCA]

447. Many of the responses to your OP prove your point...

And it goes beyond loyalty to the Democratic Party. I understand that.

What I don't understand is the unshakeable loyalty to and defense of politicians and elected officials who have demonstrated, time and time again, that they are anything but "progressive." Furthermore, all criticism of those officials and politicians is automatically labeled as "enabling Republicans" or "professional Leftists." That type of thing just shuts down discussion and drives more and more people away from the Democratic Party.

The Party should be responsive to the people, not the other way around, though you wouldn't think that with some of the posts here.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

478. The Father Knows Best wing vs the left has been around since the inception of DU.

Which makes the place interesting and entertaining.

[adric mutelovic]

483. True

Recommended.