General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsContrary to popular opinion, DU is supposed to be for politically *liberal* people. Either that or
Last edited Sun Oct 27, 2013, 08:29 AM - Edit history (3)
the TOS needs updating:
We may need an official definition, but I don't see how those who are in agreement with Right Wing talking points can fit any valid definition of liberal.
Edit: It has been noted in the replies that the TOS also says this:
It would be a very uncommon definition of liberal that includes Centrists. So, either the TOS is defining liberal in a radical way, or the TOS is contradicting itself.
Note: Either way, the TOS clearly excludes a number political types: Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, right-wingers, 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.
Final Edit: For those who accuse me of saying the TOS should be changed to make DU adhere to my "personal bias" about who can post here and who can't or who is liberal and who isn't, please copy and paste the part where I said that.
Nevermind. You can't, because that's not what I said. Nor is it what I meant. If your comprehension skills are that weak, or you have some need to have what I said be
something you feel like railing against, that's your problem. Nothing to do with me, so rail away. Enjoy your projections.
Buh bye.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)as someone else pointed out earlier, just because someone posting here would put Abby Hoffman to shame in their liberal acts and thoughts and sticking it TO THE MAN! It doesn't mean others further from the outer edges of the bell curve are NOT liberal.
So I guess it's just one of those subjective things that become apparent over time as posters share their views intentionally and unintentionally.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Don't believe everything you see on the internet would be my advice.
The outer edges can be liberal, but usually they expose their conservative tendencies by supporting spying, war on Syria and anti-environmentalism.
Basically they have an authoritarian slant that become apparent over time.
And they all end up like dfk.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Most liberal view is against that stuff. But we get those on here who get away with supporting that crap.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)some parameters related to that, or it's not a site for liberals. I'd like to know which it is.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Being that anyone can log in, be they from fox news or even Canada!!, it takes a while for them to be exposed as non-liberal. Of course, we are a very tolerant bunch, and, like kittens, sometimes like to play with the mice.
We really don't need to be preaching just to the choir, do we?
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)there is plenty of diversity among even those who would easily fit a pretty liberal definition of liberal, that there is still a lot to discuss.
If DU is for people who are not liberal, the TOS ought to be changed.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)what we are arguing about is spying on Americans. I don't think I've ever been cool with that.
War on Syria? Never did I want a war with Syria. I was behind the president's communicated plan to take out some of Assad's capabilities with strikes because I think he should in some way be held accountable for all he has done as a ruthless dictator--most recently gassing his own people. I do not support ground wars in general.
Anti-environmentalism? Where the FUCK did you get that notion?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Spying on people law enforcement has reason to believe is engaged or will engage in criminal acts is a different matter that has been well established as necessary to rule of law.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Bryant
treestar
(82,383 posts)with the extreme label of the opposite.
Why can't we "support spying?" Your definition of liberal is so far off the scale that you think this country does not deserve to defend itself? Should be spied on by not able to spy. Really?
Why could we not support doing something about Syria? You are saying to be a true liberal we have to let other countries do whatever they will as far as the use of weapons? There is a difference between where there was no evidence Saddam had WMD to the clear proof there was use of WMD in Syria. If it were proven to your satisfaction that Saddam had WMD, then a liberal should have shrugged their shoulders and let Saddam do as he would?
MSNBC likely accounted for all viewpoints, and in that case, the center is not where you are trying to claim it is. Numbers of people matter. It is silly to label people from your own perspective. Instead admit you are further to the left than some, but quit trying to redefine left to mean only the most extreme left.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)then some definition ought to be put forward. Otherwise, using that word in the TOS is meaningless and it ought to be removed.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)We don't need a DU Talmud spelling out every single word or action that can be deemed liberal vs. not libera. That's kind of barking at the moon.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)would agree are far from liberal. And I'm not the only one saying that. So, I don't know that we all have the same general idea of what it means.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)to determine what their true views are rather than trying to build a predetermined maze of "correct" ways of posting and participating here.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)just like to know what it means.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)There are self-proclaimed liberals on DU who defend the spying, defend SS cuts or simply deny that they were ever offered or want us to wait to say anything about it until it's too late, defend drone strikes, defend free trade, defend war posturing... they defend things not based on principle, but based on who is doing them.
I am really at the point of thinking that they are calling themselves liberal simply to water down the meaning of the word liberal so as to make people think that liberals agree with their centrist views and they can then continue moving the country further to the right and go the DLC way, the Third Way, or whatever way that is, most certainly the wrong way.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)exactly what any one person thinks it means, but there have to be some agree-upon parameters or the term is meaningless.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)liberal (adj.) Look up liberal at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., "generous," also, late 14c., "selfless; noble, nobly born; abundant," and, early 15c., in a bad sense "extravagant, unrestrained," from Old French liberal "befitting free men, noble, generous, willing, zealous" (12c.), from Latin liberalis "noble, gracious, munificent, generous," literally "of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free man," from liber "free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious," from PIE *leudh-ero- (cf. Greek eleutheros "free"
, probably originally "belonging to the people" (though the precise semantic development is obscure), and a suffixed form of the base *leudh- "people" (cf. Old Church Slavonic ljudu, Lithuanian liaudis, Old English leod, German Leute "nation, people;" Old High German liut "person, people" but literally "to mount up, to grow."
With the meaning "free from restraint in speech or action," liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning "free from prejudice, tolerant," which emerged 1776-88.
In reference to education, explained by Fowler as "the education designed for a gentleman (Latin liber a free man) & ... opposed on the one hand to technical or professional or any special training, & on the other to education that stops short before manhood is reached" (cf. liberal arts). Purely in reference to political opinion, "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" it dates from c.1801, from French libéral, originally applied in English by its opponents (often in French form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness) to the party favorable to individual political freedoms. But also (especially in U.S. politics) tending to mean "favorable to government action to effect social change," which seems at times to draw more from the religious sense of "free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions" (and thus open to new ideas and plans of reform), which dates from 1823.
. . . .
This is the attitude of mind which has come to be known as liberal. It implies vigorous convictions, tolerance for the opinions of others, and a persistent desire for sound progress. It is a method of approach which has played a notable and constructive part in our history, and which merits a thorough trial today in the attack on our absorbingly interesting American task. [Guy Emerson, "The New Frontier," 1920]
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal
(obsolete) Unrestrained, licentious.
1599, William Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, Act 4 Scene 1
Myself, my brother, and this grieved count,
Did see her, hear her, at that hour last night,
Talk with a ruffian at her chamber-window;
Who hath indeed, most like a liberal villain,
Confess'd the vile encounters they have had
A thousand times in secret.
Widely open to new ideas, willing to depart from established opinions or conventions; permissive.
Her parents had liberal ideas about child-rearing.
(politics) Open to political or social changes and reforms associated with either classical or modern liberalism.
Younger people tend to be more liberal than older people.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/liberal
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)It can't mean tolerant of all other opinions, because people have been banned from DU. I'd like to know what criteria are used here.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And not being so black and white about it.
Why it is hard for others to admit that a liberal for instance can be a capitalist who just wants regulation is beyond me. It's the same as right wingers calling a person a communist because they believe there should be some regulation of capitalism. In other words, these people are insisting on labeling anyone to the right or left of them with the extreme label.
Which is how you have people calling Obama a Marxist and a Conservative - they are telling us where they are coming from, that's all. It is people who insist their own views be used to measure the views of others.
Whereas what is wrong with the reality of saying "I'm so far to the left that I can't stand Obama" or "I am so far to the right I can't stand Romney." Reality is reality.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)people.
treestar
(82,383 posts)due to their being slightly to the right of them is the problem. People are always calling us "centrists" when we are liberals. Yet there is a reality about what positions are really centrists or liberal.
Volaris
(11,621 posts)"...working within the system to get more DEMOCRATS elected..."
and therein lies the crux of the discussion. This place isn't JUST for liberals. It's ALSO a place for cheerleaders of the Democratic Party, and if The Party is doing something that "liberals" don't much like or flat disagree with, well....
Teddy Roosevelt was a liberal by ANY definition we here would understand, but he was a REPUBLICAN.
Would he be welcome here, or would the TOS require us to shun him?
THAT, I think, is the question that I would like answered.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)for teens who like to read books, my club is not for teens AND people who like to read books. It is for people who are teens who, in addition to being teens, like reading books.
So, technically, TR would be welcome here only if he would also support Democratic candidates and meet the other requirements. The TOS does not excluded Republicans, as long as they are liberals, not America haters, not crackpots, etc. If the TOS means to excluded Republicans, it needs to be rewritten.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)"working within the system"
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)think that statement means, would you please?
"Working within the system".
I'd be interested in knowing what that means to you.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)NOT crash and burn with chaos and anarchy to build some new "system".....not revolution...
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)I appreciate the reply.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The jury system allows comments to the effect that Democrats are no better than Republicans, that not voting for Democrats is a proper punishment for some of them not being liberal enough, and the slams against cheerleaders are allowed.
Yet cheerleaders should fit into the TOS whereas suggesting third party votes should not.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)dilution is their solution to the liberal problem.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Nestles nicely with the Republican "smears" that Obama is an ultra-liberal or socialist. He's not; not even close. But if Obama can be cast as Liberal, then traditional Democratic values can be easily discarded as "far/fringe Left."
cui bono
(19,926 posts)elected, moving the party farther right.
The Dems put out the fire as best they can, drowning out their leftward faction, moving the party farther right.
Hm... it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if they wanted the party to remain/move left they would embrace liberals. Something is not quite right there.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)policies, but are afraid of the consequences of admitting that support. For instance, they are afraid they will lose their own seats. Their fear then contributes to the marginalization, even demonization, of lefties. And the cycle continues, and allows the Rightward movement that the Republicans benefit from.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)So if funds are appropriated to interject paid voices into the political dialog, those voices will speak for the right, not the left.
And I believe those voices out themselves everyday here, by rationalizing non-liberal ideals as pragmatic and diplomatic necessities, and trying to muddle every thread so no consensus can be reached on a solution because every thread ends in a pissing match about what the true problem is.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)They really are disruptors. Most of them don't even argue policy and simply post snide and snarky retorts.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Thank you.
G_j
(40,562 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 26, 2013, 11:21 AM - Edit history (1)
blurring what was traditionally thought of as liberal is a serious problem.
Reagan declared war on the "L word", bleeding heart liberals.
Right leaning centrists do the same when they pronounce themselves "liberal".
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)will come to believe they are liberals, which then moves things farther Rightward, etc., etc., etc. Lots of snarling here to the effect of, "You don't get to decide what is liberal and what is not." No one person does, but as a group we ought to have some aggregate power to define it, or it is meaningless.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Really? There's a clue.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)fall into a normal distribution roughly approximating a bell curve.
This has nothing to do with the book in the 90's if that's what you're thinking.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)people. DUs TOS does not say DU is an online community for all people. Yes, within any population, a bell curve generally applies. That population must first be defined.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)And mainly we do those things because it's makes the math convenient and it is fucking great for propaganda purposes, you can make statistics support just about anything.
How do you prove some population follows a normal distribution? You "sample" a "large part" of the population and draw a graph and take the difference integral for the two. If it's small enough, you think it must be normal. You do not assume modest sample sizes will do the job, that would be using statistics to prove statistics applies.
This is almost never done, large samples, it is expensive and the results are hard to pooh-pooh if they come out wrong. Nobody wants that. A 5% confidence level is just right to go either way with, use it if you like it, ignore and keep trying, it if it's not convenient.
But most of the time it is just assumed. The whole point of statistics is to be able to assume that small samples will do, and to make calculations convenient with relatively the small sample sizes so you can attack your enemies with the results. But unfortunately this procedure creates a lot of factoids and pseudo-knowledge.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Comments whereby you choose to ignore decades of empirical data regarding population dispersion and validity of statistical sampling is odd.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I can assure you I understand statistics. The normal distribution is not normal in the real world, their are humps and valleys and gaps in things, reality is not smooth, it is lumpy, discrete. You also have to assume randomness, which is at best problematical both theoretically and pragmatically, people often do not get it right.
What it is is a convenient hypothesis that is way over-used with little to support it. People in the physical sciences generally use statistics properly and understand what they are doing. Elsewhere, generally they are used as marketing tools or flashy mumbo-jumbo to advance ones career, it is a litany of unfalsifiable twaddle, constantly having to correct itself, because it is used to project opinions and control debate rather than establish facts.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20131027,0,1228881.column
cui bono
(19,926 posts)That is fucking hilarious that it's so far off the mark. Where is this test?
Being liberal isn't really subjective. You can't defend Bush/Reagan policies and attack liberal organizations and still be a liberal. It really does mean something.
I know the RW made it a bad word, and now it seems that since the left still wears that label proudly the centrists want to coopt it so they can water it down and make it not mean anything. But it does mean something. Always has, always will.
GreenPartyVoter
(73,386 posts)(Edited to give the thread instead so people can see others' results.)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'm pretty certian that would surprise many here that have read my posts ... But being a BHL, doesn't/shouldn't blind one to political realities.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)"Working within the system" That is a contentions point for many, especially those who feel we have become far too cozy with the corporatist side of things. Then there is the privacy concerns brought about by the NSA revelations. That was like a civil war here when that was at it's peak.
To edit; Working within the system in regards to which way we go, establishment vs. more liberal progressives. One only needs to look at the Hillary threads to see we are not all in chorus.
SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)Those are both fine posting here. dkf wasn't a super progressive, they were an "entitlement reformer", anti-ACA, right-wing talking point spouting serial offender. It's one thing to dislike the inadequacies of the ACA and to advocate for something better. But this poster consistently advanced libertarian arguments. Libertarians do not belong on this site; their ideology is fundamentally incompatible with any form of governance, much less anything that could be considered left-wing in nature. The tent may be big, but at some point you have to call a right winger a right winger.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)At some point it seems premeditated, because it probably is.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)because you can define that pretty broadly to exclude a number of moderate liberals.
Bryant
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here." It seems pointless to say that unless those terms can be defined to a reasonably agreed-upon degree.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I guess i am thinking more in the realms of the economy - as there are all sorts of possible economic opinions one can have without, in my opinion, making one a right winger.
Bryant
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)liberal, in my view. That was the point of my OP. The TOS says says this site is for "politically liberal people." If there are no parameters, then the TOS ought not to say that.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)and the Dems as a whole, at least the elected ones, are not liberal. So there's a bit of disconnect there.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)read books, one must be a teen to become a member. One must also be one who likes to read books.
The TOS begins, "Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who..." So, one must be a liberal who meets the conditions that follow.
I see what you're saying as far as the disconnect in terms of the fact that not all Democratic politicians are liberals, but, if one is a liberal, s/he is most likely going to be a Democrat. But, of course, I can't say for sure what the TOS writers would say about that.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)There are those here who feel that it's not liberal to want a balanced budget; there are those here who feel that it's not liberal to be in favor of free trade; there are some here who really feel like even capitalism isn't liberal - but I can point too well respected liberals who support all of those positions (really I could just point to Clinton who many respect).
Bryant
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Free trade has done nothing but hurt the people of this country while enriching the corporations. That is most definitely not liberal.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)There are clearly prominent liberals who hold a different opinion than yours - would they be allowed to participate on this board?
For the record I think many if not most free trade agreements have had huge and negative consequences; I do think that trade is necessity and can be beneficial - but the way it is conducted is often to the detriment of both our nation and other nations.
Bryant
cui bono
(19,926 posts)If something benefits corporations to the detriment of the people it simply is not liberal. I don't see how anyone who considers themselves liberal can favor free trade.
If one is liberal only on social issues and not on economic issues, it's really not enough, is it? I mean you can support same sex marriage or equal rights for women or a woman's right to choose and work to enact supportive legislation so that people think you're not so bad, then go out and cause economic ruin for 99% of the people, so what difference does it make to give people some social freedom when ultimately they are going to live horrible lives enslaved in an oppressive economic environment?
You can be economically liberal and not be a liberal socially, and then what good is that? People can live comfortable lives financially yet not be able to have equal rights if they are LGBT or a woman or a minority. That's not very good either.
So does one trump the other? Seems to me you really have to be liberal across the board to really be considered "a liberal". Otherwise you are just a socially liberal and fiscally conservative (or vice-versa) and you are proposing hurting people with your views, and that's not liberal. It's been shown in the last few decades that free trade doesn't work. Trickle down doesn't work. So I don't see how anyone can be a liberal and argue for that.
As to participating on a message board, I don't know... is there a litmus test? Should there be a list of issues and a certain percentage of agreement deemed acceptable? Then if it can be shown that you disagree with too many items you are banned?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Basically you can't be opposed to gay marriage or civil rights for homosexuals - i thought you couldn't be opposed to legal abortion either, but maybe you can.
The OP though is about what kind of people should be participating at DU - how liberal does one need to be.
I tend to be closer to the right on this board (and I stress on this board) when it comes to economic issues; I am pro-capitalism although I want to see a well regulated capitalism rather then the very weak regulations we see now. I'd also like to see a resurgence in the Union movement - i think it's foolish to pretend that big corporations have the same interests as their workers.
But I think that corporations do have a role in the economy. Just not the overly destructive one they have now.
Bryant
cui bono
(19,926 posts)and salaries.
I don't mind people stating differing views on things like this. It's to be expected. What I think is a worse offense and should be taken into consideration for banning is people whose seemingly every post is nothing but snark or snide retorts, no substance, no policy discussion and usually a few 
s or s in there to make it seem like they were right. When pressed for their viewpoints and asked questions they refuse or are unable to enter into a real discussion or to back up the claims they made. Those are the ones I think deserve to be shown the door. I mean this is a discussion board, if they're not willing to discuss they shouldn't be here, especially when they are only being snarky and disruptive.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)it wasn't too long ago that perfectly respectable DU members in good standing could spout off about not being in favor of marriage equality, and could point to Barack Obama as justification.
Only after he EVOLVED on the issue did it become a bedrock principle that marriage equality rights MUST be respected here on DU.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)Volaris
(11,621 posts)is not liberal? That seems the more factual statement...and publicly -funded elections would go a long way alleviating this particular problem, BTW.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)so while I think we should get money out of elections, I don't think that the politicians are liberal, I think they can only be elected if they aren't really liberal.
So yes, it comes down to the system, the corporate owned system, that created the situation where liberals just can't get elected. They aren't even allowed to be the candidate in a lot of cases. So the elected Dems are also not liberal.
Volaris
(11,621 posts)If the consensus answer is "no", then there's a VERY serious problem for any self-professed Liberal in America today, that requires new avenues of exploration and problem-solving that the Democratic Party simply CANNOT provide.
And that, frankly, is kind of terrifying.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)If we have public financing, everyone gets to spend the same amount, no exceptions. Everybody gets the same amount of free airtime. Those airwaves are supposedly owned by the public, so the corporations can damn well give out some of it for free during elections. Perhaps limit the time people are allowed to campaign? I mean the length of time campaigning runs now is obscene.
That would at least give everyone more equal footing to be heard, and also less opportunity for the politicians to be swayed by campaign donors.
Oh, there would have to be some legislation regarding PACs and third party ads.
Then the people need to get involved and push the politicians to the left. The centrists need to stop telling everyone not to criticize until something actually happens. I mean that's how democracy works, the people make their voices heard and the politicians then are supposed to enact the will of the people.
Also, I think we need to look at corporate control of our media. And whether blatant lies should be allowed from "news" stations.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I also think there are some here that confuse neo-liberals with liberals - neoliberalism is actually quite far to the right on the scale and has almost nothing in common with liberalism.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)right/left are fundamentally about economics. If you believe in laissez-faire unregulated capitalism? You're a right-winger. Social issues are distractons.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Decaffeinated
(556 posts)Can't see any way that could be a big fat flop...
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I wish we had more Independent candidates that were more liberal than some of our Dem candidates.
And, I think that being anti-abortion is actually a liberal stand. I'm also against the death penalty, and war, and guns, for the same reasons. But should I be banned for my stand against abortion?
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)you can make sure you personally never get an abortion or irresponsibly impregnate a woman who is now faced with that choice.
But it is wrong for others to force their beliefs on someone else in a personal health choice.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)That is simply how you frame the issue. I think that we ought to support life, period. That is how I frame the issue.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)You don't support female autonomy.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Let me ask you something: If a woman was nine months pregnant, and the baby was completely healthy, would you support an abortion and killing of the child?
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I hope you're not saying that. 
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)
No Vested Interest
(5,293 posts)We were Democrats before this was even an issue - statewise & Roe v Wade.
NickB79
(20,298 posts)A coworker of mine recently almost lost his wife due to an ectopic pregnancy. If they hadn't gone to the hospital immediately, she would have died.
What is your stance on this?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)It is highly unlikely that in those pregnancies the fetus is still alive.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)save the life of the woman. If the woman gets ultrasounded early and they find an fallopian tube ectopic pregnancy, they can and do terminate it. The DUer this subthread is about seems against even that.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Abort.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Without Roe v. Wade the woman may have had to carry until she died from rupture complications because the decision was left up to her doctor or hospital or government.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)
REP
(21,691 posts)How can you take that chance??
Once again, you speak without knowledge.
hooverville29
(163 posts)pertaining to me and me alone. I also believe that's a moral decision that each person has to make on their own.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)If you support "life" you can not refuse to provide one of your kidneys, part of your liver, your bone marrow, and at least a half of your lung to someone who needs transplant and going to die without it.
REP
(21,691 posts)I've already asked her. Sacrifices are for bad, bad slutty sluts - not her.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)
Ms. Toad
(38,475 posts)Although only one of those is real in any practical sense (there is a bone marrow registry: http://bethematch.org/
Many people who support life in the fullest sense and who have trouble reconciling support for abortion with supporting life, do regularly donate blood, register as bone marrow donors, register for organ donation after death - and several friends of mine either have been, or have volunteered to be, tested to be a live liver, kidney, or lung donors.
If you claim to support all life, where do you draw the line - since it is nearly impossible to draw it in a way which will not create some internal inconsistencies.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)REP
(21,691 posts)Unless she's changed her position lately, she's anti-choice.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)if she does than that crosses a line.
Cards on table, I'm not comfortable with the practice of abortion; I was adopted as was my Brother and Sister - i can't help but personalize it a bit. But I would never attack a woman for choosing to have an abortion, and I don't think I would offer my opinion unsolicited (if I was asked I would say what I think).
And I don't think that the Government should be deciding whether or not a woman can have an abortion; think that should be up to her in consultation with her doctor (and in an ideal situation with the Father as well, but obviously there are lots of situations where that's not desirable).
Bryant
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)REP
(21,691 posts)It was in a reply to me on DU2. I don't have it bookmarked and I don't feel like searching right this moment (recent surgery and I'm holding my tablet in the chopped and stitched appendage), but another Member has provided some other of her noxious pontificating.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)That's a pretty serious charge.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 26, 2013, 10:36 AM - Edit history (3)
287. I have no problem at all with history, riderinthestorm.
I'm just now seeing your post, or I would have answered it sooner. As you can see, I've been barraged with posts regarding this issue.
I and another couple of people on DU had a big flame war on this issue; I don't remember how long ago it was, but it was on the old DU. At that time, Skinner made all parties involved put each other on ignore. He also expressed his discomfort with my calling abortion murder. I think he explained it (or someone did; I don't remember) that murder is a legal term, and as long as abortion is not against the law, or the legislature has not labeled it as murder, it's not murder; it's homicide.
That's the correct term for it. But, he said another thing, which I have since thought about. He (or someone else; I don't recall this long after) said something to the effect of the term "murder" bothering people. Think about that--suppose a woman had had an abortion and someone came along, like I did, and started calling what they had done murder. How would that make them feel? Do I want to be responsible for making someone feel like that, when absolutely NOTHING good could come of it? The child is already dead; gone. The only thing that remains is the person who had the abortion.
I have no desire to make people feel bad. None, whatsoever. Because, when you do that, you alienate those people. And, when you alienate those people, they don't hear what you have to say.
There is nothing to hide here, riderinthestorm. Same old Th1onein; same views. And, there is no new "tact," riderinthestorm.
Let me ask you something: Is there really a reason to accuse me of that sort of dishonesty? I have never been anything but straightforward about my views on this issue. Must I be vilified and condemned as no better than Paul Ryan, Todd Akin, etc.? Is that necessary to your argument?
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1628025
And Skinner's clarification:
353. I didn't.
Last edited Sat Oct 27, 2012, 09:46 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
I have no interest in getting dragged into this discussion, but I would like to make something clear. I never told Th1onein that the word "homicide" is okay. I told Th1onein to stop using the word "murder." Homicide and murder are the same thing. Using either word to describe abortion is highly offensive and inflammatory.
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1643856
Response to Reply #85
91. I believe that abortion is murder.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5435856&mesg_id=5436268
Response to Reply #34
37. "Murder" is a legal term. Reasonably, it should not be used in
a world where abortion is legal. I think "homicide" is the better word.
And, please, don't turn this discussion into a personal attack. I don't do that to you; and I don't expect it to be done to me; it has no place here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x251126#265440
Response to Original message
23. I voted other.
I believe that abortion should be illegal. I believe that it is the murder of another human being. Having said that, however, abortion is just one issue and I cannot base my vote on one issue, alone. There is more than one way to murder a human being, and I think that the Republicans are murdering human beings in many different ways. And I have never, nor will I EVER, vote for a Republican. Period.
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1939959#1941124
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Beyond offensive and inflammatory.
Poster should have been banned a long time ago.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)
DURHAM D
(33,019 posts)Why is she here?
Actually, she is probably a he or otherwise known as an "internet woman".
Response to JTFrog (Reply #268)
LiberalLoner This message was self-deleted by its author.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Very helpful, I appreciate your efforts.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)as I understand it.
Bryant
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Volaris
(11,621 posts)The intellectual and argumentative precision required to hang out here is sometimes staggering. It's also what makes this place so fantastic. It's always a kind of testing ground. Like good science, it's always ready to utterly destroy poorly-conceived arguments and positions.
My many and eternal thanks to all of you for that =).
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Pro-choice is a fundamental stance to almost anyone on the left and is very clearly a fundamental tenant of the Democratic platform. Being anti-abortion is woman hating nonsense and I am absolutely not afraid at all of saying that to you on this board. Want to know why? Because such blatant woman hating is not allowed on here.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)I don't see anti-abortionists being banned. In fact, I see a lot of posts espousing what I'd say are anti-liberal positions. I'd like to know what the TOS line saying DU is for "politically liberal people" means.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Consider my mind blown.
What next, anyone who doesn't support gay marriage want to come out of the wood works?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)here, who, if they do not agree with my stance, certainly understand it, but are afraid to say so on this forum.
I am anti-war, anti-gun, anti-death penalty, and anti-abortion. Those stances all have one thing in common: they are pro-life.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I'm more concerned with her autonomy than a nameless,mindless collection of flesh and bone.
I'm pro-life to. I just don't consider a zygote, embryo or fetus alive in the grander sense of the term. And that is a well establish liberal position. I can't believe we're still debating this shit how many decades after Roe v. Wade?
You are truly a special case.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)We don't have to debate it. Roe v. Wade is the law.
What we also don't need to do is accuse someone who doesn't support looking at abortion as a right a rightwing troll, or a fundamentalist, or a misogynist, or any number of the names that I have been called for my position on this issue.
It IS a considered position. I haven't arrived here without thinking about it very seriously and for a very long time. Or without having researched BOTH sides of the issue.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"We don't have to debate it. Roe v. Wade is the law."
...support repealing Roe v. Wade?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)For instance, we need to start sex education at a much earlier age. First grade, probably, if not at least by the third grade. We also need to make birth control available to everyone, at any age, free of charge, and private.
And, we need to support, in every way possible, women and their children. Many anti-abortionists are fundamentalists, but strangely enough, they believe that once they stop a woman from getting an abortion, their responsibility for that decision ends there. It doesn't. We need to support women, thoughout their pregnancy, provide free healthcare, and provide for her and the child until it is not necessary, anymore, to provide that support. I don't think that you can call yourself pro-life, without also doing these things.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)You're not fooling anyone.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)WHERE do you get that from anything that I've said?
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)You don't support the RIGHT, and it is a right, of the woman to control her own body.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)One's right ends where another's right begins. The difference is that you believe that life begins after birth, and I believe it begins at conception. And that's the ONLY difference between what we believe, yet you INSIST on making it something more devious.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Nor is a six-week foetus. A spermatozoon and an egg are alive, because they are living human cells, as is a zygote, as is an embryo, but none of those is a separate living human. Until foetal viability (around 22 weeks of gestation, the earliest point when a foetus has any chance of survival outside the womb), it's fatuous to talk of "life" in the sense of "a living human". Not coincidentally this is right around the cutoff for abortion, at 24 weeks. (Statistically speaking, preterm birth at 27 weeks and earlier is associated with an 80% chance of moderate to severe cognitive and other disability, and the survival rate at 22 weeks is only 7%.)
You have the right to believe whatever you want; however you don't have the right to enforce your beliefs on others, especially not when your beliefs are not supported by the majority of qualified medical opinion.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)After all, everyone has 2 kidneys, 2 lungs, liver that can self-regenerate, and bone marrow.
If you are OK to use female human body as incubator with legs, you should be OK with using every human as live organ donor.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)And I agree.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)because she and others like her did not donate her bone marrow on demand... Or liver... Talk about murderers...
Hypocrisy at it's best.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)like to know your definition as I do not understand what you mean with your claim "you believe that life begins after birth, and I believe it begins at conception. " What do you mean by "life"? thank you.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)You're basically adopting the RW position and trying to frame it as enlightened.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)And, by the way, since when do rightwingers give a shit about a woman after they've talked her out of aborting? Since when do rightwingers support sex education?
Come on, now, let's at least be honest here, even if we don't agree with each other.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"And, by the way, since when do rightwingers give a shit about a woman after they've talked her out of aborting? Since when do rightwingers support sex education?"
...and replacing it with education. That's like abstitence education. Nothing in your stance supports a woman's right to choose.
Again, you've simply adopted the RW position and are trying to frame it as enlightened.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Again, you are not being honest here, ProSense.
And, no, I don't think it's a "right," to end another's life. No, I do not. YOU believe, however, that life does not begin at conception. I believe it does. There is where the difference lies. And only there.
Stop trying to make it anything other than that.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Again, you are not being honest here, ProSense. "
You're the one not "being honest."
I mean, you're in a world filled with RW kooks, and you're claiming to support the repeal of Roe v. Wade and replacing it with education.
What about a woman's right to choose?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I don't think anyone has the right to choose to end another's life. Not in abortion. Not in war. Not in capital punishment. Not in any sense, period.
You know, neither of us is going to change either's mind here. But at least we can both agree that this is simply a matter of what one believes about when life begins. When you try to make it out to be something else, that's dishonest, ProSense.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I don't think anyone has the right to choose to end another's life. Not in abortion. Not in war. Not in capital punishment. Not in any sense, period."
...you have basically adopted the RW position on choice.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Do you not see how preposterous it is that you feel a woman should be forced into 7 months of "forced labor" using her body as the instrument of this? So you do not care about women's rights, how could you?
You didn't respond to this post, and I think you should if you really think you have a valid opinion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3924529
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Nor do you get to enforce your uninformed, unscientific, ignorant opinion of what constitutes life upon others.
Talk about dishonesty. Framing anti-abortion as pro-life is the most dishonest thing going on in this subhtread.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)uppityperson
(116,009 posts)
pitbullgirl1965
(564 posts)Just suck it up and deal?
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)It was the end of women dying from abortions.
As mentioned before, your position is extremely dangerous to women.
REP
(21,691 posts)And has no idea how many fertilized eggs die every single day, unnoticed and unmourned, only to be coldly flushed away .... The horror! The horror! The horror!
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)That is right-wing. That is fundamentalist.
I have no doubt you've spent a very long time thinking about it. And that only disturbs me that much more.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)
I just don't think the state has the power to force one human being to keep another human being inside her body.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)It is not a viable option for me, but I cannot impress my will and belief system upon others.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)time we pass a law.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)I don't have a right to tell another woman what she can and cannot do with her body. And the government does not either, no matter what my personal feelings are on the subject.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)The laws that require that you pay taxes impose that on you. The laws that require that you render aid in an auto accident impose on you the belief that we should help others who are in danger of losing their lives. Every single law imposes a belief on you, whether you agree with that belief or not.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)And the law is not actually "you are being taxed so that we can go to war." There is a reason a good majority of us here protest wars.
I'm sorry, but I was willing to give you an ear, but you've lost me. You are comparing really odd looking apples with oranges. No, we are not imposing our belief system on the law insomuch as it affects another person's body in the way that anti-abortion laws do.
You really, really need to take a long hard look at that.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)All laws impose a belief on us. Every single one of them. Whether it's that we have to respect the rights of others, or whether we have to pay taxes, or child support, or fees, etc., all laws impose on us, and are based on a belief.
I'm surprised you dispute that. It's really basic.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)what a woman can and cannot do with her body. In fact, it's becoming rather disturbing. I try not to label people or judge them, so I'm going to walk away.
No law you have stated affects what one does with one's own body...it's as simple as that.
My honest opinion? No, you will not last here much longer if you continue the irrational lining up of laws that have nothing to do with each other to take away a woman's right to choose. That's not liberal, and that's definitely not feminist. You worry about your body; I'll worry about mine, without the help of you and the government. 
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)This has nothing to do with women's rights for me, and everything to do with the right to life. I'm not religious at all. And I'm definitely not a rightwinger.
Some people here do understand that it's a matter of principle and a matter of consistency, and they respect that.
All laws affect us, period. That's a basic fact. Indeed, why make a law that has no effect at all? Doesn't make sense.
I've enjoyed talking to you, and thanks for not engaging in attacks.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)My childbearing days are done, but I fear for my daughter and son if people feel as you do, to be honest. Please think long and hard on what you are saying. It has everything to do with a woman's right to choose when she does not believe that life begins at conception.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)It's okay, though. Go in peace.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Sorry...but I don't think you understand.
Also, why did you rec that horrifically homophobic post that was hidden in GD about Anonymous with the "George Bush" title? I was shocked to see that, to be honest.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)post. I rec'd it because I agreed with the subject, not because of the title. I thought that the title was a method of getting people to look at the post. Maybe I was wrong; I don't know. But if you are suggesting that I'm homophobic, you are definitely wrong.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)but then to sweep rebuttals to you away with "you don't understand" and "I know you think you understand" is too much.
Drop it. You are not the one with a reasonable position here.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)believes that their position is reasonable. What you don't seem to GET is that I am NOT against women's rights. If you can't understand that, then you apparently DON'T understand, period. This issue, for me, and for many liberals like me, is about the right to life. When you believe as we do, that life begins at conception, then the issue is not women's rights ONLY; it is also a matter of the right of the unborn to live.
You can disagree that life begins at conception. That's fine; and I do think that that issue might be debateable, at some future date when we have the technology to know for sure. But if you accept that my objection, like many others' objection, to abortion is a matter of a right to life of the unborn, then you can't frame it as a women's rights issue for us. It is simply NOT true.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)And the only way for that fertile egg to become life as we know it is for a woman to be forced to carry it to term. Therefore you are putting the rights of a non-viable lifeform over the rights of an actual human being. As that other post said, you are forcing a woman to be an incubator with legs. That is absolutely a women's rights issue.
And as that other poster said, then you should be forced to donate organs or bone marrow to save lives. And if you don't donate and the person dies then you are a murderer.
Oh, and yes, when you say to someone you are debating with that they don't agree because they don't understand, you are being condescending. I understand and I completely disagree with you and think you are wrong. When you say someone doesn't understand you are implying that if we only understood we would agree with you and that's not the case.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)You require that life be defined as being "viable on it's own." I do not.
And I don't think that organ donation has a thing to do with this.
One more insult and you're going on Ignore. If you want to discuss this issue in a reasonable manner, I am quite willing to do that, but I won't be verbally abused.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)How on earth am I verbally abusing you? I really don't see it. I am discussing this. I stated what I thought. You have the right to disagree and rebut. If my viewpoint is what you consider verbal abuse then that's your issue for you to look at within yourself. I find your viewpoint to be quite appalling but I don't consider it verbally abusive.
What if I phrase it like this, I know you don't believe you are condescending, but you are coming off as condescending when you say "if you only understood". Why don't you reverse it?
I know we disagree. I have not yet said to you, "if you only understood" or "you just don't understand". That would be insulting. But really, I don't see what you are taking as verbal abuse.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)"Drop the condescension. It's bad enough you are against women's rights but then to sweep rebuttals to you away with "you don't understand" and "I know you think you understand" is too much. Drop it. You are not the one with a reasonable position here."
Accusing someone of being condescending is, in itself, an insult, and then to say that I am against women's rights is another. Neither of them are true, whether you believe that or not. And they are both personal attacks.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Whether you believe it or not, your position is extremely dangerous to women. Period.
Don't expect liberals on this board to jump on your little bandwagon. In fact, I'm hoping that the admins have seen enough at this point to do the right thing.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Bu Bye, JTFrog.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)No. It is not. You may think they are untrue, but they are NEITHER insults nor personal attacks.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)If you do, then I'm sorry.
You did continue the discussion after that, as did I. Then you said if I continue to verbally abuse and insult you you would put me on ignore and I absolutely did not in the post to which you were responding.
You have taken a very strong conservative position that is against what people on this board believe and your reason to back it up is not based in science and your position causes women to treated as less than a whole human being, as an incubator against their wishes, so you better expect people will post strongly worded responses to you. If you're not up to that then you should consider keeping quiet on this topic, as liberals will never adopt your position, or posting on another board about this if you feel the need to discuss it.
You may not think this is a women's rights issue but it absolutely is. I saw somewhere where you posted that you are a radical feminist and I'm sorry, but no radical feminist would ever force a woman to use her body to carry to term. That is so very invasive in the woman's life and takes away her right to her own body. That is a damn long time to allow someone to control your own body in such a way that you are unable to live your normal life.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)position. Other liberals think so, too. It is a position consistent with placing life at the utmost value, and that is also why I and other liberals are anti-gun, anti-war, anti-capital punishment.
I do understand your point of view, but these things are also a matter of framing the issue, and I don't think that you can, or will, see that this issue has an alternative frame--ie., that of viewing the gestation process as a very natural process of nurturing another life, instead of some sort of forced vampiristic process that is nothing more than a breach of another's autonomy.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)While they may not like abortion, I mean who does, liberals are for a woman's right to make that choice. No one is actually pro-abortion, so if you are thinking that is a liberal who is against abortion and therefore against a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body then that is an incorrect assumption. If you have statistics proving that so many liberals are anti-choice then post a link. I find that hard to believe.
I don't think that you can, or will, see that forcing a woman to carry something insideher own body for 7 months is a complete violation of her rights as a human being.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Here's a little snipplet from Wikipedia, about Democrats for Life:
In 1999, Democrats for Life of America was founded to coordinate, at a national level, the efforts of pro-life Democrats.
In the 1960s and 1970s, pro-life Democrats comprised a substantial portion of the Party's membership in the United States Congress and the United States Senate. Some Democratic presidential and vice-presidential candidates ran for those offices as pro-life, including Hubert Humphrey and Sargent Shriver. Others were once pro-life before running, such as Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton and Al Gore. In the 1980s, the influence of pro-life advocates in the Democratic Party declined slowly but considerably. At the 1992 Democratic National Convention, pro-life Governor Robert Casey of Pennsylvania was allegedly "barred from addressing the Convention because of his antiabortion views".[1] The official reason given by the Convention organizers was that Casey was not allowed to speak because he did not support the Democratic ticket. Kathy Taylor, a pro-choice activist from Pennsylvania, instead addressed the convention. Taylor was a Republican who had worked for Casey's opponent in the previous gubernatorial election. Several pro-life Democrats did address the delegates in 1992, though they did not address the pro-life stance, and were not given prominent prime time slots.[2] Governor Casey's son Bob Casey, Jr., also a pro-life Democrat, spoke during the 2008 Democratic National Convention.[3]
cui bono
(19,926 posts)who are anti-choice?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I don't have stats, and I don't have time to get them, and I'm not sure what that would prove anyway. If you will read about Democrats for Life, though, I'm sure that you will see that they are very liberal, except, by YOUR definition, in this one way, upon which we disagree. And, pro-life Dems used to comprise a substantial portion of the Democratic Party, if Wiki is to be believed. In fact, among their number, they claimed such Democratic luminaries as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Hubert Humphrey. I believe Dennis Kucinich used to be a pro-lifer, too. And Harry Reid, as well.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Clinton is not liberal. NAFTA, welfare reform, DOMA... he was in with big business. That's hardly liberal. Reid isn't liberal.
I did hear Kucinich used to be anti-choice, but he isn't anymore.
Most of the elected Dems would not really be considered all that liberal. It's hard to be liberal and get elected when money is the key ingredient.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)The fact is that many well-known and well-respected Democratic candidates, INCLUDING AL GORE, DENNIS KUCINICH, JESSE JACKSON, TED KENNEDY were pro-life before they ran for presidential office. You really think they changed their minds? I don't. I think they changed their STANCES on this issue so that they could get the votes of the mainstream Democrats and the pro-choice vote. And, given the way that just this thread has gone, I can't say that I blame them, but I'M not running for office, so I don't have to play politics with this issue. And I won't.
Here's a DFLA powerpoint presentation with some interesting statistics in it; otherwise I can't help you with statistics: http://www.democratsforlife.org/documents_etc/TheCaseforPro-LifeDems.ppt#269,1,The Case for Pro-Life Democrats
Another Edit: Here's a piece from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/18/democrats-for-lifes-push-to-reform-party-plank-on-abortion-rights/
And an excerpt from that article: The case that Democrats for Life makes is this: About a third of those who identify as Democrats also identify as pro-life. That number grew, between 2011 and 2007, by 7 percent.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Having a group called Democrats for Life doesn't prove your point. Not all Dems are liberal and you can't tell me what percentage of actual liberals have that stance.
I think I've asked you enough times for data to back up your claim.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)You are not "pro-life" you are pro-foetus, unless you are willing to share parts of your body on demand with anyone in need of organ transplant.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I don't. So, it's a waste of time. Both yours and mine.
Response to Th1onein (Reply #504)
Post removed
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)stop lobbing insults. I believe that cui bono and I were having a conversation and you interceded. If you did so just to spout inflammatory rhetoric and accusations, you will find yourself on my Ignore list.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 28, 2013, 12:14 AM - Edit history (1)
Look, this argument is getting very silly. I'm done with it. We're going to lose elections unless we change our position on this issue, unless hopefully, the GOP destroys itself. (I hope they do, but they're like the monster in the horror movies; just when you think they're dead, they're right behind you with an axe.)
And, by the way, how many of these Democrats would NOT describe themselves as liberals? I think 99% of them would self-identify as liberals. So, you've got quite a number of liberals who are pro-life. Including myself.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)No, self-identified liberals do not count as liberals. There are people on this board who think they are liberals and by their positions it's clear they are centrists (moderate Dems which you don't believe exist). You can't just declare yourself to be something, you have to actually act like it and have the principles to be it.
Now you're actually saying we'll lose elections if we don't change our position of being pro-choice?
Should we have chnaged our position on same sex marriage when it was less popular? Should the position on civil rights have been changed? On suffragette?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)And, yes, we HAVE lost elections because of this issue. But its not necessary. And you don't have to change your values. You just have to change your way of looking at, and of framing, this issue.
I'm on my phone right now but I will explain later when I can get back on my laptop.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)It absolutely is a women's rights issue. To deny that is to not be able to see that women are subjected to forced labor by carrying to term. And possibly psychological torment, if not torture.
If we lost elections because of this issue it was in an area we probably wouldn't have won in any case. That would mean we lost to an R because the R was pro-choice. When/where has that happened?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)In order for them to see yours. We're already losing votes because of this, and that's pointless, when it doesn't have to be that way.
Response to Th1onein (Reply #521)
cui bono This message was self-deleted by its author.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)But let me ask you this. Where are your statistics showing how many votes/elections we've lost, where and when, because the Dem Party stand for a woman's right to choose? If you can't provide any solid data to confirm your claim then you really shouldn't say it. And also, how is changing to being anti-choice going to get us more votes? Where?
Second, you have to agree that not all Dems are liberals. I'm quite surprised to see you react with surprise at my having said that earlier, and I'm more surprised at your surprise! It's really common knowledge that there is a broad political spectrum of people in the Dem Party. That's why people call others the "fringe left" or the "far left" or "centrists" or "DLCers" or "Thrid Way". That's why you hear of independents/moderates being key to get because they could swing to either party. That's why you hear about a party's "base". Those that are solidly behind their party, that will always vote for them.
If you can't provide stats for things you claim and if you can't agree that it is a fact that not all Dems are liberal then we have nothing to discuss because I need to deal with what is real and what is really happening. Let alone the whole when does life begin theory.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I thought I already gave it to you; but maybe not. Here is the Democrats for Life website, and I think that PDF on the first page has the statistics you want. http://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45&Itemid=49
Look, you don't have to change to anti-choice. But that can't be the first thing that faces people. And you've got to be pragmatic about this, because that's how you win.
Think about it--if you are honest, you will admit that NO ONE likes abortion. Not the left; not the right. So, you have that in common.
Now, what the right does is try to repeal Roe v Wade, or pull some of the underhanded crap they've been pulling in TX and OK, to lower abortion rates. But those are very negative things, and they are effective, but they won't be completely effective until Roe v Wade is overturned. Long way down the road, for them, and they might never overturn it, but they will "chew" at it's edges enough so that it will come that it doesn't matter anymore. They won't deny you the right to an abortion, they'll deny you access. What is the difference? The outcome is the same.
Democrats have got to become the party that takes this issue and turns it in the right direction. Lower abortion rates, not by overturning Roe v Wade, but by doing other things that will lower abortion rates. And, really, it's the right thing to do--taking care of mother's and children, sex education, etc. It's always best to take the high road.
Think about this: what would the Rethugs HAVE if they didn't have abortion to rally round? Do you really think that they will ever give that up? All the times they've had the power, they've never gotten rid of Roe v Wade. It buys them votes and it labels us as monster baby-killers.
I understand that not all Dems are liberals, but most people who identify as Dems consider themselves liberal, wouldn't you say?
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)disagrees is insulting you and threatening to put them on ignore if they continue to disagree. Disagreeing is not being "verbally abusing" or insulting.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)uppityperson
(116,009 posts)the rights of others? Wtf?
View profile
All laws impose a belief on us. Every single one of them. Whether it's that we have to respect the rights of others, or whether we have to pay taxes, or child support, or fees, etc., all laws impose on us, and are based on a belief.
I'm surprised you dispute that. It's really basic.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I like to think that my taxes go to paying for food stamps for families who can't buy enough food. I like to think that my taxes go to pay for roads that we all use. And clean air, and water, and food, and safe medicines, and health care for those who would not otherwise have it. But I know that not all of my tax dollars go for that; and of course, I don't like that. But, maybe, by paying my taxes, I can save enough lives to make up for the part of my taxes that pays for what war takes, in terms of lives.
I do think of this--I used to be a food stamp single mother, and I like to think of paying that money back so that some other mother can feed her children.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)people.
You "like to think" your taxes do not go to fund wars, but acknowledge they do and are ok with that. You "like to think" of paying back your food stamps, but do not. You also are ok calling women who get abortions homicidal. Killing is ok for you to fund, but not for them to do. Gotcha.
Thanks for clarifying.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)So, do you also think that Stop and Assist Laws should be abolished, too? What about laws that require people to report child abuse?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If there were a law (other than the draft) that required people to actually physically intervene in a dangerous situation, I'd oppose that too.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)And they require us to do something with our bodies that many of us might not do if it were not for the law.
I am pro-choice, but the choice should begin before a person has unprotected sex.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)contraceptive failure? Or was that a "choice" also? Or are you against women having the choice to a safe legal hygienic abortion only when the damn slut had sex willingly and didn't "chose" to use contraception?
Rape is a "choice"? Seriously? Contraceptive failure is a "choice"?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I have never used language like that, when discussing this subject and anyone that does is trying to start a flame war. Stop.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)"choice should begin before a person has unprotected sex"? what about in cases of rape or contracept
contraceptive failure? Or was that a "choice" also? Or are you against women having the choice to a safe legal hygienic abortion only when she had sex willingly and didn't "chose" to use contraception?
Rape is a "choice"? Seriously? Contraceptive failure is a "choice"?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)And I think that anyone who becomes pregnant because of rape is either going to have to have a lot of help, or their lives will be decimated if they give birth. I choose the lot of help option. But, as I said before, this is a CONSIDERED opinion. I don't go here lightly. I've thought about this for years, and rape is a special case. I would hope that someone could make it through a pregnancy and give birth, in rape cases, without suffering, but I just don't know.
As for contraceptive failure, I think that the mother should have the child. Whether she gives it up for adoption or not is another matter. But she should be supported in all ways so that having the child does not ruin her life.
And, by the way, I didn't avoid your questions; I was just sideswiped by the venom in them.
And, yes, if you choose not to use contraception and you get pregnant, you should have a child. Abortion should not be used as a method of birth control.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)go to term. And those who do not use birth control should of course be forced to try and go to term. Thank you for clarifying that you think pregnant women "SHOULD" have the baby.
Abortion is birth control. You have an abortion, you don't give birth. How can it NOT be birth control?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I think most would agree with that.
Look, uppityperson, it seems like you are attempting to engage me in inflammatory rhetoric here. I'm not biting.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)Not trying to engage in inflmmatory rhetoric but trying to make sure I understand your position.You have said a pregnant female "should" always go to term, except for very rare situation like a tubal pregnancy.
I am confused by what you mean in saying "abortion should not be used as a method of birth control as it of course is birth control, the female is no longer pregnant and won't give birth. Can you please clarify what you mean?
Do you support legislating that? Do you support legislation that requires parental notification? Do you support legislation that requires a period between visiting a doctor and having an abortion? What abortion related legislation do you support?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I'm going to put you on ignore now, because I believe you are trying to inflame the rhetoric here. I have made my position very clear; I'm sorry that you cannot understand it.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)pitbullgirl1965
(564 posts)I don't care how many abortions a woman has. Better then her having kids she doesn't want or can't support. And women do get pregnant on birth control.
I've seen "pro choicers" make this lame argument and it blows my mind. So one abortion is ok, but more then that is bad? Damn slut shaming. I notice the man never is shamed for being a irresponsible jerk for impregnating women.
It *is* birth control btw.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)That is truly and utterly disgusting.
You really need to go to another message board or keep this shit to yourself. It is vile.
The lack of respect you have towards women and their rights over their own body is vile.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)you are so "sure" of everything you espouse and have thought about it for years and are staunch in all of those convictions, that you have volunteered for years and years, and done hours and hours of volunteer time working with & for rape victims. Right?
Naaa, I didn't think so. In Texas we call that "all hat and no cattle".
DURHAM D
(33,019 posts)pitbullgirl1965
(564 posts)And I'm assuming you approve of the Republican War on Women. You're a forced birther, and your lot won't be happy until women start dying from botched abortions.
Do you realize Gerri Santoro's sister is on here right?
http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/gerri-santoros-abortion/
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)And those who defend equal rights for all (not different but equal, but true equal) were banned for arguing with them. They're here. Just quiet right now in light of the other events on the forefront.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Support civil unions but not marriage equality. Separate but equal BS.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)uppityperson
(116,009 posts)hooverville29
(163 posts)should make that moral decision one way or the other for themselves on their own.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"Gay marriage is for me unthinkable, but Civil Unions have my 100% vote. I believe that marriage is something done in churches, and the Bible does speak negatively about homosexuality.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1352110
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)
Please, accept my apology that even here you can not be safe from homophobic arseholes.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)I think I'll drop them a pm asking to come weigh in on this, see if that has evolved over the last years.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)a country with separation of church and state. And don't' even start with that, the founders did not mean to separate church and state bullshit. That is not liberal nor should it be Democratic, imnsho.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)BlueCaliDem and I exchanged pms and I got permission to share their view which has evolved over the last 9 years.
> Would you come let us know? Or let me know? What is quoted is from 2004, wondering how you feel about marriage equality now? Thanks.
>
> http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3925556
Wowser! That was nine years ago, almost to the day, when I first signed up at DU.
To answer your question, no. I'm not as ignorant today as I was back in November 2004, so it's impossible for me to feel the same way today after I got educated. What I finally came to realize was, there's no justice or fairness in any type of "separate but equal" instances - no matter how subtle - and it's just outright wrong not to allow ALL citizens of this country equal rights protections under the law.
But allow me to at least explain the context in which I wrote that 2004 post. It was about the definition of the word, marriage , rather than any bigotry on my part:
In 2004, I was a supporter of Howard Dean for president. I was a Deaniac. Gov. Dean was against gay marriage but for full rights under civil unions because of the religious aspect of the word "marriage" back then. He and I were dead wrong because even without knowing it, I finally came to realize we were, in all actuality, arguing for "separate but equal". And that goes against everything I believe in since I personally suffered discrimination against me as a person of color.
I was told by others on other boards that the difference between the two was, marriage was carried out by a religious institution and civil unions were carried out by a civil servant. I knew that civil unions didn't have all the same rights as marriages do but, as I clearly state in the rest of my post, they should.
To explain the "Gay marriage is to me unthinkable" part:
It was written from the p.o.v. of separation of church and state. I am and always have been a firm believer in separation of church and state, and was under the wrongheaded assumption that the gov't could and would require any and all churches to perform marriages between same-sex couples even if their religious beliefs are against doing so. I was ignorant and wrong.
Although my post back then was badly written and expressed, paragraphs that followed the "Gay marriage is to me unthinkable" back up the above explanation as follows:
However, allowed to be "married" by a Mayor, or a power-invested civil servant for gays, and lesbians, is right, and good.
My husband and I, 22 years ago, never married in a church, but in front of a legal civil servant back in the Netherlands, since he was Netherlands Reformed (Catholic lite), and I, Protestant.
Surely, NO American would be against civil unions like ours to be granted full power in the United States for gays and lesbians, right?
I guess all we need to do, is redefine what marriage, and what civil unions are, so that gays and lesbians gain the same rights in such a union as married people do--minus church and religious constaints.
Just an idea...
Here are some old posts by me being against Prop 8 in CA in 2008 and pro-gay marriage:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4350362&mesg_id=4350414
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4350362&mesg_id=4350454
For the record, I have never been against gays and lesbians having the equal right to join together in a loving and committed union. I just got the definitions wrong - and at that time, most people did. Full disclosure: I was raised in The Netherlands, the first country in the world that made same-sex marriage legal. I'd also like to add, that although they choose not to get married, my brother is gay and he and his partner have been together in a loving and warm relationship for nearly 30 years.
I hope this helped. If you have any other questions, please let me know.
For the record, I clicked on the link you provided, but I couldn't find the post to respond to it. My response would be the above. If you would like, you have my full permission to post this response for others to see. The very last thing I'd like to be known as is a narrow-minded bigot of, imho, the very worst kind.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Or not. It's definitely proof of something....just not what you might think.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)You can frame it any way you want, and you most certainly will do that. Nevertheless, I am against abortion, and I am a liberal Democrat. In fact, I am extremely left wing.
There is a world of difference between someone who hates women and wants to control them and someone who believes that all life should be respected.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I've spent most of my educational career around TRUE radical feminists. Actual, in the flesh, RADICAL feminists. I know what I'm talking about.
You are either a radical feminist or you are anti-abortion. Choose wisely.
Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #84)
Recursion This message was self-deleted by its author.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Wrap your mind around it. We exist.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Especially if you insist on calling yourself a "radical feminist."
Sorry, you don't get to trash our cause to peddle your anti-autonomy swill.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)This is a considered position and has NOTHING to do with anti-autonomy. NOTHING. And I am not trashing your cause. And I am not peddling anything.
I really thought better of you. And I DON'T appreciate your accusations.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I need to speak to my radfem friends about this.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)You know, it would be much more comfortable for me to agree with everything my liberal brother and sisters support. I don't take this position lightly. I've thought about it for many years, and I've researched the science on it.
And, I don't vote for Rethugs, or Libertarians. I don't vote for them or with them on this issue because I am pro-life, and I think that most of their positions are anti-life, and anti-civil liberties.
Mother Of Four
(1,722 posts)The1onein, I don't know if you realize that your posts make it sound as though you feel you should force a woman to give birth. That because of your beliefs you would put a woman through the emotional pain of carrying an unwanted child, or the devastation of having to continue carrying a wanted child that has no hope of a future or even surviving the first few hours. Living with it, all through your day and have it give you sleepless nights. It's a cruel torture your posts are suggesting, there isn't any miraculous joy that will spring up and make it all ok.
We can't live the life of another, feel their pain or fear. No matter how much we might wish to carry some of that burden for them it's just not possible. The bottom line is even if Roe V Wade was repealed women who find themselves troubled and pregnant will still seek to end that pregnancy in any way they can. We have an obligation to make sure they are safe and cared for. We have an ethical responsibility that no matter what our PERSONAL beliefs are, there will never be another woman dying or made infertile because of using a back alley hack calling themselves “doctor”.
What would you tell a 14 year old girl raped by her father? “I'm sorry dear, but you have to relive him raping you every time you feel your baby kick. Not only that but you have to look into this child's face knowing you were abused and betrayed by the man who was supposed to protect you.”? Would you be able to look them in the eye and convince them it was some kind of gift?
What about this couple?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/late-term-abortion-29-weeks-dana-weinstein
“Yes I know that the baby will suffer and is badly deformed, and may not live past birth but it's living now so you just have to carry it to term and watch it's pain.”?
I completely agree with you on not liking abortion at all, but it has to be tempered. In my entire life I've never known someone to LIKE abortion. This subject needs to be treated with compassion, not inflexibility. Imagine if it were reversed... that you were pregnant and wanted to carry a child to term even though the doctor told you it had a good chance to kill you? What if, in this reverse reality you were forced to get an abortion because someone else felt it was the right thing to do? Horrifying to think about, how dare someone take away your choice to carry your child?
Yes, yes yes yes. We should strive even harder to educate our daughters as they grow up. We should do everything possible to reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies. Birth control should be easy to get, and unquestioned or stigmatized. We should fight fiercely for all women to get full medical support and guidance so they can make informed choices and reduce the risk for them by having a doctor follow them from conception through delivery.
But please think on this:
No matter how much we educate or support nature always finds a way. It finds a way with rape, it finds a way with incest, it finds a way if the baby doesn't develop right. It finds it way past birth control and no matter how much you try to push abstinence we have these funny things called hormones that are designed to make us want to multiply.
I don't need an answer to this following question, I just would ask that you think on it.
If you are against the death penalty, then why on earth would you be an advocate for repealing Roe V Wade? Because if it happens, you WILL be condemning some women to death. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
Spazito
(55,351 posts)
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)You know, these pro-lifers believe that a woman should carry a DEAD child, or one that is so abnormal that it has no hope of living more than a few hours, after birth, rather than being allowed to get a partial birth abortion. That's sick, and it's stupid.
And there is no doubt that repealing Roe v Wade, in the current milieu, will result in the deaths of women from back alley abortions. I certainly don't want that, either. But we must work towards ending abortion. It is not just a matter of the right of the woman, but it is also a matter of the life of the child that she is carrying. You can't disregard either.
You can't think about repealing Roe v Wade until you work on the FRONT end of things, and I've said that before. You want to end abortion by making it illegal? Then do something about sex education; do something about access to birth control; do something about giving women, who are carrying viable babies, access to a decent life, so that the birth of her child will not decimate her life.
If we repeal Roe v Wade right now, it will be like dropping a dot of white ink in a larger black dot; it will become gray. It is not a solution to the problem. Not until you put other things into place.
As it stands right now, though, abortion is a wedge issue, and we all lose. On the left, we hear about the rights of women; on the right, we hear about rights of the unborn child. Focus on these does nothing; no one will win, least of all women and children, but those who want to divide us, for their own ends (who could give a shit less about women or children), will win.
We need to turn this issue on it's head, and own it. We are against abortion, we are for life, so we do THESE things, to end abortion (ie., provide access to birth control, sex education, etc.). Stop the CAUSES of the necessity for abortion.
And, yes, there will always be those tragic cases, where the child will not even live, once born. And anyone who believes that the mother should carry that child to term is a misogynist, and has more of a hatred for women than a love for the life of the unborn.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)That's something conservatives say.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Because I do. Straight ticket.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)You're still spewing conservative crap here.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Go forth; educate thyself.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)because at every liberal protest, I see people holding signs that say "END ABORTION NOW!!!"
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Pro-life = anti-choice, which is one of the biggest values of the conservatives.
How could you even support making a woman carry a child she doesn't want? That's cold. And it's forcing your beliefs onto someone else. Again, something that is NOT liberal.
I can't believe this shit is allowed here.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)In fact, a whole group of them. Go forth, educate thyself. I'm going to exercise my Ignore option now, since this exchange seems to be getting nasty.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Are they the same "liberals" who protest at abortion clinics?
historylovr
(1,557 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)If you are anti abortion. It's just not possible.
Can you be a feminist? Probably not. Although there have always been a block of conservatives who misappropriate the name by saying they care about women when they really don't. At least not in totality. So you may fall under that category.
Are you a radical feminist? Unequivocally, no. In order to be a radical feminist, you have to totally , uncompromisingly believe in full female autonomy. And that is not possible if you think we should be allowed to prevent women from having an abortion.
What you espouse is a conservative ideology. It is without a doubt misogynist. You are no true ally of woman's rights if you don't believe fully in female autonomy. And if you believe abortion is murder, you at the very least don't belong here because it is never okay to say a woman is a murderer because she terminated her pregnancy.
Sorry to be so blunt but that is the cold reality. You are not a friend of female liberation if you think they should be forced out of having an abortion. You're just not.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Luckily for them, you are not the last word on this.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Just as being pro gay marriage is foundational to the progressive movement.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)And this is certainly the wrong place to be asking for it.
Period.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)abortion because you believe "Life" begins at conception? Why?
Quantess
(27,630 posts)You are a guy, aren't you? Or am I mistaken?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)
I could've sworn Gravity Collapse said he was a guy, a few months ago. I remember we were having a discussion about FEMEN.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Just wondering.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)It is possible.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)I love it when men call themselves feminists, no doubt about that!
The "radical" part seems a bit much, though. Just my opinion, of course.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Although I understand such apprehension.
hooverville29
(163 posts)If you want freedom of choice, don't insist on what the choice should be.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)And personally, I always found the pro-life view in everything the most consistent (war, abortion, death penalty, etc).
And like those who are pro-choice, the unfair loss of bodily autonomy is persuasive to me. But so is your argument, that every law is an imposition against the individual's ability to choose. The single thing that tips me toward pro-choice is the fact that if abortion is outlawed, it would still be available. Those women would go underground if they could afford it, or use crude and dangerous methods like coat hangers and poisonous substances if they can't. I think the number of dead fetuses would be nearly identical, we'd just have dead or maimed women on top of it. So I am pro-choice.
But I understand why you hold the views that you do, and didn't reply with the intention of being argumentative. Your reasoning is sound even if I don't share the same ultimate position on abortion. You are being unfairly demonized for having a philosophy supportive of all living things.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)endangered the life of the mother. Maybe I will.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)no matter the situation.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)likely to succeed at saving the one it is intended to save? You have the deciding vote. Who dies?
Also, what is your answer to the forced organ donor question? With what you believe, it seems you would have to be in favor of such legislation.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)mother, probably.
As for the forced organ donation, no, I think that is a totally different issue.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)same as dictating the use of a person's body parts to support a life?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)And I think most people would view them as such.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)uppityperson
(116,009 posts)were what was needed?
PROBABLY?
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)Thanks.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I don't want women to get backroom abortions, either. And I don't vote for Rethugs, because I think that they kill more people with their policies than abortion ever did.
But I do think that we need to retake this issue. And brand ourselves as pro-life.
I remember a time when Rethugs would not willingly approach the idea of depriving women of birth control, but they are doing it now. They are gaining, if they do that, in my opinion.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)pitbullgirl1965
(564 posts)You get pregnant, and I force you to have an abortion. I force you to donate bone marrow, blood, or a kidney b/c otherwise I'd die without it? You're "prolife" right? How does that feel?
Oh and Radical Feminists are known to be trans phobic. And just how intersectional are you? I've seen too many racist/classist feminists showing their ass.
BTW I've had two abortions, the first time because I was drunk and dumb and I'm not sorry! No regrets at all. I would have killed myself.
I don't like babies, I never wanted children, and having a parasite growing inside me was horrifying.
No one wants an abortion, like no one wants a tooth pulled. But they should be available, safe, legal and affordable. I refuse to say rare because it's anti choice forced birther framing.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)
Okay....pull the other one.
moriah
(8,312 posts)They had a really good episode about third-trimester abortions and the killing of abortion activists, and I though they did a good job of showing how many people's personal experiences can influence their opinion on these very sensitive topics.
At the end of the episode, he said "I used to expect people to be consistent -- that pro-lifers would oppose capital punishment, that champions of human rights would claim some for the unborn. I don't expect that anymore."
I'm fairly radically pro-choice, at least according to people who I do care about deeply who have extremely different opinions on the subject. I believe that while life may begin at conception, pregnancy does not begin until implantation. I hope for a day when we can do placental/fetal transplants rather than abortions, because there *are* so many women who would love to have a baby (though blasted few of them want an older child, and out of diapers is apparently too old for most) who can't conceive naturally. We can't. If the fetus is healthy and viable and the mother chooses to terminate the pregnancy, inducing an early delivery after shots to develop the lungs is reasonable (most doctors would prefer to avoid a D&X or any procedure involving instrumentation being inserted into the uterus if they could anyway), and unless the health of the mother requires otherwise all efforts should be made to allow a baby to live if it can on its own. As I said, I think asking the mother to wait a week for the lung steroids is reasonable. I would not force a Cesarean, however, even if it would mean a higher chance of survival than an attempted natural delivery.
I am firmly anti-abortion, however. I've had one, I felt I had no choice, I've discussed it on here before. I could not have one again, and I've done my best to make sure that I never do. I have a copper IUD, they rock. I feel badly enough that the IUD makes an unplanned pregnancy much more likely to end in miscarriage, but I'll grieve if that happens then. And the way to prevent abortions is to get better access to birth control and better support services for expectant mothers, not legislation.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)For myself.
RFKHumphreyObama
(15,164 posts)Shared by many more people on the left than is often assumed. Martin Sheen falls under this category and he's far to the left of many of the posters on this board and has proven his progressive credentials time and time again throughout his lifetime
Dennis Kucinich, pre-2004, also seemingly shared this ethic. The general consensus on this board seems to be that he is a progressive icon, though some like him more than others
Incidentally, Marcy Kaptur -the woman who defeated Kucinich in the 2012 Democratic primary and who is considered on the most part to be a reliable progressive vote -is also pro-life.
Jimmy Carter, who seems to be admired by many on this board, is on the record of being critical of abortion and urged the Democratic Party last year to take a more conservative position toward abortion and limit it only to women whose lives are in danger or who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest
If you drive people with a pro-life left-wing ethic from this board, you are throwing many good progressives under the bus
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)There is nothing left or progressive about being anti-choicer.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)no matter how many have done so. There is more than the (potential) life of the fetus involved. Doesn't the mother's life count? Republicans are increasingly saying "no." What's your stance?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)But when we frame the issue as a woman's right, we lose. We need to reframe it as being pro-life, and therefore, THAT'S why we support access to birth control, early sex education, supportive services for pregnant women, and free child care. We need to make it so that abortion is NOT ever preferred, and is unnecessary, in most cases. If we do that, we take this issue away from the whack jobs that use it because they hate women; and the religious nuts who want to use it to subjugate women.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)Yes, access to contraception, early sex ed, supportive services for pg women and affordable good child care are needed. But to say abortion is NEVER preferred or necessary to continuing a pregnancy is wrong. To say MOST ALL abortion is unnecessary or should be avoided is wrong.
Taking away the right to accessible, affordable, legal hygienic abortions IS acting against women. Holding power over women, trying to force YOUR choice on ALL of them is wrong. Calling most abortions unnecessary is wrong. Saying abortion is NEVER preferred is wrong.
I don't care if the whack jobs and religious nuts want to stop abortions to control women, or because THEIR morality says it is homicide. It is taking away women's rights to have a say about their own body.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)uppityperson
(116,009 posts)black is white
up is down
war is peace
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I'm pro everyone that wants an abortion should be able to get one.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)That's why I make regular donations to Planned Parenthood. I cheered Wendy Davis' filibuster.
I believe every woman that wants an abortion should have easy access to get one. I also believe in comprehensive sex education, free birth control and condoms.
I'm pro-choice because I believe the best health decisions come between a patient and doctor and it's no one else's business.
You don't like abortion? Great, don't have one, problem solved.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)facilities and providers.
I've seen the reasons females get abortions and have learned to not judge as you can not know all the reasons. I've seen pregnant females be waylaid by the Moral Abortion is Murder group and the problems they have had dealing with that. I've seen females of a wide range of ages trying to gain some control over their lives rather than be enslaved to their bodies.
I remember being asked my marriage and childbearing plans in a job interview. It was their right to make me answer so they could decide whether or not I would stay employed with them long enough to recoup the money they spent training me.
I've seen the pregnant in unmarried mothers homes. I've seen the pregnant very ill from their pregnancy. I've seen the pregnant fight to carry their child to term.
I've seen women be able to get abortions easily, even where they are illegal. With money and power? No problem. And those facilities, those providers are never protested.
I will continue to fight and work for legal, safe hygienic abortions to be available to all women.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)They are definitely pro-choice views.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I know I'm pro-choice, but that includes being pro-abortion if that's what the woman wants. I'm pro women doing what they want without people like you trying to take away a woman's autonomy.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)your views, I'm sure no one has a problem with that.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Here's some things you believe in that I disagree with:
I do not think abortion is murder.
I do not think we should reverse Roe v Wade.
I do not think life begins at conception.
And most importantly, I do not think that because you believe "all life is precious" you have the right to take away a woman's autonomy to make their own reproductive choices.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)uppityperson
(116,009 posts)pitbullgirl1965
(564 posts)
JohnnyRingo
(20,761 posts)not a political decision.
Personally, I'm "pro-choice", but I know many good dems who don't want abortion to be legal. Something to do with their religion, but they fall into line on the basic liberal Democratic Party platform.
Republicans are the ones who made that issue a litmus test for their party, the same way they framed all Democrats as "gun grabbers". Though some here would say one has to be 100% against firearms, a lot of liberal democrats do indeed own guns and enjoy hunting.
When I see a post that I suspect is more conservative than I am, I just move on and let the system sort it out. I don't support stringent rules on specific positions to weed out fellow DUers, but it's my experience that those who troll here don't last long.
DURHAM D
(33,019 posts)I don't know a single one, not one.
I also know many Republican who want it to be legal.
JohnnyRingo
(20,761 posts)They're firm that abortion is murder, but I know for a fact they vote a straight ticket in the Ds.
I'm not going to waste any time trying to "convert" them from something they feel so strongly in their heart. There's no reason to.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)women's right to a safe, legal, hygienic abortion, she would vote and campaign against them. She said she hoped no one every had to get an abortion, but by god she was going to work as hard as she could to make sure they were able to.
I know not one "good dem" who wants abortions to be illegal.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Who think the same way you do but keep it low key due to the poor reception it receives. There are more people out there than people think...even more so among the hispanic members.
I think in the real world abortion isn't the number one issue or the most important priority, outaode of the activist community.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Tell me more about these mystical conservative progressives you know so well.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)If you want to try to argue your view in a rational manner, that's fine with me and most people I think. If someone posts the same support for a Conservative idea over and over without being able to back it up though, I say ban away as they're just wasting space here.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Don't feel safe here anymore, so indeed it needs updating.
And I see ignored showed up to prove the point.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)so I don't know what you are talking about. The one difference is you now have over 100K posts from which people have drawn their conclusions and you didn't have that when you started.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)I just remember it was shortly after the Iraq war started in March 2003.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)I won't comment on the other, but yeah.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)What a merry checklist of priorities we could concoct.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)We could
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)List, say, 10 so-called "liberal" stands, but allow one "burner," by which anyone can choose any issue with the wrong stand, yet still be approved by DU high priests, or even an automated DU Dumper program.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)At convenient times.
It is a news aggregator mostly anymore.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)are still here because no one who has to power to TS them is not aware of them, or if "liberal, as defined by whoever wrote the TOS, does not mean what I think it means.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)the pretzel guy is right
its a self identification question
just because i am in harmony with a lot of democratic traditional liberal values doesn't mean someone else who isn't doesn't see themselves as a liberal
some of the people who call themselves liberals call me a far left wingnut and i call some of them right wing torch bearers
but in the real world we both self identify as liberal
its like chili
some people want a big bowl of chili and some people just want a regular bowl
it doesn't mean either loves chili more or less than the other
as to people you would ts do what i do
ignore them not with a button but with every fibre of your being
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)and anti-miscegenation, and who admits to hating Jews, but thinks of themselves as a liberal has just as much right as anyone to call themselves a liberal and should be a welcome member of DU?
If not, then your post in no applies to my OP.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)but some "liberals"
and again its a matter of self definition
some liberals may be one or maybe more of the things you describe
maybe not the last 3 though i cant imagine a person who would embrace the last 3 and call themselves a liberal
and yes they have a right to call themselves that and the admins here have reserved the right to decide whether they are delusional in their self identification and exercise that right frequently
as i noted earlier i am usually on the far left and even i have a thing from your list
does that make me unliberal?
and who gets to decide what i define myself as?
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)about the definition they are using. Obviously, they don't have to do so. But, I'd like to know if I think their definition is reasonable.
Maybe they would say the people who seem to me to be clearly not liberal are liberal. Maybe we are pretty well in agreement with a definition, but they just can't keep up with all the RWers posting here.
In any case, if I had a clearer idea of the administrators' intentions, I could make a more informed decision as to whether DU is a community want to continue participating in.
Volaris
(11,621 posts)
Hekate
(100,133 posts)Every time over the years that I've taken one of those "where are you on the political spectrum" tests I never fail to come up really, really liberal. Mahatma Ghandi would be my pal, according to them.
Yet the names I've been called here are a bit surprising. Apparently I swoon with adoration for a certain politician, and I'm an authoritarian with Stasi tendencies, and it just goes on.
Maybe a note to Ask the Admins would be a good idea for you.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)Hekate
(100,133 posts)It's a Group. The post pinned at the top says:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598
Ask The Administrators Forum Guidelines (PLEASE READ BEFORE YOU POST)
Welcome to the Ask the Administrators forum, which is also known as ATA. Here you can can ask questions and get responses from the DU Administrators.
Posting Guidelines
The DU Administrators are not obligated to answer every single question that is asked in this forum. Questions that are rude, contain threats or ultimatums, or whine about other DU members are less likely to get answered than questions that are polite and assume good faith. So use your brain and think before you post.
How Post a Question
The Ask the Administrators forum works like most other forums here on DU, but with some important differences.
Anyone can ask a question in this forum. To do so, just click the blue "Post" button. Fill out the form just as you would elsewhere on DU and click the button to post.
Your question will not appear immediately. A placeholder for your thread will appear in the ATA forum, to show that your question has been successfully submitted. But the text of your question will not be publicly available until it is reviewed and answered by a DU Administrator. Neither you nor anyone else will be able to post replies in your thread until an Administrator has posted a response.
Eventually a DU Administrator will review your question. If an Administrator decides to answer your question, the text of your question and the text of the Administrator's response will both be made public.
The only people who may post replies in a thread are the author of the original question and the DU Administrators. All other individuals are automatically blocked from posting by our software. If you are the author of the question that started the thread, you can post a response in the thread after an Administrator has responded. When you post a reply, it will appear in the thread immediately.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)I'll try to compose a question that meets the guidelines.
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)just like when they about popped an artery when Obama was polling with 85% approval rating among self-described liberal Democrats.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)He's tossing out so much flame-bait tonight that I fear the next thing we'll see is calls for the insufficiently pure to be burned at the stake.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)Hekate
(100,133 posts)Cheap psychology. 
Also, I see that you never made it over to Ask the Administrators with your important questions.
Cha
(318,236 posts)
steve2470
(37,481 posts)
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts).
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Your comment speaks for me.
BluegrassStateBlues
(881 posts)Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)BluegrassStateBlues
(881 posts)That may be considered 'not liberal' by some people, they should get a pass.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)I don't see anyone being banned here for supporting our Democratic President. Have you seen that?
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)from any criticism or disagreement with their position, because their position is in line with the current President.
I'm looking forward to seeing how that concept plays out in the future, with the next Democratic President; very curious how much of this is partisanship and how much is . . . something else.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)It's certainly not principles.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)LOL
That was a zinger.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Partisan politics is the art of the possible, the art of the next best, as Bismark put it.
On a scale of A to E, with A being the most conservative policy on an issue and E being the most progressive, we want E, but political realities may mean we can only get to D, or even C.
The person to whom you are responding would say, that it's best to get D, or even C, rather than A. They would say the same with candidates.
Politics is principle tempered by reality, by what is possible.
Where you see politicians and elected officials who ignore that, they don't get much accomplished, or worse, hurt the cause they purport to care about.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)"working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office."
Seems to me there is a reason it is called Democratic Underground.
edited to add: it is not called Liberal Underground; it is not called Green Party Underground, it is not called Anarchist Underground; it is not called Socialist Underground -
The name of this site is Democratic Underground. For people who support
"working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office."
Period.
leftstreet
(39,914 posts)Should DUers support him/her?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Because an anti-choice person who votes for Pelosi as speaker is infinitely better than an anti-choice person who votes for Boehner as speaker. (And the fact that the Democrats of that district selected that person in the primary should probably tell you something about who can and can't win in that district.)
The fact that many on DU don't seem to understand how absolutely important that first caucus vote is, doesn't change the fact that it is the most important vote any lawmaker makes.
leftstreet
(39,914 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's who can win in those reddish-purple districts, and that's who we end up supporting if we go back to a 50 States approach. We lost most of them in 2010 because wave elections hit those hardest, but if we have a wave election in say 2016, that's who will ride it to the House.
Volaris
(11,621 posts)1) Get Democrats elected (and he did, and EXACTLY the kind of Democrats you just described), but step
2) was SUPPOSED to be: Get BETTER Democrats elected.
Firing the guy who accomplishes step one means step 2 will NEVER happen. Which seems to be the way Wall Street prefers things to work on a regular and recurring basis in America.
I'm a "dirty liberal" because Fuck That.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Which is why in an agonistic system like politics, you need to make sure Step 1 is something you'll be happy with on its own.
Firing the guy who accomplishes step one means step 2 will NEVER happen.
I think a lot of people claim knowledge we don't really have about Dean's leaving the DNC. The whole thing was opaque to me.
Volaris
(11,621 posts)on the exit circumstances of Dean form the DNC, and I have nothing to offer in rebuttal at the moment.
Being happy with step one seems to be the Million Dollar Problem.
I think it's why we got the ACA, and NOT the ACA PLUS PUBLIC OPTION. Not UNHAPPY with the result of Step One there, but not AS HAPPY as I think a lot of us thought we could have been, had a handful of elected Democrats been just a little bit more interested in being ballsy and a little bit LESS interested in getting re-elected.
Also, a technical question: what is the keyboard command for italics?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You can also use the buttons between the title and text inputs.
Volaris
(11,621 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)And the appropriate bracket tags go around what you've highlighted.
Alternately, just click a button and the open tag appears, click it again and the close tag appears.
MineralMan
(151,043 posts)who can possibly be elected in a particular district. In some districts, that won't be very progressive at all, unfortunately, but if that person will vote with the Democratic caucus in Congress, it's better than the inevitable Republican.
In Minnesota, CD-6, currently represented by Michele Bachmann, is in play in 2014. Bachmann won in 2012 with less than 2% of the vote, and the Democrat who ran against her was not one I would call very progressive. In 2014, Democrats can win that seat in Congress, but not if the candidate in the general election is as much of a progressive as Betty McCollum, the representative in neighboring CD-4. For a Democrat to win in CD-6, it will take a Democrat who can gain some moderate Republican votes. There simply aren't enough Democratic voters in that district to do anything else.
Looking at Bachmann's voting record, it's easy to see that any Democrat who will vote with the Democratic caucus in the House most of the time would be an enormous improvement. Meantime, in CD-4, we'll elect Betty McCollum again. Most people outside of her district have never heard of her. A look at her record, though, tells the tale.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x231772
Winning a seat in a conservative area is one thing, but no one should convince themselves that such politicians eventually stand in the way of progress.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)come after this: "Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who..." The meaning of such a introductory clause in the English language stipulates that the first condition is true and the others are in addition to that.
So, if the TOS said, "Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who like books", it would not enough to like books. You would have to be a politically liberal person who likes books.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)you have to follow ALL of the Terms of Service, not just the ones that you choose.
You are twisting the meaning to suit your own interpretations.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)means that DU is for people who are not liberal, then you are the one trying to spin it. Either that or you have trouble with the English language.
If the administrators don't mean to limit DU to politically liberal people, they should not say that Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who also are or are not other things and also do or do not do other things.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)to run by TPTB are really not liberal as a whole. So how do you support centrist DLC types and still be liberal? Is it more important to get the Dem label in or is it more important to get your principles represented? What difference does it do to get Dems elected if they govern as centrists or worse, if they don't reverse RW policies?
It doesn't help us one bit and it just perpetuates and worsens all the country's problems. And I believe it plays right into TPTB's hands. They want us to think we have a choice, but either choice is fine with them.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Sadly, the rank and file have gone along with it.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)include Party Unity.
No one is forcing anyone to post here.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)For example, the expectation that "good Democrats" should accept Obama's murderous drone policy in the name of party unity. That requires abandonment of ideals.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)it says that the site is for "politically liberal people" who believe that electing "more Democrats and fewer Republicans" is important.
There's nothing in the statement that says DU is for "liberal democrats". There are a lot of liberal people on this site - not all of them are registered Democrats.
How do you think it should be "updated"? What set of hoops should people jump through? Do you get to decide if they are "liberal" enough? "Democrat" enough?
The TOS is fine. Life is fuzzy and messy and complex - and so is DU. If you want clean and tidy and uncomplicated, try nursery school - because that's about the last place that world exists.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)But, yeah, according to the TOS, you don't have to be a Democrat, you just have to support electing them. I've edited the OP to reflect that.
Other than that, your reply is a total fail. Rude and ad hominem, for one thing.
Also, as I clearly said, I think the TOS should be updated to not say what it doesn't mean. I did not mention any hoops. I did not say that I get to decide what liberal means, just that it needs to mean something, though I do have my opinions about that. So shoot me.
Yeah, life is fuzzy and messy and complex, but where we can enhance clarity and facilitate the comprehension of complexities, we should. Whether it's in nursery school or graduate school.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)and what really needs to be defined is the term, "right wing talking points."
CS:
It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate on our discussion forums in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints. Members should refrain from posting messages on DU that are disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. These broad community standards of behavior are maintained though the combined efforts of members posting and serving on citizen juries, using their own best judgment to decide what behavior is appropriate and what is not.
Members who cannot hold themselves to a high standard risk having their posts hidden by a jury of their peers, and being blocked out of discussion threads they disrupt. Those who exhibit a pattern of willful disregard for the Community Standards risk being in violation of our Terms of Service, and could have their posting privileges revoked.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who..."
Whatever comes after that, this sentence indicates that DU is for politically liberal people. Those people must meet some other must be and must not be conditions.
So, the TOS is contradictory. I'd love for them to state their definition of Centrist. And if that definition doesn't include liberalness, they really ought to take out that sentence about DU being for politically liberal people.
creeksneakers2
(7,963 posts)Liberals may agree with conservatives on some things. Is a type of person considered unwelcome, or is there a list of views that can't be expressed?
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)position papers on every issue so we will all know exactly what a proper liberal believes in every case.
It will be a jolly good time with everybody simply repeating those positions to one another 24x7.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)If the thought police and purists were really behind their words they would prevent party membership and exclude those who don't meet the purity tests from voting for our candidates.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Commenting on the those who say that if you don't suport ALL of the things that they do that you aren't a progressive or a liberal or dem. They want our votes but don't think we sre good enough to be in the same club.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)believe in those things. If you have to be admitted to some club first, you don't really care about the policies. Hmm, wonder what that might mean...
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)And not how those who don't believe in abortions are treated..or the rkba crowd. Prime examples.
In the end no one has the right to decide who is or who isn't a lib or progressive.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)If you support liberal policies, then vote for liberal politicians, whether or not some people on some website accept you as a liberal. And keep in mind that if you actually believe in liberal policies, you won't need me to tell you this.
Secondly, Lastly, we may disagree, but we each have a right to have an opinion on what is liberal or what is not. What is the point of a word with no meaning? People on a site that says it's for liberals, can reasonably expect that there won't be a lot of Right Wing crap getting posted.
However, on this site, the admins do get to decide what is and is not liberal or progressive, and if you piss them off enough by posting something that they really, really think is anti-liberal, you very well my get kicked off the site.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)of who is a liberal and what is the one true liberal policy position?
That is such an unbelievably arrogant and narcissistic attitude that I am starting to wonder if you might actually be a Republican.
It is not a black and white world. I am accustomed to Republican simpletons truing to reduce complex issues down to simple "yer either fer us or her agin us" propositions. But I don't expect that from liberals.
If there were one true liberal position, I am certain that all modern Democratic Presidents, especially including Obama, would fail that test, because they have to live in a world that is more complex and nuanced than that.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)Your "reply" to what I wrote has nothing to do with what I actually wrote. Useless.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)A liberal may hate Jews and blacks and gays, love Asians because they are strict parents, oppose equal pay for men and women, support union busting, and work to outlaw contraception. Anything goes, really.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)It used to be clearcut; now it isn't so much anymore.
What used to be basic tenets of the Democratic platform are now labeled as RW talking points when they don't fit with current Democratic policy-making.
So, who decides?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)But are these necessarily "RW" positions given that President Obama pushes for and signs free trade agreement after free trade agreement, and the ACLU supports the Citizens United decision?
treestar
(82,383 posts)to know whether free trade agreements in general or specific ones are good or bad. But even asking questions about them gets me labeled as supporting them. Whether a liberal will ever tolerate a free trade agreement is a question I don't know the answer to.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)change the name of this place. Political Underground? But then, who's to say what's political and what's not. Maybe just, People on the Internet Underground?
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)They need their own place. 
Decaffeinated
(556 posts)
riqster
(13,986 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)since they seem to lead to liberal witch hunts. I like the honest disagreements. If someone is liberal most of the time, I think they fit in here just fine.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)idealism.
Though a lot of the idealists seem to think people who are pragmatic about what can actually be accomplished are "insufficiently liberal" rather than "pessimistic about the realistic possibilities".
I often describe it as strategy versus tactics.
Or from football ...
Since the fast way to score a touchdown is to throw the bomb, let's just throw the bomb on every play. Let's do that even if the other team has great D-backs and Safeties. After all, running the ball takes too long and simply proves that you don't really want to score touchdowns.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And there are a lot of examples of this.
I think the drones issue is an excellent example.
I ultimately want the same thing as the folks who are virulently anti-drone. I've repeatedly pushed the administration for a post-drone solution to the terror issue, but I am also very patient because I don't want drones to stop being used until that solution, whatever it is, is in place. Idealists wants the drone attacks to stop right away regardless of the consequences and in fact deny the consequences exist unless you can prove it to them. As if you could provide photos of the people who would otherwise be targeted and provide video of them in the future attacking us.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)can tell if someone is liberal most of the time, then you must have some criteria. That's what I'd like to know. What is the TOS referring to by the term liberal. If nothing in particular, there is no sense in using the term.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)excludes some who might be liberal by some definitions. But, the TOS contradictorily also welcomes Centrists. Or, at least, maybe liberals with some Centrist views? It's a bit of a mystery to me.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)With the caveat for the non-Democratic liberals that this board isn't to be used for promoting competitors to Democratic politicians (with a very few exceptions, like the last Maine Senate race).
That was per Skinner back in '08, at least.
Volaris
(11,621 posts)I also like the "...with a VERY few exceptions..." clause, it leaves enough room to offer vocal support to someone like Sen. Sanders, for instance, and I think that's important.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)liberal. My OP specifically refers to the TOS and what it says. It says DU is for politically liberal people. It doesn't actually say you must be a Democrat. Unless I missed that.
Then again, some have pointed out that the TOS also says, "It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints."
I have never heard anyone call Centrists liberal. So, the TOS seems to contradict itself.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)but not a moderate Democrat?
Sid
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)that it's unclear, as it seems to contradict itself.
LostOne4Ever
(9,746 posts)[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]The DU Community Standards state: "It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints."
Based on the ToS and Community standards in their entirity, I feel like DU is for liberal and left of center democrats. Disagreement on an issue or two is fine. It is a rather broadminded and liberal policy for a partisan political message board.
Though I am often shocked at some of the conservative views I find on here. ESPECIALLY when it comes to purity tests.
It is anything BUT liberal to demand 100% ideological purity. Liberals are about fairness and equality. Conservatives are the ones who are about authority and purity.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)your opinion makes sense. But others have pointed out that it also says, "The DU Community Standards state: "It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints."
So what you believe doesn't jibe with the TOS, but then, unless Centrists are liberal, it doesn't jibe with itself.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)if you're not liberal enough, we're going to attack you until you leave
what utter bullshit
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)your own interpretation.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)the reason I left the first time was because of people pulling the purity thing
when I came back, I was attacked for posting stuff against Medea Benjamin and Cindy Sheehan-two people I think are the worst kinds of leftist
so I know bullshit when I see it
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)bullshit, you would have spotted your own. Looks like you may be the one who wants to keep attacking someone until they leave.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)the trolls can actually be fun at times
it's the purity freaks who are the true pains in the ass
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Declaring oneself anti-choice or anti- on some other liberal/progressive issue.
I mean, people seem to be confusing the position of conservative politicians with the role of liberals/progressives. It's as if to say: Yeah, this is the way I am so accept it.
What should be accepted: Anti-choice? Anti-union? Anti-marriage equality? Cut/privatize Social Security? Raise the retirement age?
Isn't the goal to educate and push for progress in these areas? To protect and strengthen civil rights and the social contract?
If someone can simply say, "I'm anti-choice, and I'm not going to budge," that should be accepted? What about the other positions above, like marriage equality? Should it be simply accepted that someone is against marriage equality?
What happened to evolving?
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)liberal and what's not!"
A lot of projecting and deflecting and downright poor reading comprehension in these replies.
By the way, yes, I agree with you.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)My emphasis
As for your personal prejudices even Right Wingers can produce, and sometimes agree with, liberal ideas: e.g. the noxious Ron Paul wants to cut military spending.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)My comprehension is fine, but you might want to brush up on how emphasizing a noun does not contradict the modifiers.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)It is a term of inclusion not exclusion as you wish to make it. That is why the word "people" was emphasized. That element of the TOS, as I and others read it, is to include liberals who are not members of the Democratic party.
The Democratic party does not cover the entire spectrum of liberalism and liberalism does not include many of the wilder and woollier ideas espoused by some left wingers on this board.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)of my OP. (In fact, I have already removed.)
The TOS does use terms of exclusion, which I discussed.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)And the words you chose to quote were inclusive. Exclusive language was used elsewhere.
Now go and tell Skinner what he really meant.
Now why I oppose fools like you.
I watched the Labour Party in the UK destroy itself because people like you insisted on purity tests and we ended up with 11 1/2 years of Margaret Hilda, 6 1/2 years of John Major, Then Tony b-Liar and so on.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)is defining a degree of purity by excluding certain people. If that was Skinner, you can go tell him how he's destroying the Democratic Party. Oh, and don't forget to call him a fool, as well.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)and changed to suit your personal biases.
I merely pointed out that, as written, the TOS are inclusive.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)what it means to say. There can be a difference between what our words mean and what we mean by our words. Sentences have meaning according to the rules of grammar, syntax, etc. Sometimes that meaning is different from the message we meant to convey.
Basic example: If I mean to ask for the salt, but accidentally say, Pass me the pepper, I can't blame my husband for passing me the pepper. Although I meant to ask for the salt, my actual words indicated that I wanted the pepper. To get the salt, I'm going to have to ask for the salt.
You cannot show where I said the TOS should be changed to suit my personal bias, because I never said that. My words, as written do not mean that. Nor is that what I meant. Of course I have some preferences, but that's quite different from (or different to, as you might say) what you and a few others decided I meant.
And of course the TOS is inclusive. If it weren't, no one would be allowed on DU. It's got to include someone. But it is also very clearly EXCLUSIVE.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Of course you see no conflict in this and you see no downside; that is called blinkered thinking.
Additionally you want all people to follow your version of the "true faith". Well, they won't.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)intaglio
(8,170 posts)the TOS needs updating:
You then amended that to remove the word "Democrats" after many people pointed out how your ideas would exclude many commentators. You then denied you were trying to be exclusive or that you wanted the Terms of Service re-written to make it clear how your particular interpretation was the "right" one.
We People
(619 posts)being a group made up of people who promote and support the concept of The Common Good or what Thom Hartmann refers to as "The Commons." As a teenager (many years ago) I read an article summarizing the main differences between the two political parties at that time. Republicans were characterized as the Party of Big Business, whereas Democrats were the Party of "The Common Man." This may have been before the days of using more inclusive language, but I believe the meaning and contrast between those two sides is clear.
I also don't think some things have really changed that much even since that article was written (either the mid- or late-sixties). Most of what I noticed in the thread has to do with the many issues (especially "social issues" that our society has dealt with in the political arena, but I would hope that people who find interest, support, and commonality with others here could at least be able to say, simply put, that they basically value "People over Profits."
If you boil it down to a phrase or sentence that has attracted me, at least, to places like this and the people who come here, I have tried to state them in this post.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)What's wrong with DU today is people like you; having been here a year and a day, telling DUers what DU is "supposed to be", and believing your opinion is more correct than "popular opinion" or that YOUR definition of "liberal" is the only correct one.
THAT, is what's wrong with DU today...
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Here I am still.
And, to add to your list, probably taking names for future reference, along with bookmarking threads.
Glad I was in the right place at the right time to see you.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts) 
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)But it will have to be someone with more time than me.
steve2470
(37,481 posts)You had me convinced. Hope life is treating you well.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)offended, so, glad I could help. See ya.
NutmegYankee
(16,476 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)JohnnyRingo
(20,761 posts)Does one have to disavow all firearms or identify themselves as strictly pro-choice? Do we have to complete a questionnaire that commits us all to being anti-war and zero emission?
I'm not saying I'm on one side or the other on those issues, but you have to lay down the rules if you want to enforce a purge. You can't just make it up as you go along.
What process will be used to thin the herd and retain only those you personally consider "liberal" enough to post here?
Nice of you to donate your time to remake DU in your image though. Every reply to every post can be "I couldn't agree more!" when you're done.
hahaha
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)Oh, and I mean "nice" in the same sarcastic way you meant it.
Hahahahahaha.
JohnnyRingo
(20,761 posts)But whenever I see a post that promotes a purity purge to weed out right wing trolls, I can't take it seriously. Certainly as the sun will shine tomorrow, someone gets fed up with a post they don't like and calls for a definition of the TOC. I've seen it over & over through the years.
When I see a post that I think is too far to the right than where I stand, I try to just move on and let the system take care of it. I believe the TOS is there to snag Limbaugh Lunatics and Cruz Crusaders when they ultimately reveal themselves, not to specifically define us as a group. Trolls don't seem to rack up much of a thread count in the long run.
Report suspected troublemakers and don't let it ruin your day by engaging in pointless debate.
BTW... I don't think you can effectively define a liberal Democrat. It was the GOP that labeled all Dems as "gun grabbers" and "abortionists" to rally their own base. A good many Democrats are flexible on many such issues but support the party's general platform. I don't want anyone banned because they just don't quite fit within the cookie cutter.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)What system is that? Is it not possible that the system is not working as well as most DUers would like it to? You say report suspected troublemakers. To whom?
JohnnyRingo
(20,761 posts)If the post isn't abusive, then it's a difference of opinion and should be debated. If the poster is quoting Limbaugh or espousing general right wing talking points, that shouldn't be much of a challenge and they probably won't be here long. If there's one universal defining trait of a liberal, I believe it's tolerance. That includes tolerance to race, color, and creed.
I know that's hard to do sometimes, and I occasionally find myself sucked into a heated argument as well. I lost my only jury decision a year or so ago when I used articulate, but very unfortunate and specific words, to advise a poster on what he can do with his Ron Paul yard sign. The poster reported the intentional abuse, but that brought his post to the attention of mods who used the TOS to ban him. I (rightly) had my comment hidden, but the system worked as designed.
I doubt my opinions would exactly dovetail with many on DU, but I wouldn't want to see a McCarthy style witch hunt here to determine what the default liberal position is on every single issue.
With that, I yield any final thoughts to you, but I feel I made my point and don't see a reason to reiterate.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)steve2470
(37,481 posts)The wording of the TOS guarantees chronic disagreements and a lack of an echo chamber. The Democratic Party alone is a huge tent, famous for our wrangling over the official party platform every 4 years.
I can't see Skinner narrowing the TOS. Somehow we get along/ignore one another/tolerate each other, and the ones who cannot/will not will leave or get the boot.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)TOS stipulates that DU is for liberals. I dis say perhaps that word should, for DU purposes, be defined.
But it was pointed out that at the very end of the TOS, it says DU welcomes "a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints."
I have never heard a Centrist called a liberal, so I wonder why the TOS begins by saying DU is for liberals who also this and that. It's it seems contradictory to me.
I don't believe a discussion among liberals would be an echo chamber, as even a narrowly defined liberal tent can have a lot of diversity in terms of specific policies. And, one could ask, if you want a huge tent, then why exclude "Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, extreme-fringe left-wingers, hard-line communists, LaRouchies, and the like" as the TOS also does?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Your problem is a focus on the labels and not on issues.
That's why trying to define what a liberal is, as part of DU TOS, fails.
For instance, some liberals believe that personal property is bad. Would we all need to hold that view to be a true liberal? DU would be empty.
No one gets excluded from DU because of their label. They get excluded for their behavior.
As an example, the fact that the recently PPRed "DFK" lasted here for over 37,000 posts demonstrates that fact.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)there is some definition of liberal in play here. But, what if people with mostly non-RW positions could stick to discussing the those and keep the RW ones to themselves?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Read this sub-thread, particularly the segment where DFK and I go back and forth.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1040&pid=4579
This is the kind of thing that got DFK banned. DFK is giving another DU member grief for getting an ACA subsidy.
DFK did not just make "non-liberal" statements (to repeat the rather odd phrase you selected) ... DFK would take actual GOP TALKING points (eg., "I'm just wondering who will be left to actually pay taxes" and then leverage those against other DU members.
If this distinction isn't clear, you should try putting forward some of your RW positions and see if you can locate the line you're trying to define.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)and tolerance of one another. Democrats don't believe in social Darwinism. We believe in helping one another financially and otherwise by using the government.
Tolerance is another issue we all share in one way or another. We must, really, because unlike the homogeneous Republicans we are a coalition of academics, urban whites, blacks, Hispanics, women, youth, New Deal Democrats, anti-war movement, etc. Some of these groups hold wildly different opinions. Look at the abortion discussion in this thread. Dissenting views would not be allowed in a Republican forum.
These two factors really distinguish between the two parties, it's basically the reason I vote for Democrats and would never once cast a vote for a Republican.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)or something like it: Do we tolerate anything and everything? Antisemitism? Gay bashing? Misogyny. Social Darwinism?
I've seen a lot of beliefs espoused here that I don't think we should tolerate. I disagree that it would be "an echo chamber" or "boring" here on DU if Right Wing talking points were not tolerated.
For those who want to debate right wingers, there's always Yahoo comments. They won't change their minds here any more than they will there.
Upton
(9,709 posts)6% ( 183) - Democratic Underground should be a safe haven for Democrats only.
9% ( 264) - Democratic Underground should be a safe haven for committed progressives only, regardless of political party.
23% ( 707) - Democratic Underground should be a safe haven for Democrats who are generally progressive, and other progressives who support Democratic candidates.
57% (1737) - Democratic Underground should welcome all kinds of Democrats, and all kinds of progressives.
6% ( 176) - Don't know/Other
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/2010results.html
Unless opinions have changed drastically since 2010, looks to me like the majority of DU wants to welcome all kinds of Democrats..As it should be..
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)As is, I think DU is inadvertently set up to produce two camps of people who will constantly be fighting with each other.
You have the
1. Any budge from what we consider pure liberalism/progressivism is evil, or centrist, or cheerleading, or "right wing" or "neoliberal" or "woodchucks" group
and you have the
2. Pragmatic liberals and progressives who understand that politics is the art of the possible group.
The TOS seems to indicate both groups are welcome but of course you can see how these groups will be at each other's throats all the time.
If you were trying to avoid these groups fighting with each other, you would have different websites or forums for them, but, of course, the first group objects to the second group even having their own mini forum here, so there is that.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)who openly supports repealing RvsW, and calls women who had abortion "murderers".
What else do you think is "pragmatic" to accept?
Should it be OK to allow "liberals" who don't support same-sex marriage?
How about racist "democrats"?
Where do YOU draw the line?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)where we draw the line with DU, and where we draw the line with "should this person be allowed to be a Democrat" is also not the same.
I accept that there are Liberals who for religious reasons are anti-choice. I don't cater to them on my show, in fact, if they listen to my show they will probably be offended, but you can be a Democrat and have that position.
Do I want that person advocating for that position on DU? No. Can they mention it here once and say, look, this is my belief but I am not going to advocate for it here? I'd probably say that is OK.
I don't think you can be a Liberal and be against same-sex marriage and LGBT equality or any other equality for that matter.
Now, can you be a Liberal and think that what Greenwald raised with the NSA is a red-herring? Sure, in my opinion. Can you be a Liberal and believe that drone strikes are a temporarily necessary evil? Sure, again in my opinion.
I also think that Democrats who are in favor of cutting Social Security or Chained CPI are dead wrong about that and that includes the President and I have opposed him very publicly on that. But I also believe they can be deluded into thinking that those things are necessary to save those programs. That doesnt necessarily mean they are bad people or bad Liberals.
I think deluded and disinformed also goes a long way to describing Democrats and Liberals who are anti-union. There has been massive Republican propaganda against organized labor. I encounter a lot of people who otherwise vote Democratic who are not pro-union. There is a lot of work to do there.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)If one is anti-choice, I don't give a shit how "liberal" they think they are. They treat ME no better than incubator with legs. Not a single one of them would agree to become a live organ donor on demand because it will violate their right to chose, but every single one of them think it's OK to force me to donate my entire body to gestate a foetus. Fuck That Shit! This kind of belief is no more liberal than accepting slavery.
If one has a problem with equal rights for everyone, without any exceptions, they are not liberals. They are RW hypocrites, pure and simple, and shouldn't be allowed to post here.
Now, about your post. can you please explain to me why you think one can be liberal and anti-choice for religious reasons, but not liberal and against same sex marriage for religious reasons?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Put in a nutshell, I can see how someone whose religion tells them that life begins at conception would see it as their mission to try to defend what they consider to be babies from being terminated. It helps that understanding that at least one major world religion says it is their dogma that life begins at conception.
I cannot see how people use their religion to attempt control two adults who want to love each other and whose relationship is impossible to construe as hurting anyone. It helps my rejection of that to know that the religious basis for that lack of tolerance is extremely weak, but even if it weren't, the very obvious fact that this relationship hurts no one and in fact makes the people involved happy makes this very easy to reject.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)for religious reasons. You know, punish the bitch for having sex. Or for getting raped. Because her life doesn't matter when it comes to forcing her to obey someone else beliefs based on fairytale.
All I can say, with friends like that who needs enemies. Thank you for letting me know where you stand.
BTW, there is no difference between Equal Rights for LGBTQ, and Equal Rights for Women. You either support equal rights for everyone without exceptions or you are a hypocrite RW arsehole.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)My positions on both issues are a matter of public record. I am pro-choice and pro-LGBT equality.
I can point to loads of different media where I make those positions clear. And by the way, in my own real name.
You can try to lie about my positions all you want from an anonymous internet account, it doesnt change the facts.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Even though you are pro-choice. To me it means you WILL trade MY right to chose if it suits you.
Please, correct me if I am wrong.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Exactly what method do you think I should employ to control that no one who is ever on my side on anything I ever do throughout the rest of my life disagrees with me on a couple of core issues?
If I go to a local union meeting in Pittsburgh PA, and I find out that one of the members is anti-choice, should I walk out and not support that union?
If Wendy Davis becomes Governor of Texas, as I hope she will, should she refuse to work with members of the Texas state legislature who are anti-choice on taxation policy if they support her taxation policy? If she does, she is their ally in taxation policy, is she not? According to you, she would then be a traitor to the pro-choice movement.
How far do we have to go to prevent collaborating on any task with folks who disagree with us on any of these core issues?
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)If one is willing to trade MY rights for something they want, that one becomes my enemy.
I can understand forming an alliance on a particular issue that benefits both sides as long as no one's rights are affected.
I would never agree to form an alliance to support a pro-choice issue with a homophobic bigot if they demand I give up even a little bit on where I stand when it comes to LGBTQ rights. My right to chose doesn't trump the right of everyone to be treated equally.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)about what DU should be. Are there contradictions in what it says?
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)will end up with about 20 posters all k&ring each other and nodding their heads in unison. I've been spending more time in other forums and comments sections lately and frankly,DU is boring in comparison. You need a full spectrum of posters and ideas to combat that boredom,I'm not talking about including republicans,but this constant harping that all dems must think alike is not winning DU the kind of traffic other political forums get.
gulliver
(13,895 posts)I'm talking about things like patriotism, faith, honesty, charity, etc. Right wingers wear false versions of these virtues on their sleeves. Liberals tend to actually have the virtues themselves.
Also, don't forget false liberals. They spout left wing talking points but only for self-aggrandizement and to place themselves above others.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Like, say, "A Tale of Two Cities", in which the first sentence does indeed sum up the work. However, "A Christmas Carol" does not. Both are well-written expositions of a liberal viewpoint, but both are not summed up in sentence number one.
I ascribe to the "read the whole thing" approach. Using that mindset, DU is not a Liberal-only gated community.
I am a Kennedy/LBJ Democrat. In 2013, looking at the spectrum as a whole, that puts me in the center, because the Powell Memo succeeded beyond its author's wildest dreams and the country has gone to the Right.My values have not changed, but labels sure as Hell have.
Something else that has not changed is my support of Democrats. The two-step strategy mentioned upthread only works if step one succeeds. So I bust ass to get Dems elected, every race I can.
I also despise the people that call themselves "Republicans" these past few decades, and work with even more vigor to defeat them.
I've been on DU for some time, and been made to feel welcome in the main. Because I read and abide by the entirety of The TOS, and not just the beginning bits.
Good discussion, thanks for starting it.
Trillo
(9,154 posts)This is an excerpt from the old DU discussion board:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html
This is a website for Democrats and other progressives.
Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, or if you wish to see Republicans win elections, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned.
So, what is the difference between liberal and progressive?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9140.html
The answer, in my opinion, is no - there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional "liberals" in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A "progressive" are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.
Sirota goes on to assert that progressives are a subset of liberals. But that's just one person's view. What does wikipedia say?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism#Liberalism
Cultural liberalism[clarification needed] is ultimately founded on the belief that the major purpose of the government is to protect rights. Liberals are often called "left-wing", in contrast to "right-wing" conservatives. The progressive school, as a unique branch of contemporary political thought, tends to advocate certain center-left or left-wing views that may conflict with mainstream liberal views, despite the fact that modern liberalism and progressivism may still both support many of the same policies (such as the concept of war as a general last resort).[citation needed]
American progressives tend to advocate progressive taxation and oppose what they describe as the growing and negative influence of large corporations. Progressives are typically in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system. In the United States, liberals and progressives are often conflated, and in general are the primary voters of the Democratic Party which has a "large tent" policy, combining similar if not congruent ideologies into large voting blocs. Many progressives also support the Green Party or local parties such as the Vermont Progressive Party. In Canada, liberals usually support the national Liberal Party while progressives usually support the New Democratic Party, which traditionally has had provincial electoral success in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and since the recent federal election, in Quebec.[citation needed]
Thanks for the post, it's always good to learn how this community changed from the older discussion board.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)The notion that coercion is acceptable and that people must be forced to comply with the wishes others is the root of all that is wrong with us.
SamYeager
(309 posts)There is a vast yawning chasm of political differences within liberal.
One can be extremely liberal and extremely authoritarian, for example.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)That's the most important bit, IMO.
Sid
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)we have the massive conflicts we have here.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)But it's, clearly, poorly enforced these days - as this thread proves.
I get it that there are Liberals of all sorts - since we're having trouble defining the label around here - but this is still Democratic Underground and no matter how much we quibble on the definition of the word liberal, we cannot lose sight of the fact that this is still a community that should be dedicated to "working withing the system to elect more Democrats".
I've seen posts that excoriate Democrats currently running for office, and yet these posts are cheered on. I just don't understand why that's tolerated when it clearly goes against the TOS.
So yes, criticize some Democratic pols that aren't keeping to the Democratic platform, but don't post stuff like, "I will never vote for that Democrat!" or "I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils". That's counterproductive for the Party and for the country. Just my humble opinion.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)
My input:
1. "Liberal" is very broadly interpreted, as is "progressive." So broadly that it has ceased to mean anything substantive.
1A. "Centrists" co-opted the terms "liberal" and "progressive" quite some time ago, as people who are more "liberal" or "progressive" than the far right-wing bat-shit crazy fascists; which, clearly, doesn't require being "liberal" or "progressive" at all. The dlc think tank: the "progressive policy institute."
2. "Liberal" is the broader term in the revised for DU3 statement you've posted; DU used to self-identify as "left-wing." Why the change? To move to the center with the centrist Democratic president we elected. The site hasn't really been "underground" since '08, and is clearly now more representative of mainstream centrism than liberals. Many liberals are still here, of course. Many have drifted away as the site evolved.
3. There has always been tension between that identity, left-wing or liberal, and the clearly stated partisan nature of the site, and partisanship has always been the priority. DU is, at it's foundation, for promoting the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is not liberal, nor left-wing. The mainstream Democratic Party is centrist, and has been at least since 1992. Therefore, regardless of the rather disingenuous "liberal" label, DU is for centrists. More for centrists these days than actual "old" left-of-center liberal Democrats or other liberals.
gopiscrap
(24,671 posts)
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Liberalism support a number of key principles, including extensive freedom of thought, freedom of speech, limitations on the power of governments, rule of law, free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy (think Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations), and a transparent system of government. Liberals tend to support a liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law. The exact policies of different liberal governments around the world vary. It should be noted for the edification of lurkers that liberalism and socialism are different in that economic freedom (the right to own a business/means of production) has classically been a part of liberalism. Many policies borrowed from socialism work perfectly within a liberal democracy, especially those that aid the poor and limit the power of the wealthy. Differences between liberals come down to differences in what policies will be best in enhancing individual liberty and furthering a liberal Democracy.
That is a definition based on political science, but liberals are not the only group we have here, we have Progressives, and Progressives are not liberals in the historic sense. A really good discussion on Liberalism and Progressivism can be found in the following "New Republic" article.
Another good link by the same author, "My short history of liberalism By Eric Rauchway."
muriel_volestrangler
(105,984 posts)The utmost centrist party of Flanders has been the Volksunie, which not only embraced social liberalism but also displayed the national sentiment of the Dutch speaking Belgians who felt culturally suppressed by Francophones. The New Flemish Alliance is the largest, and since 2009, the only successor of that party.
Among French speaking Belgians the Humanist Democratic Centre is a centre-right or centre party as it is considerably less conservative than its Flemish counterpart, Christian Democratic & Flemish. Another party in the centre of the political spectrum is the liberal Reformist Movement.
Canada
Although the Liberal Party of Canada was the dominant centre-left party for most of the country's history, it lost that title in the 2011 federal elections to the New Democratic Party, or NDP. The Liberals have typically positioned themselves as being more moderate and centrist than the NDP, putting them somewhere between the centre and centre-left. The Liberals are currently the third-largest party in Canada's House of Commons. The unrepresented United Party of Canada has a similar platform.
France
France has a tradition of parties that call themselves centriste. The most notable centrist party, often also called liberal, was the Union for French Democracy, created in 1978. Among its successors belongs the small Centrist Alliance, the most successful of them is the Democratic Movement of François Bayrou, founded in 2007.
Zentrismus is a term merely known to experts, as it is easily confused with Zentralismus ("centrism", the opposite to descentralization/federalism); so the usual term in German for the political centre/centrism is politische Mitte (literally "political middle", or "political centre"
. Historically, the German party with the most purely centrist nature among German parties to have had current or historical parliamentary representations was most likely the social-liberal German Democratic Party of the Weimar Republic (1918–1933).
...
The main successor of Zentrum after the return of democracy to West Germany in 1945, the Christian Democratic Union, has throughout its history alternated between describing itself as right-wing or centrist, and sitting on the right-wing (with the Free Democratic Party in its social liberal moments sitting at its left, in the centre, and themselves sitting at the centre, with the FDP in its classical liberal moments sitting at its right, in the right-wing).
...
Nordic countries
Main article: Nordic Agrarian parties
See also: Liberalism and centrism in Sweden, Centrism in Iceland and Centrism in Finland
In most of the Nordic countries, there are Nordic agrarian parties. These share in addition to the centrist position on the socio-economic left-right scale a clear, separate ideology. This position is centered around decentralisation, a commitment to small business and environmental protection. Centrists have aligned themselves with the Liberal International and European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party. Historically, all of these parties were farmers' parties committed to maintaining rural life. In the 1960s, these parties broadened their scope to include non-farmer related issues and renamed themselves Centre Party.
Neither the Centre Democrats (a now defunct centrist political party) nor the Liberal Alliance (a political party founded as a centrist social liberal party but that now is a classical liberal/Austroliberal party), both of Denmark, are rooted in centrist agrarianism.
...
Traditionally, though, the party which in UK politics is most commonly seen as holding the centre ground are the Liberal Democrats, which is a social liberal party often placed between centre-left and the radical centre (or on the radical centre itself) in terms of position in the political spectrum. In March 2011 the leader of the Liberal Democrats and Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Nick Clegg, stated that he believed that his party belonged to the radical centre, mentioning John Maynard Keynes, William Beveridge, Jo Grimond, David Lloyd George and John Stuart Mill as other traditional examples of the radical centre that preceded the Liberal Democrats' foundation in 1988. He pointed to liberalism as an ideology of people, and he described the political spectrum and his party's position on it as follows: "For the left, an obsession with the state. For the right, a worship of the market. But as liberals, we place our faith in people. People with power and opportunity in their hands. Our opponents try to divide us with their outdated labels of left and right. But we are not on the left and we are not on the right. We have our own label: Liberal. We are liberals and we own the freehold to the centre ground of British politics. Our politics is the politics of the radical centre."
...
In New Zealand, the main current centrist party is the United Future party, founded by a fusion of a previous centrist social liberal party and a previous Christian conservative party. United Future currently has one seat in the New Zealand parliament, supporting the current Government led by the National Party alongside ACT and the Maori Party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism
It's pretty common, around the world, for 'liberal' to mean 'centrist'.
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
pitbullgirl1965
(564 posts)NSFW:The picture is blanked out, just click on it. It's very graphic, you've been warned.
Btw, this womans sister is a DU member.
http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/gerri-santoros-abortion/
idwiyo
(5,113 posts) pitbullgirl1965
(564 posts)I hope she approves of forced organ donation for herself too. Basically a woman donate her body when pregnant. 
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)With friends like that, who needs enemies.
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)It is incredible. I was trying to be somewhat civil to her/him, and still got put on ignore. tiny tear.
I am livid too. To come to DU and call abortions homicide, women who get them murderers, and then be condescending about respecting her/his opinion? big big sigh
pitbullgirl1965
(564 posts)I doubt it. I posted her bullshit on a LiveJournal community for all to see.
How do you know she has you on ignore?
uppityperson
(116,009 posts)I'm going to put you on ignore now, because I believe you are trying to inflame the rhetoric here. I have made my position very clear; I'm sorry that you cannot understand it.
Oh, I understand her/his position very well.
pitbullgirl1965
(564 posts)She needs to be banned. What she's advocating is a form of prison: forcing someone to give birth against their will is inhumane. Jesus.
DURHAM D
(33,019 posts)Got to wonder if the Admin are watching.
pitbullgirl1965
(564 posts)I'm going to say something to Admin. She's been here 9 years, so I'm surprised it took this long. I'll let you know ok/
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)pitbullgirl1965
(564 posts)There is no way to alert an Admin and lodge a complaint? What's the best way to go about this? A jury?
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)tblue37
(68,398 posts)
vaberella
(24,634 posts)There are many Dems on DU that are socially liberally but fiscally conservative and in some cases there are some who are conservative in general but may have some liberal leanings.
Many centrists are on this board and have been for a long time.
IronLionZion
(51,088 posts)Good luck trying to get any two liberals to agree on the definition, let alone an entire forum. Its mostly about being open to new ideas that are not traditional or widely accepted.
Liberals want change. Conservatives want to stay the same. Therefore their side can have a more hard definition.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)"Liberalism" is hard to place on the left-right political spectrum because of the fluid nature of it philosophically.
Such a problem does not exist for "conservatives."
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)just running up my post count
No Vested Interest
(5,293 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,213 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)As mentioned before if posted anywhere here this should have been in Ask The Administrators.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)Right here on DU.
Posts like this one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023707888
Always stirring the poop. Always conservative.
How convenient it is that DU members need not go to FreeRepublic or any sort of Right-winged Cave, to be referred to as Crazy Leftists, counterproductive wingnuts , etc.
DU provides that service now, thanks to the hard work of our embedded Conservative.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3885609
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Can't believe they are still around.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)
Fix The Stupid
(999 posts)
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)When you have been here half as long as me, I will start caring what you think DU is supposed to be about.