Given that this is a forum for Democrats, I'm all for getting rid of anyone who is not for

[Sarah Ibarruri]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by one_voice (a host of the General Discussion forum).

Democratic candidates, Democrats, the Democratic Party, and Democratic goals.

Non-Democrats or Democrats that aren't for the Democratic Party and Democratic Presidents, and Democratic candidates can go create their own forum elsewhere.

Here's the Mission Statement of DU:


Mission Statement

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

Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
Having fun!

After more than a decade online, Democratic Underground still hosts the most active liberal discussion board on the Internet. We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic Party. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards. There is no other website quite like it anywhere on the Internet.

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

[DisgustipatedinCA]

1. I'll get the kindling. We can burn them to death. I just love a good mob.

[Cha]

49. Yeah, you do that.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

51. That's kind of like me telling you to go ahead and breathe.

We're both going to do what we're going to do without seeking one another's permission, and that's probably a very good thing.

[Seeking Serenity]

2. Because nothing says "Underground"

like blinkered, rigid, enforced conformity.

[Whisp]

4. and nothing says 'underground' like that hole under a 3 hole shithouse. n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

20. .

[djean111]

7. Not only that, but who gets to define Democratic goals? Or has that been changed to be

"whatever Obama does"? And Democrats - literally, anyone with a "D"? We have to accept Third Way because...why?
Actually, the OP would be perfectly happy, I think, if DU was renamed OU, and membership eligibility commenced from that starting point.
Meanwhile - if Elizabeth Warren disagrees with Obama, whatever should we do? Both are Dems! And Hillary disagreed with Obama LOTS and LOTS. We are gonna need on hell of a big bus.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. The mission statement, which I just posted, states clearly that it's a board to help elect MORE

Democrats.

[djean111]

31. No matter what they say, or do?

Enough third way Democrats, and then that all too true saying kicks in - when given a choice between a real republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the real Republican wins.
I do think you will get what you, in a way, if the Democratic party keeps drifting to the right - because being a Democrat, and what the party stands for, will be redefined, and not all of us can stomach that.

[Squinch]

39. When given a choice between a Democrat who you have disagreements with and a

"real" Republican, you will vote for the "real" Republican? Is that what you are saying?

[djean111]

80. Um, no - I was speaking in terms of the general electorate - the people who don't frequent

message boards or whatever.
I reserve the right to try and speak out about POSSIBLE Democrat candidates who are Third Way, blue dog, whatever.
And to speak out about ANY Democrat who I feel is more like a Republican.
DU is not a Third Way Veal Pen. Yet. Although it feels a bit like that is what is wanted now, by some.

[buff2]

142. I agree

I am a progressive Liberal Democrat who detests CONservatives/rethuglikkkans. I haven't been on this board in ages.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

145. Thanks nt

[pipoman]

151. DU has always allowed for

Party policy debate, candidate lobbying, and criticism of elected officials, DNC and candidates up through the convention, after the convention we show unity.

[raindaddy]

261. It's getting hard to find one....

Old school FDR/populist Democrats are on endangered species list, haven't you heard?

[roguevalley]

273. when discussion and participation is censored because some don't like it, then we are

republicans. This too shall pass. It always does. Relax and let it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

279. The reason I posted the mission statement, was not because I wanted to decorate my OP

It was because the goal of DU is to promote Democratic Party candidates into office, and NOT to trash and bash the Democratic Party and the Democratic President.

Right now there are some right wingers in DU who think it's hilarious to pretend to be Democrats, but it shows through clearly because they are repeating the Republican soundbytes. However, there are also the whiners attacking President Obama, who is our Democratic Party president, and our democratically-elected president. DU does not stand for attacking our Democratic President.

[Egnever]

81. All your post says is you dont remember when it was an underground

When a large portion of america had lost it's mind after 9-11 and went goose stepping along with bush. When being a democrat was a dirty thing to be because you questioned the supreme one.

Now there is no underground the Dems are in control and it is easy to parade around claiming your progressive credentials.

But hey you go on pretending the name of this site is a reference to some kind of cool kid democrat that is smarter than the average democrat or whatever it is you think the underground was in reference to instead of the safe haven from the BS of the bush days.

[Seeking Serenity]

111. Been here since 2004.

Yes, I remember. That's back when Democrats held virtually no power. It was so much easier being on the outside banging on the walls. Now that Democrats do have power, it's a lot harder, innit?

[Egnever]

118. Then you should know better.

[Seeking Serenity]

154. Know better than what?

I fear I have missed your point.

[Scootaloo]

196. Well, that's interesting...

Seeing as now the wit'-us-or-agin'-us, president-is-always-right, you-just-hate-America, why-do-you-want-turrirsts-to-win, let-'s-blow-up-Muslims-yeehaw crowd is currently dancing around on DU, pretending that they get to define and police who is or is not a "real" Democrat.

A poster downthread has it right. Let's get rid of the right-wing skin-wastes who think yelping to the sky, "I SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRESIDENT AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CONGRESSMAN AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHEESE DIP AND THE DEMOCRATIC DEMOCRAT DEMOCRAT!" covers for their constant, incessant ratfuckery. And then maybe we'll talk about "party loyalty"

of course, with the pseudo-fascist stowaways gone, I doubt it'll even be a fucking issue anymore

[pnwmom]

128. When DU started Republicans were in power and every Democrat was in the underground.

Now that Dems are in power, some people come here to oppose everything the Dems do.

[quinnox]

3. I didn't realize you were the new owner of DU!

We hear and obey.

[Autumn]

14. I would think the new owner of DU would at least purchase a star

before she goes around throwing every body out.

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

[quinnox]

19. Wow, you are right, not even a star member, and they get to decide who is purged. Hmmmmmm

VERY CURIOUS INDEED

[Autumn]

44. I think I will borrow a clue from Sarah Ibarruri and not donate to DU again

[Eleanors38]

87. Yech, even purging must be part-time temp work.

[Scootaloo]

200. Maybe some posters enjoy seeing right-wing themed google ads?

Me, I run adblock, and bought a star any-goddamned-way .

[yeoman6987]

67. Slam!!!!!! Bingo! You clearly have the DU post of the day!

[Autumn]

99. Someone wasn't happy with it

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Fri Mar 28, 2014, 01:46 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I would think the new owner of DU would at least purchase a star
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4739296

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Singling out some DUers for not buying stars has long been against community standards. It's a classist elitism and attempt to engage in personal attacks rather than stick to the topic at hand.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Mar 28, 2014, 01:52 AM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not to stir the pot, but this would be better as a reply, not an alert.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: we are all stars, grow some back bone and deal with it
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is NOTHING wrong with this post.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

119. I see you're an elitist now. :)

I've been branded a secret Republican, a grammar nazi, but never an elitist. I'm going to work on getting that badge.

[yeoman6987]

174. How awesome!

I would save this. I honestly have never saw a 0-6 jury verdict. I know the juries I have been on have never resulted in such a cool outcome. Congrats!

[lumberjack_jeff]

252. +1 n/t

[treestar]

5. the old fashioned system

would have tombstones a lot of people the juries let get away with stuff. This is just as bad as arguing with conservatives!

Especially tiring are those who just can't bring themselves to go out and vote. They are clearly trying to disrupt the board. It would normally be about getting out to campaign for the election coming up.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. On both DU 2 and DU 3 all tombstoning or ppr's have always been handed out only by

admins, who remain the self same admins now as they were then. Are you suggesting that Skinner and Earl G or Elad have changed their own standards, because those decisions are and always were in their hands, not the juries, not the mods, not MIRT.
Perhaps you should address Skinner about this directly in ATA?

[Marr]

6. So people who wouldn't cheer for Zell Miller? They should be booted?

Or is it just sort of a 'I know them when I see them' sort of thing? Or maybe you'd cheer for a Zell Miller?

[gulliver]

8. I would like to see the site produced by some of these folks.

I don't think they have it in them. Put it that way.

[Bobbie Jo]

32. That little experiment has been attempted....

and failed, miserably.

I won't post the link, because....garbage. I'm not sure if it's even functional at this point.

[LittleBlue]

10. Those are the same rules as Free Republic

You're asking for a purge of all dissenting views.

And you can't even justify it by saying that it's to help elect Democrats. Obama isn't running again. It's a clear call for an ideological purge.

Turning this into a corporate Dem version of Freeperville will be the end of DU.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. Read the DU Mission Statement. I just posted it in my OP. nt

[LittleBlue]

16. I did

Could you point me to the specific stipulation where we aren't allowed to criticize Democrats who aren't running again?

Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government

Obama isn't running so...

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

Again, Obama not running.

So please quote the exact rule you're talking about.

[VanillaRhapsody]

175. Did he stop being a Democrat when he became President for the second term?

He is still a relatively young man and think about it.....he is going to have incredible influence and star power going forward (like it or not). He has alot of people who support him and like he immensly. He is STILL going to be very influential in Democratic politics going forward for many years to come...(like it or not).

So Underestimate him at your peril....AND bashing him because he "isn't running again" is probably one of the more disingenuous and lame and not seeing the forest for the trees....statement I have seen on DU lately...

It's the trifecta....we are talking Sarah Palin level....

[LittleBlue]

203. He stopped being a re-electable Democrat in his second term

And I still don't see anything in there about prohibiting criticism of Democrats. It just says this is a site for Democrats to discuss politics.

If you're finding stealth freeper newbies, point it out to MIRT. An ideological purge would be the end of DU.

[VanillaRhapsody]

231. It doesn't matter that HE is not electable...HE will be influential....for years to come...

do not underestimate that man.

"to support and elect Democrats" I believe it says and that man will be extremely helpful at getting Democrats elected in the future...

Like it or not...

[LittleBlue]

270. We do support and elect Democrats

That's why everyone on this forum donates and/or votes for Democrats.

Supporting and electing Democrats =/= no criticism of Democrats

Let's just cut to the chase. Since this thread is clearly about Will Pitt, do you think he votes for Republicans?

[totodeinhere]

312. No actually he is eligible to run for any other political office other than

president. I would love to see him hold another political office. We need him. And there is historical precedent for a former president holding another political office after leaving the presidency.

[quinnox]

12. By the way, that is going to make a few Canadians and other foreigners rather unhappy

Since they aren't Democrats.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

15. If they're for Democrats, that's fine. Read the mission statement. It's in my OP nt

[William769]

13. Kick & highly recommended.

[msongs]

17. or we could get rid of the people who are not "politically liberal" lol but that would decimate the

place

[Sarah Ibarruri]

18. Read the DU Mission Statement. It's in my OP nt

[uncommonlink]

21. I did and I believe it's up to the owners of this site

to police it, not you.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

23. The mission statement is quite clear what DEMOCRATIC Underground is about nt

[uncommonlink]

25. No kidding and it's up to the owners of this site to determine

who gets to stay and who goes, not you.

[Kingofalldems]

63. Gee, will you allow her to have an opinion on it?

Thanks in advance.

[uncommonlink]

71. OP can have any opinion they like,

but it's up to the owners of the site to police it, and determine who stays and who goes, not the OP.

[840high]

64. +100

[VanillaRhapsody]

178. "the Owners" wrote the mission statement....I think they knew what they meant...

[uncommonlink]

192. I agree.

If they want to enforce it like the OP suggests, it's up to them, not the OP.

[VanillaRhapsody]

233. See that is the part being overlooked.....at some point they do...during election cycles...and what

this OP is saying is that....we are again heading for elections the crucial 2014 Midterms....its make or break time....and it is fast approaching....

Its time to get the weeds out of the garden....

[sheshe2]

22. K&R!

[hlthe2b]

26. Can we just chill out and acknowledge that support does not require blind allegiance to

every position or comment that comes from a Democrat--even a Democratic President?

Geebus, This is NOT the way to motivate more Dem supporters... Teabaggers demand lock-step... Democrats are big tent, remember?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

28. I put the DU Mission Statement in my op. nt

[hlthe2b]

41. The mission statement does not preclude criticism of our own, either...

[Capt. Obvious]

27. I'm all for getting rid of people who insult the disabled

Shouldn't be allowed on a Democratic board.

[VanillaRhapsody]

182. that one is not in this OP or the mission statement...

[Skittles]

29. and pay attention to the MEANING of the words DEMOCRATIC, LIBERAL and PROGRESSIVE

they can't just SAY they are Democrats

[itsrobert]

30. Some just want to SELL BOOKS and get traffic for their Website/Blog

They are like Used Car Salesmen.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

34. Yup, and they're anti-Democrat. I say they create their own blog for their anti-Democratic ideas nt

[freshwest]

247. Certainly not coming here to talk *to* people, but rather talk *at* people. It wastes our time here.

As far as them making their own blog, an anti-Democratic one, they don't have the ability to do so. So they feed off DU like vampires. They will not stop coming here. The Admins have made a site that is the envy of others with its features. It will always draw those who have no interest in Democratic ideas or winning elections but use it to further other agendas.

The Admins cannot control those who come here and use DU as a public toilet, and if they banned these people they would take their page views with them. Possibly the hope is that these threads will breed resistance to this process, but that's not what's happening, nor has it been for a long time.

What we read here abuses the conscience and insults the intelligence of Democrats. IRL, Democrats who are making a difference do not fall for outrage, and they work with facts to change things. The outrage machine is a rightwing methodology that bypasses the thinking part of the brain, it goes to the gut, the technique of Fox News. But there is no objection to this allowed here anymore. There are no rules here on the level of discourse or of truth or facts, and that is not liberal or progressive and won't accomplish those goals.

These Do-Nothings profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and discourage all effective action for change. They are known by their brand, 'I agree with your ends but not your means'.

~ Saul Alinsky

I've posted on sites before that did not permit an unlinked OP to stand, or assertions that could not be backed up. That is now the norm today at DU, except for news pieces and articles quoted.

Those sites did not permit OP posters to ignore facts posted on their threads rebutting them, or abuse those posting facts personally, while never offering facts to argue with them. This goes on daily here, where facts are ignored and never answered by OP writers, or they or others abuse those who post facts to prove their side of a discussion. And those sites did not allow posters to dump a thread and never come back to answer anyone. It is one thing to do such when posting something that is not one's personal opinion, but a news story. Those who ignored their responsiblity to have a fair discussion were banned.

DU has become the equivalent of the last call at a honky tonk, with language and jumping to conclusions very much like Rush, and extremely hostile to Democrats, period. This place is destructive to those looking for information they can use to win elections and to bring about progressive change.

I don't think the Admins have a solution to this, although it is against the mission statement of DU. Since the TOS is not going to be enforced, perhaps it should be eliminated. It has only caused people who post here expecting DU to support Democrats and allow free discussion of how to achieve the goals of the Democratic Party platform disappointment.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

255. "...they feed off DU like vampires..." Exactly! That's what they're doing

"As far as them making their own blog, an anti-Democratic one, they don't have the ability to do so. So they feed off DU like vampires."

You're right. They have no capacity to put together an awesome forum like this one, so they hang on to this one for dear life in a sad, sad attempt to further their failed agendas.

And this is so perfect:

These Do-Nothings profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and discourage all effective action for change. They are known by their brand, 'I agree with your ends but not your means'.

~ Saul Alinsky

The whiners do nothing but whine. They change nothing, they work toward nothing, they just whine uselessly.

And then there are the Republicans who come in here wearing a Democratic Party costume, and say things such as: "Woe is me. I voted for Obama, but he's disappointing me." And of course, those Republican paid operatives, and the do-nothing, powerless whiners, sound identical.

[nadinbrzezinski]

286. So you are telling me that people like Will Pitt are vampires

getting hits on an anti democratic crusade?

Really? Truth Out is anti democratic. I am sure this will come as a shock to Ash and others... who have done far more to elect DEMOCRATS than most posters here.

Hmm

[Jamaal510]

146. LMAO

[Cleita]

33. I guess honorable lefties like Bernie Sanders would have

no place on your brave new message board because he's not a Democrat.

[VanillaRhapsody]

186. He Caucus's WITH the Democrats....he supports the Democratic President AND

the Affordable Care Act...

Nice try...epic fail.

[Hissyspit]

294. And criticizes the President.

[VanillaRhapsody]

297. but it is not ALL he does is it? He supports them and this President....

some on DU can not say that....

[Cleita]

307. ...

[VanillaRhapsody]

318. Wake up

and smell the Midterms....

[flvegan]

35. "where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change"

"most active liberal discussion board"

"Helping elect more Democrats"

"Democrats that aren't for the Democratic Party and Democratic Presidents..." Interesting, "who aren't for" meaning any dissent is automatically AGAINST them it would seem. Interesting take. Liberal is now lockstep. Got it. Um, didn't our President want us to hold his feet to the fire? That said, your concern is duly noted.

Go ahead, call me a racist. It's the going thing these days.

[mucifer]

36. It's a discussion board. We have many opinions we are many people. We discuss. nt

[KoKo]

37. Sarah...this part is interesting:

We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic Party. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards. There is no other website quite like it anywhere on the Internet.

If they aren't affiliated with the Democratic Party then there should not be a "Loyalty Test."

Says "where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards."

Pehaps that's why there's sort of a war going on at DU these days. It's kind of ambiguous as to what a litmus test of membership must be except that one should support Democratic Candidates over Republican ones.

[donco]

38. I guess i will

have to not support Bernie Sanders then.Gotta conform.

[VanillaRhapsody]

191. Why Bernie actually supports Democrats....now some members of DU not so much...

funny how that works huh?

[laundry_queen]

40. On every single online forum I've ever been a member of

(and there have been a LOT of all varying subjects) the ones that eventually crapped out and no longer exist were the ones that started demanded unquestioning loyalty to the owners. If you want to get rid of anyone who dislikes particular democratic candidates or politicians, or anyone who disagrees with Skinner, then that is exactly the direction DU is headed - a big fat crap out. I suppose you would've shit canned all the people who fought to try to get Lieberman out of office?

I'd rather have weekly flamefests than an echo chamber. But that's just me.

[Eleanors38]

117. Well, that explains the durability of the Gungeon.

[ZombieHorde]

42. Why not

just put everyone on ignore who's opinions are in conflict with your vision of DU?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

53. Read the Mission Statement of DU. I posted it on my OP nt

[ZombieHorde]

55. I did. I don't see how that answers my question.

You have a different interpretation of the mission statement than the authors.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

56. Sure does. nt

[ZombieHorde]

66. Then why do you think the admins are going against their own rules? nt

[TroglodyteScholar]

137. Woohoo, don't expect a response to that one.

You know, just read the mission statement or whatever.

[VanillaRhapsody]

193. the Mission statement IS what this OP is about

to demand otherwise is plain and simple STRAW

[uncommonlink]

61. And that's all that counts,

the interpertation of the owners, not some member.

[Douglas Carpenter]

43. Indeed! It is the duty of the cadre of the proletariat to defend the vanguard of the proletariat

which is the Party - To attack the Party is to attack the people for the Party is the organized will of the masses.

[scarletwoman]

45. Bring on the Loyalty Oaths! Purge! Purge!

Zero tolerance for Thought Crimes!

O, brave new world!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

47. No one is begging people who are against Democrats to join DU. Read the DU Mission Statement nt

[scarletwoman]

58. I've been here since 2001. No one has to tell me about the Mission Statement.

Why don't you just go ahead and post a list of those who you think are unworthy of being here?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

62. Then I'm glad you read where it says that its intention is to elect MORE Democrats. nt

[scarletwoman]

91. I vote for Democrats, and I will damn well criticize them if I think they're fucking up.

Your OP seems to indicate that no one who speaks ill of any Democratic politician should be allowed here. Too bad. I WILL speak ill of Democratic politicians if they are doing ill. And a 'D' behind a name does NOT preclude the possibility of ill doings.

[uncommonlink]

101. Best post so far.

[VanillaRhapsody]

197. Do you think people hearing you bash them day in and day out is getting more democrats elected?

because that is in the Mission Statement too....

[scarletwoman]

242. Do you think no one here is capable of thinking for themselves?

I don't know who this "you" is that you're worried about, but it isn't "me".

Here are my two most recent OPS in GD (I'm not bothering with my OPs in the Movies Group):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024671545 (from March 16th)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024707160 (from March 21st)

I don't have a problem with anyone who "bashes" Democrats - sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don't. In any case, I think about things my own way, and I don't feel a need to shut anyone up just because they don't see things the way I do.

If a person's principles can be swayed by anonymous posts on the internet, then I would say their so-called principles aren't very deeply held in the first place. I'm not going to go about in fear of reading viewpoints which differ from mine.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

76. Me too (2001). It's not the first attempted purge, and it won't be the last

I'm glad we're both still here to counter this bull****.

[scarletwoman]

121. Oh well, the occasional calls for purging DU are entertaining, at least.

Although it's a mindset I simply do not grok.

[QC]

126. Locobozo used to demand purges on pretty much a daily basis,

back before he got tombstoned, of course.

[scarletwoman]

134. Funny, that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

141. You did not remember that? It was at least a weekly thing

[scarletwoman]

169. Of course I remember that! I have never been more deliriously happy in all my time on DU when that

asshole saboteur finally got tombstoned!

I meant "funny, that" in a totally ironic sense.

And, btw, I mean "saboteur" in a totally literal sense - the username actually gave away the game from the get-go, although no matter how many times I pointed it out, it was ignored. "Zoccolo" is Italian for a type of shoe - a wooden shoe, as in "sabot". As in saboteur.

[nadinbrzezinski]

188. I am amazed at the depth of knowledge in this place

I did not know that. I wonder if that could make an interesting name for a character though.

[Kurovski]

219. Greetings unto thee,

mighty and beloved woman of scarlet!

[scarletwoman]

251. Hey! You wild man, you!

Oh, my dear elusive one! A thousand hugs and kisses to you!

[Kurovski]

308. A thousand?!

I will not tolerate your holding-out on me in this way!

[scarletwoman]

320. I, uh, er, um... it was algebra! (yeah, that's the ticket...) Each smilie represented a set of 1000!

No, wait! each smilie represented a set of 1000000! No, wait - the sets were even BIGGER! 1000000000000000000! Times Pi! Times quantums!

OMG - Vishnu has created, Brahma has sustained, and Shiva has destroyed countless Universes to infinity times each smilie!!!!!

*pant* *pant* *pant*

*gasp*

Uh, sorry. What were we talking about?

[Kurovski]

327. What were we talking about?

Religion!

Your explanation is perfectly valid and sensible, as is everything you say Obama, er I mean...scarletwoman.

[scarletwoman]

334. I am nothing if not sensual...

I mean, sensible.

Yes. Religion. I worship you, Kurovski.

[Oilwellian]

275. Me three (2001)

The OP is disgraceful.

[VanillaRhapsody]

194. People who have never said a single word positive about Democrats EVER on this board....

that might be the first clue....

[scarletwoman]

259. I don't know of anyone on DU who fits that description.

Seriously.

Maybe they don't like all the same Democrats that you like, but I know of no one here who doesn't like at least some Democrats.

[VanillaRhapsody]

268. Denial is NOT a river in Egypt.....

obviously there are a number of DU'rs that DO think so.....

[scarletwoman]

280. What denial?

Yes, there are plenty of folks here unhappy with SOME Democrats. And they may very well be folks who LOVE Paul Wellstone, or FDR, or Elizabeth Warren - or even (*gasp!*) - Dennis Kucinich. Those are all Democrats, too. But maybe loving THOSE Democrats isn't good enough for you?

[VanillaRhapsody]

290. the FACT is that DU DOES in fact enforce the mission statement during election cycles...

and we are coming up on a crucial election....the Midterms. If you are not here to "support and help elect MORE Democrats" if you are here just to trash them and nothing else...then said person is in violation of the mission statement ....PERIOD.

Anyone who supports and helps get them elected is welcome....if you have nothing at all positive to say about them...then you are NOT in the right forum...PERIOD.

[scarletwoman]

298. Yeah, so? There haven't even been any Primaries yet.

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

[VanillaRhapsody]

306. Can you say "Midterms"

there....I knew you could....

You see...midterms are the hardest elections for Democrats and even more important to keep on message. Republicans usually have the advantage....


and if YOU cannot see why this particular Midterm is soooo incredibly crucial this time....then perhaps you should find a new hobby...politics is not your forte.

So if you are not here to support and elect Democrats in the next Midterm....then perhaps you are here to help the Republicans...

[scarletwoman]

314. You didn't even bother to read the links I posted in one of my other replies to you, did you.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4740127

I don't need your lectures.

[VanillaRhapsody]

315. then stop acting so naive....or being disingenuous one of the two....

You didn't seem to think we had any elections anytime soon. What kind of reaction to that were you expecting?

[scarletwoman]

326. I'm being rational.

Since you've only been registered on DU since 2012, I would say that you are the one who's being naive.

I haven't lasted on DU since 2001 by being easily panicked.

[VanillaRhapsody]

329. well you are not being a realist....

Do you know that not everyone signs up to chat at the exact first moment that they found DU? Lots of traffic are folks who never do....I became a member BECAUSE I saw what this place had become....BECAUSE of all the things being said ABOUT Democrats and the President....and I was here everyday for years....learning from great conversations...until a certain group of fans showed up and ruined the joint.....

So you can take your condescension about that and put it where the sun doesn't shine.

[steve2470]

46. Skinner and EarlG aren't going to do that nt

[Jesus Malverde]

48. Sarah who made more money for Skinner today??

You or Mr. Pitt with 14,000 page views in less than 12 hours. Those page views are real money in the bank for the DU administration and they would be silly to cut off that off.

Bottom line is DU is a business, not some free auxiliary of the third way democrats and their overreaching bipartisanship. A business under pressure from real competition from Facebook, twitter, huffpo, kos, etc it's not the only game in town.

If this place was all platitudes it would get boring pretty quickly.

I think what makes people uncomfortable is now they have to choose between supporting the insupportable saying the Iraq war was justified or repudiate the man who said it.

I have no such misgivings, the war was wrong before President Obama was elected and it's still WRONG.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

50. Mr. Pitt has clearly been speaking out against our Democratic Party president. If he hates our

Democratic President that much, surely he could find himself an anti-Democratic Party forum to publish his thoughts in, and not one which is geared to electing MORE Democrats. There are several I can think of.

[Jesus Malverde]

89. I think the business of this forum cannot be overlooked

As a party auxiliary this would be a small place on the internet and not self sustaining.

The saying on the internet is if your not paying for the service you are the product.

What that means is, our contributions become the content that is in a sense "resold" as page views.

From that perspective do not be surprised when outsized contributors like Mr. Pitt get a pass.

I think what is a little toxic here are the "factions" that seem to gravitate around certain issues to the point where certain rec lists are predictable. Ideally there would be so many people contributing here and so many posts that those personality issues would not carry over from thread to thread. I've experienced it myself where I say something in one thread, rub someone wrong and then they become serially annoying in other threads independent of the issues at hand.

I don't think Mr. Pitt hates President Obama, I think he hates what he has become and only through criticism do we have any hope of getting the president and the party back on track.

There are many policies currently being promoted by the party that are not grass roots initiatives and are wrong, wrong, wrong.

[VanillaRhapsody]

209. SO YOU are here admitting that THIS IS a takeover by Mr Pitt and his "minions" I mean "followers"

I mean..."fans" who must also hate Democrats as much as Mr Pitt does as they according to you ARE his fans....have literally come here as a coup...to take over Democratic Underground.....to teach those dirty Democrats a lesson....That means that this OP is entirely right....this is an outright coup attempt by those who hold the Democratic President and the Democrats in contempt. A TOTAL violation of the mission statement. I hope you can find a way to dig yourself out of THAT rabbit hole....

Is that what you are telling us?

[Jesus Malverde]

216. word salad..makes no sense to me.

Takeover, minions, teach lessons.

LOL talk about CT nonsense.

My post was about forum dynamics and the web as a business.

[VanillaRhapsody]

226. So very republican of you....it comes down to just dollars and cents?

So yo are saying that the Mission Statement goes out the window because Mr Pitt and his "fanatics" I mean fans have bought the Democratic Underground?

[Jesus Malverde]

235. VanillaRhapsody you need a hug.

[VanillaRhapsody]

238. I don't NEED anything....I have everything I want...AND least of all from you...

thanks anyway.....I think I will pass...

[Jesus Malverde]

243. All your anger, hyperbole, word salads, and shouting might indicate otherwise.

Peace VR

[VanillaRhapsody]

248. And your projection doesn't bother me either.....

You know the old saying....I don't get angry....

[Drew Richards]

127. Wow youre some piece of work if that is truly your opinion...perhaps YOU would be happier joining

Thirdway.org they like locked goose step support for anyone with a D in front of their name even if they are republican light.

Your purity test is no match for Will Pitts kung fu.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

138. Mr. Pitts obviously needs DU very badly for his business. nt

[Drew Richards]

168. And historically the people that have called for purges turned out to be the fanatically imbalanced.

Just saying.

Shall we list a few that have called for purity purges in history to emphasize the point?

As they say in south park...MmMmmm purges Re baaad.

[Kurovski]

322. Respect mah authorah-tay!

Cartman approves of OP!

[TroglodyteScholar]

150. Nothing about honest criticism implies being actively against electing Democrats.

You're making a huge leap, and in a way that's super lazy (ohh just read the mission statement). As though your twisted reading of it is the only possible interpretation.

Take a breath and show a little fucking respect. Odd that nobody's calling for a purge of people like you, however tempting it may be. You know why? Because most of us have an ounce of intellectual honesty. That's why.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

153. I say read the mission statement. nt

[TroglodyteScholar]

160. ...yet again. Expectations... met. n/t

[Cha]

60. So fucking used car salesman mr pitt is making money off his hate.. got it.

[Jesus Malverde]

100. No DU and Skinner are.

Don't call skinner a used car sales man, he's a web site administrator. It seems like some don't understand the revenue models of running a web site.

Sorry Cha, Mr. Pitt has contributed more today to DU's bottom line than you have. Generate some page views and lets get some revenue for DU.

Web success (for DU) = Page Views.

14K page views in one day in one post is freaking great.

Not even counting a dozen companion threads and their page views. Steak Dinners for DU courtesy of Mr. Pitt.

[Cha]

105. Pitt is too.. with his Hateout site.

[Jesus Malverde]

110. Except in this case their is no companion article at truthout

I agree that sometimes he drives traffic to truthout, this appears to be not one of those cases.

Lets blow up some page views!

Peace

[Cha]

171. I don't think Skinner is very happy with the way.. "pitt is making him money"..

> http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4734689
>
> http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4736199

Which is kinda of how I thought he would take all this "used car salesman" shite.

[Jesus Malverde]

176. Telling no lock, no ban.

Lets keep blowin up the page views.

[Cha]

183. NO, what is "telling" is the the truth in what Skinner had to say about the rat's nest

pitt is perpetrating.

[Jesus Malverde]

205. Cha do you support the Invasion of Iraq?

I think thats the only issue that needs clarifying, lets all go on record in support of the president on this or to repudiate him.

President Obamas words were shocking to me and I cannot find any place in my mind or heart to rationalize or support the invasion and destruction of Iraq.

The shock and awe of President Obamas speech defending the legacy of the Bush administration makes it clear to many, this conflicted administration is navigating without a moral compass.

[Cha]

220. That's a stupid question and you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand.

[Jesus Malverde]

228. What is stupid about it?

It seems central to the issue at hand.

Deflecting is taking the issue that occurred (President Obamas speech) and instead of debating that content, we dive down into attacking a personality who brought up an OP with comments on that content.

[LeftyMom]

52. So you can't win an argument against actual liberals, and want to get them all banned. Noted.

FWIW, I did it before it was cool. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4947481&mesg_id=4971631

[Sarah Ibarruri]

54. Read the Democratic Underground Mission Statement in the OP nt

[LeftyMom]

65. I did. I missed the part where it said Never Criticize Any Democrat, EVER.

Hell, we're allowed to say "I'm not going to vote for Dem Candidate XYZ because they're a complete shitweasel." We just can't say nobody else should. That was all hashed out when Lieberdouche was still a nominal Dem.

[yeoman6987]

84. Can you please answer Cleita's post #33

Poor Bernie Sanders kicked to the curb?????

[VanillaRhapsody]

213. Bernie supports Democrats...the question is...Do YOU?

[Capt. Obvious]

59. She's a real liberal Democrat you know

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4721376

Everyone else, get off her board!

[840high]

70. That was so ugly.

[Bluenorthwest]

106. That's ultra nasty.

Unreal.

[QC]

130. That is truly awful. n/t

[bobduca]

149. revealing

and not in a good way

[AuntPatsy]

185. Wow do tell,

[Scootaloo]

211. Holy SHIT!

For real?

For real?!

[Kurovski]

232. Pretty casual with the cruelty.

Displays Humanity more along the lines of a Rush Limbaugh

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

264. This is why she should be ignored

Roundly.

[smokey nj]

287. Disgusting post. She should be ashamed of herself.

[Marr]

299. Mean-spirited and gross. /nt

[stranger81]

309. Stop making DU suck.

That is all.

[MirrorAshes]

335. Wow. Disgusting. n/t

[mike_c]

57. calls to purge DU have gone out with some regularity over the years....

I've been a professed former democrat here since 2002. Thankfully, not all in this community are so intolerant of liberal perspectives from left of the Democratic Party.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

69. I'm merely reminding that the Mission Statement says that it's a pro-Democratic Party board, and

that electing MORE Democrats is its intention.

[Efilroft Sul]

144. Maybe more Democrats would get elected if...

They started to act like Democrats.

Until they live up to expectations, they will get the derision they deserve. Do what we told them to do, and everybody is happy on our little web site. Easy.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

148. I think the anti-Democrats not being on a Democratic Party board would be a great help, don't you?

Or perhaps that's not exactly what you had in mind?

[Efilroft Sul]

166. Nobody in the party is above criticism.

They work for us, or at least they should be.

That goes double for the standard bearer of the party.

Act like a Democrat or expect your base to get fed up with you.

[mindwalker_i]

68. So does everybody follow democratic ideals, or do we follow the people?

Because if we follow the people, then someone can call themselves a democrat but have any agenda they like, and we still have to follow them.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

72. Read the Mission Statement of DU, it's in my OP. nt

[mindwalker_i]

78. So what is the position you're advocating?

The rules don't spell out your position or what you're advocating specifically. Are you advocating election people with a "D", or people who support the democratic ideals? From a brief glance at the other replies, it seems like the confusion is not limited to me.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

79. I stated it. nt

[mindwalker_i]

93. Can you maybe be just a scoche less obtuse?

Where, specifically, did you state it and what did you say? Looking back, I see this:

I'm merely reminding that the Mission Statement says that it's a pro-Democratic Party board, and

That's fairly vague. Pro-democrat means different things to different people. Currently, there is a battle-royal between two factions: those who support the President because he's a democrat, and those who say he's not supporting democratic ideals, specifically by providing cover for the Iraq war and associated things committed in that war.

"Support Democrats" seems like "support the troops," or "go <insert sports team>" - it doesn't state anything specific.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

98. Sure! Anyone anti-Democratic Party can go find himself an anti-Democratic Party forum elsewhere. nt

[mindwalker_i]

263. And "Democratic" means different things to different people

As mentioned before, some believe in the ideals, some believe in the people. "Don't be anti-democratic" is a weak, low-information statement. It's like saying, "Don't suck."

[Sarah Ibarruri]

269. There are some differences. Bashing and trashing a Democratic President goes against the mission

statement, however.

[mindwalker_i]

277. Supporting a president with a "D" when they are doing undemocratic things

like supporting a war that included torture, goes against the mission as well. If we blindly support a "D" even when they support atrocities like that, we undermine our own arguments that we're the moral party. That, in turn, will lead to distrust in the party and to damaging the likelihood of Democrats being elected.

The point that people are making boils down to that Obama is defending the Iraq war. I don't agree with that to the extent that some here have opined, but there is some truth to it. That undermines our position.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

284. My position is to be rid of Republicans. I honestly don't know what yours is. I encourage you

to read the mission statement.

[mindwalker_i]

295. Yes you do, but I'll say it again anyway

My position is to support democratic principles. That includes not starting wars of aggression, building a strong safety net especially given the economic situation, and it includes holding powerful people accountable when they break the law. If a democrat doesn't support that, I'll argue against them.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

303. I encourage you to read the mission statement and stop playing games. Nite nt

[mindwalker_i]

317. your interpretation of the mission statement

isn't the only one. That why I don't go around accusing people of not following it - my interpretation is likely different than theirs. Like I said, everyone supports democrats in the way they think is right. Yeah, we disagree, and we fight about it. That means you have no right to say everyone has to follow your interpretation.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

331. THE DECIDER has spoken

psssst....no one gives a fuck.

[840high]

73. Good point.

[WillyT]

74. So... Joe Lieberman Was A Democrat... So Was Zell Miller... What Do You Do In Those Cases ???

[RandiFan1290]

75. lol

[Kurovski]

77. Jury results...

On Thu Mar 27, 2014, 08:24 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Given that this is a forum for Democrats, I'm all for getting rid of anyone who is not for
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024739139

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

All Skinner has to do is say leave and half of us would leave but for this one who doesn't even financially support this site telling people to leave is an insult.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 27, 2014, 08:40 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I hate DU nannies and hall monitors.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: DU is for progressive ideas. To be discussed, promoted and activated.

DU is not a tribal council for enforcing the automatic status quo, no matter the party that promotes it.

DU does however, enforce the rule about supporting Dems during actual elections. No need to follow lock-step at this time.

DU has lost many intelligent, kind and humorous progressives over the years over the inability for some members to understand the simplicity of the rules regarding this.

It is not hard to understand the rule. it just takes a little more effort to conduct oneself in a generous and mature manner, actually thinking about what a person posts. (providing it is not just pure emotion).

The actual antipathy toward progressive Dems is getting to be sad. And some motives are of course going to be questioned if one goes too far afield from the progressive view, even from A Democratic politician.. I sometimes wonder if people complaining about criticism even understand what liberal and progressive ideas are.

Please do hide the alerted thread, it is divisive and uncalled for at this time when no elections are taking place.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Get over yourself. The site boots people all the time for not not abiding by sire rules.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[mindwalker_i]

82. Sometime it seems like the alert function

is somebody's personal Uzi.

[Kurovski]

133. What times would that be? The times you agree or disagree with a decision?

Because OP's could also be considered, a what? Public uzi? I'm not agreeing with either idea as effective forms for assassins.

The owners of the site have told us repeatedly that the alert function is not being abused.

[mindwalker_i]

267. Well, since I said "it seems like..."

That is, kind of by definition, my opinion. So the times when it seems like that would then be the times it seems like that to me.

[Kurovski]

296. Thank you for a response

to my tetchy post.

I was reading it as a mild accusation, which on reflection I'm sure it wasn't.

[mindwalker_i]

300. No problemo

It's been that kind of a day

[Kurovski]

311. No shite.

[mindwalker_i]

319. But you know, it's kind of fun

Rough, but fun

[Kurovski]

325. Rough and tumble

--not as much kissing and making-up afterword as there use to be.

"put up yer dukes, varmit!!"

[Sarah Ibarruri]

83. Thanks for posting that. nt

[In_The_Wind]

88. I like the way juror number 2 thinks.

[Kurovski]

139. I'll drink to that.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

86. And Republicans should go to their forum, not to a pro-Democratic Party forum, which this is nt

[Thinkingabout]

90. I am with you, we have elections coming up and need to focus

On getting Democrats elected. We don't need the disruptions to keep us from reaching our goals.

In several states the primary process is occurring. Until we can take back Congress in order to start reversing the makeup of the SC. The sideline noise is much too long and loud. Spin the negative energy towards GOTV.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

92. Thank you! nt

[Niceguy1]

94. so our pres can never do wrong?

Are we allowed to point ut out?

[Vashta Nerada]

95. So you want to keep the status quo intact?

Got it.

The 1% thank you.

[Bluenorthwest]

96. I find this OP about following the rules to be against the rules. SOP of GD says 'no whining

about DU. Waving a rule book around while not respecting the rules yourself is an interesting choice. Presuming to speak as and for the admins is also interesting.

[tclambert]

97. I dunno. I kinda find the trolls and troll-ish sorts mildly amusing.

Sometimes the posts hidden by jury decisions make me laugh out loud.

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. You know by your defintion I should be banned

let me see

I am NOT a registered member of the California Democratic Party, nor intend to go register.

I am not working on campaigns, (it would be a crass crossing of lines as a reporter, but hell, who is counting)

I am not actively working to elect democrats. I just interview them and let the reader make their decision.

That said, I have worked actively in things like yes, covering Occupy, labor, and government issues. Trying to make it understandable for the general public. But by your definition, never mind I am working on this in the front lines... hell last Monday had to cover a non liberal issue such as raising the minimum wage in my city, but I should be banned.

Tell me exactly what have you done, not here, in real life?

I know some of you wish we all went away. This is dangerous, freeperish and unamerican. Granted, this is a private website, so the owners can and will do what they want (and a purge is coming, like every election), but this call is kind of not shocking anymore. You know what they say about echo chambers? Go ask Karl Rove. He surely fell for his.

[VanillaRhapsody]

222. Read the mission statement....

that is all....it is what it is....

[Lizzie Poppet]

103. Bad Idea Hall of Fame candidate.

For one thing, non-Democrats of liberal persuasion have always been welcome. There are literally millions of liberal Americans who don't register Democrat. Many of them (like me) consider the party to be not liberal enough on many policy points...like kowtowing to Wall Street. We do, however, "understand the importance of electing more Democrats to office." And we vote that way.

I'd venture to say that this site was never intended to be exclusively for Democrats. It's for liberals.

[madinmaryland]

104. Oh, fer FUCK Sakes...

Just because Mr. Pitt does not agree with President Obama's comments does not mean that he supports the Republican Party.

I think you need to step back and take a few deep breaths.

[Vashta Nerada]

112. You win the thread.

[Tx4obama]

114. Hmmm...

So, you think that someone that says 'Fuck You' to the head of the Democratic Party ... and also calls the head of the Democratic Party a 'piece of shit used car salesman' is supporting the Democratic Party?

[madinmaryland]

131. Did you read his post??

Where did it say 'piece of shit used car salesman'

"Moreover, Russia has pointed to America’s decision to go into Iraq as an example of Western hypocrisy. Now, it is true that the Iraq War was a subject of vigorous debate not just around the world, but in the United States as well. I participated in that debate and I opposed our military intervention there. But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory. We did not grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people and a fully sovereign Iraqi state that could make decisions about its own future."

- Obama, in Brussells, yesterday

An amazing amount of bullshit in one paragraph. We ran roughshod over the international community to get that war going. If an invasion and ten-year occupation isn't annexation, then nothing is. We totally, totally grabbed their resources, because the oil was supposed to "pay for the war," as I recall...and there were gas lines in Iraq for years after the invasion, because we were sitting on their oil like it was our own private piggy bank. And as for the state we left Iraq in, thousands upon thousands of people have been killed in the sectarian strife we left behind. They aren't making decisions about their future. They're running for their damned lives.

The used car salesman is trying to sell the lemon that was the Iraq war in order to avoid sounding like a hypocrite about Russia.

Utterly nauseating.

Do you disagree with what he is saying in his post?

That is what the post said: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4734511

[Tx4obama]

177. Perhaps you missed it... see the OP on the link below

What I've learned about the Affordable Care Act

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024685964

[madinmaryland]

195. I assume you must understand Mr. Pitt's reason for writing this book...

This is the reason for his commentary, as would Cindy Sheehan.

[Tx4obama]

199. There is NEVER a good reason to say 'Fuck You' to Obama on a Democratic website...

... or to call him a 'piece of shit used car salesman'.

It's one thing to criticize 'policy' it is another to personally attack someone with vulgar language.

[madinmaryland]

210. There is NEVER a good reason to say For President Obama to say on a Democratic website...

that there was anything actually positive about that debacle.

[In_The_Wind]

116. Yes, indeed.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

124. I think Mr. Pitt needs to stop making his income by attacking Democrats on Democratic Underground nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

132. But it was fine while he uncovered the malfeasance of the Bush administration?

I think it is time you take a deep breath and step back for a second.

[madinmaryland]

140. So you believe Mr. Pitt and everyone else here should fall in lock step behind whatever

President Obama says?

Really?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

143. Read the Democratic Underground mission statement. And ask Mr. Pitts to read it as well nt

[madinmaryland]

163. Well, I assume this is what you are referring to:

Vote for Democrats.

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

..snip

From what I have "read" in the Terms of Service, there does not seem to be anything wrong with what Mr. Pitt said.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

165. You mean...

this ---> "Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground."

Yep, that.

[madinmaryland]

173. Where did Mr. Pitt do that?

He was not happy with President Obama's comments (as was I), but where does that involve advocating Republican nominees or third party candidates?

[nadinbrzezinski]

276. He did not

but somehow being critical of the POTUS, is advocating for Republicans, unless of course, he advocates against a Republican POTUS, which Will has done, then he is advocating for Democrats. Yes, it is that convoluted.

[arcane1]

107. I suppose we can never talk about primaries, then.

We have to let the Party tell us what We Stand For, and vote for whomever they tell us to vote for.

[nadinbrzezinski]

159. And what happens when we have TWO candidates, one endorsed by the party

the second not so much!!!!

[bvar22]

108. I AM a PROUD DEMOCRAT,

and THESE are the Democratic Party Values and Goals I signed up for in 1967:

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be [font size=3]established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

---FDR, State of the Union Address, 1944

Please note the FDR specified the above as Fundamental Human Rights,
and NOT as Commodities to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

Over the years, I have stayed committed to these Democratic Party Values & Goals.
Unfortunately, the Party leadership has drifted far to the conservative Right.

I have the responsibility to point that out as loudly and a frequently as possible,
not because I hate the Democrats,
but because I still LOVE the Democratic Party,
and pray that it can be returned to the FDR/Working Class values that made it great.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.

Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right.

Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. [font size=3]To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.[/font]"

T. Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star,
May 7, 1918

[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[Tx4obama]

122. There is a huge difference between 'criticizing' the president and ...

... saying 'Fuck You' to the President... and also calling the President a 'piece of shit used car salesman'.

The name calling toward our DEMOCRAT President is disgusting and in my opinion everyone should be speaking out against it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

135. I totally agree. nt

[bvar22]

180. Isn't THAT a Republican Value...

...to never speak ill of a Republican President?
Yes?

I grew up with Hard Core Democrats,
and participated in GOTV campaigns before I could legally join The Party.
A sign of a Good Democrat in the Party I grew up in was How Much HELL could be delivered to the Party Leadership when Leadership let us down.

Democrats are NOT Republicans.
We have never marched lock step,
or put lipstick on The Pig when it was time to be honest (or at last we didn't used to do that).

I thought Will was over the top,
but Will IS a Hardcore, Passionate DEMOCRAT.
As a Passionate, Hardcore DEMOCRAT,
I understand.

I can also see why you do NOT understand.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

229. I disagree. Trashing the Democratic President is exactly what Republicans do. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

109. K&R

[Sarah Ibarruri]

120. Thanks! nt

[Marr]

113. So go play in the BOG. It meets all your criteria, is boring as hell, and lightly trafficked. /nt

[Maedhros]

115. When Democrats do the wrong thing, we need to let them know loud and clear that it pisses us off.

When Democrats do the right thing, we need to also be loud and clear with our praise.

Then, maybe they will do the right thing more often.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

125. I couldn't agree more. That's it exactly. nt

[Progressive dog]

123. The electing Democrats part has apparently gone out the window

and been replaced by attacking Democratic elected officials over everything and anything.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

136. Apparently. nt

[obxhead]

129. What is a Democrat?

Is it someone who simply files for a race and places a (D) beside their name?

or

Is it someone who supports liberal values and fights for social equality?

Personally I support the latter and will fight to have them unseat the former, regardless of their party affiliation.

[MrMickeysMom]

157. Now you're talking...

This is actually where the conversation should proceed.

Big tent… herding cats, debate, doing your homework. progress through survival of clean air and water, sustainable industrial revolution…

Re-think the party committee think and get behind local candidates within the platform …

[winter is coming]

147. What happens to Democratic candidates who aren't for Democratic goals? n/t

[LostOne4Ever]

152. I would be happy if they would simply

make the rules applicable to an ordinary member of DU apply to posts directed to the president. A post insulting another DUer simply because they disagreed, or because of something another DUer never did, would be hidden.

YET, its perfectly okay to hurl insults and baseless accusations against a DEMOCRATIC president and overall ally to the liberal cause? At the very least I would think a democratic forum would insist on people being polite and civil with regards to OUR president.

This would allow for people to criticize the president when they honestly disagree, but would also bring a small degree of civility to these discussions.

Cause really that is what these wars are about: Being complete asshats to each other.

Group A is attacks the president and his supporters in an inflammatory manner. Group B gets insulted and then defends the president and themselves and launching a counter attack. This in turn evokes another counter attack and the situation just continues to devolve with the RW trolls hiding on both sides egging it further and further on causing increased polarization of the site and mini civil wars.



If we would treat each other and the President with the same respect that we give any other stranger we might meet on the street, then we could discuss things rationally and see that there are human beings on the other side of the monitor each arguing for what they think is best.



But rather than do that we would rather engage in trolling and polemics.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

155. I agree. nt

[bl968]

156. I disagree

So I don't and won't support Hillary as a democratic candidate for president, so show me the door is that how it works in your view? Not in this life time.

We can't have a vibrant and healthy democratic party or democratic process if we exclude those who don't follow the herd.

The name of this site is Democratic Underground, we as a community welcome those who may disagree with the party and those who disagree with the way they feel candidates will take us and our nation if they are elected.

I have no issues flat out stating that I will never support Hillary Clinton for President, if that means I get shown the door so be it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

158. I'm sure people against Democrats do disagree with the mission statement nt

[bobduca]

161. oh look the same 30-40 bog loyalists rec'd this pogrom bullshit

[Sarah Ibarruri]

162. Are you saying you disagree with the Democratic Underground mission statement? nt

[Scootaloo]

184. You mean the one that welcomes liberals?

Or the right-wing myopic view you're taking, calling for mass purge of those who may disagree with policies or particular politicians?

Because only one of those is actually in the DU mission statement, and it's not the one you're calling for.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

206. Liberals who understand that electing more Democrats is the mission nt

[Scootaloo]

227. Not if they're not liberal democrats

I'm sorry, I don't belong to the school of thought that says a conservative glob of frog-spawn like, say, Arlen Specter, can just hang a D next to his name an expect me to give a shit.

Do you understand the principle at work there? Do you understand the word "principle," even?

When the party represents me, I vote for the party. When the party does not, I vote for someone else who does.

This ain't fantasy football. I'm going for whoever represents my issues, not some right-wing blue dog nitwit who thinks he can count on my blind, thoughtless loyalty to a ticket to keep him funded for another four to six years while he works against my interests.

Nor should anyone else. Primary the bloated ratfucker, if you really must have a democrat. But i promise you, the only way you'll get sound liberal policy is by electing liberals. if you have to break party ranks to do so, then that's what you do.

[paleotn]

198. i think she's saying that....

...you're acting like some two bit neo-fascist. Conform or be cast out! Next thing you know, you'll be complaining that our shirts aren't brown enough and our boots aren't "jack" enough.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

204. No, I think I'm repeating the Democratic Underground Mission Statement, which is in my op nt

[neverforget]

330. And here are the Jury Results:

On Thu Mar 27, 2014, 09:52 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

oh look the same 30-40 bog loyalists rec'd this pogrom bullshit
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4739837

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Needless callout and personal attack on DUers

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 27, 2014, 10:02 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I get tired of seeing "bog loyalist" or similar labels used to insult DUers for supporting a Dem president, but this post doesn't really seem a call out of the sort that violates the TOS. BTW, I also find the OP annoying and a serious misreading of the site's mission statement, which explicitly permits criticism of Dem politicians, but not any posts during an election that aim to undermine Dem electoral success. I also wish someone would smack the OP for incessantly repeating the same"La-la-la-la! I can't heeeaaarrr you!" BS post in response to others' attempts to argue.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not hide worthy.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: "You piece of shit used car salesman" is fine here on DU, then this should be, too.

But the first statement was totally and completely wrong and should have been terminated with extreme prejudice, and so should this call-out.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[bobduca]

337. Thanks n/t

[TroglodyteScholar]

164. Sorry. Alert on my post if you want. This OP is trolling.

The OP is literally replying to every contrary reply with a canned 4 word answer (read the mission statement) within a minute of the reply.

This isn't someone with a viewpoint worthy of discussion. This is someone pushing buttons. Hide the thread.

[Iliyah]

167. I was a Indy. Got effing fed up with the constant bashing

of President Clinton and joined the Democratic Party. Then I found and joined the DU in 2008, it was a place where like minded people had constructive conversations. Not so much now. I'm still gonna come here because a great many DUers are such kind posters and I still can get news information as well.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

170. Thank you. nt

[Scootaloo]

172. Nothing says "Democratic Party" like lockstep dogmatic adherence to whoever's in charge!

[cer7711]

179. Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders . . .

Last edited Thu Mar 27, 2014, 11:21 PM - Edit history (1)

. . . is worth 100 blue-dawg DINOs.

Shall we purge him? From the Senate?

[Violet_Crumble]

181. Only if I can be all for getting rid of anyone who posts cute kittie OPs in GD...

And also anyone who repeatedly exhibits appalling taste in music.

I'm not unreasonable about it. I suggest imposing a quota of one cute kittie OP a week, but once they blow that, the kittie purging committee will be ruthless.

As far as Bob Dylan, Beatles, Nickelback, etc, fans go, I don't believe in taking prisoners, and a scorched earth policy will be strictly enforced....

[BlueStreak]

187. Does it make any difference that Will's point was actually correct?

You can object to his language if you want, but his essential point was correct.

The insurance bastards are working a loophole. basically they are covering pre-existing diseases, but nobody said they had to cover the treatment. That is horrible. That is bullshit. And that is a direct result of letting the insurance crooks retain control of their scam. And that is a direct result of Obama taking single payer off the table before discussions ever started.

If there were under Medicare, the treatment would have been covered, no questions asked.

Did Obama personally plot to give the insurance companies this loophole? No. probably not. But he is the one who decided that the crooks should be left in charge, so he is fully responsible for the consequences of that.

I won't use the language that Will used. But then, my wife is not having her health ruined by it either. I don't blame him.

We could have gotten a much better system. We ended up getting zero Republican votes. Why the hell did we pass a Republican plan when we didn't even get any Republican votes? That is horrible -- worse than any thing I've ever seen any car salesman do.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

190. Mr. Pitts needs to create his own forum to bash Democrats and to bash our Democratic Party president

Surely he could manage that, no?

[BlueStreak]

201. So you are the one who decides what are true Democratic values?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

208. Actually I copied and pasted them off the DU Mission Statement nt

[djean111]

202. Or, perhaps you could create YOUR own forum to bash those who do not blindly support a person

instead of Democratic principles. Just think - you could hand-pick all the members!
You could manage that, n'est-ce pas?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

207. Why? I actually agree with the mission statement to elect more Democrats and support Democrats. nt

[BlueStreak]

215. And it is your opinion that this goat rodeo of a HC system is helping elect Democrats?

Please explain how that works.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

218. Excuse me? nt

[BlueStreak]

237. By your reasoning, all discussion of Obama should be forbidden on this site

because the ACA mess is making it HARDER to elect Democrats. Therefore Obama is against the election of Democrats, therefore he is not welcome here.

I'm just trying to follow your reasoning.

The mission says this is for :"politically liberal people". Obama is anything but a politically liberal persn.

The mission says that this site is for "Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government". Obama is not helping that effort at all. Between the ACA and the NSA, he has don't more to hurt our 2014 election chances than anybody on the planet.

So read your own OP.

Just to be clear, I am not in favor of banning praise of Obama from this site, any more than I am in favor of blocking your posts.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

239. I'm saying that bashing and trashing our Democratic Party president should not be permitted, yes nt

[BlueStreak]

249. It is fair to speak factually about the consequences of the President's decision

to force 6 million people to buy insurance from crooks?

It is one thing if the insurance actually does what it is promised to do -- i.e. cover all pre-existing conditions. When even that most basic promise proves to not be true, where does that leave us? At what point would it be fair for a person to discuss that?

[djean111]

250. Some of us expect more from a Democrat than just that "D" on their jersey.

If elected Democrats do not uphold Democratic principles, than they should not be supported. Seems like a TOS right there! :-O

[Sarah Ibarruri]

257. I think you've never seen the Democratic Underground Mission Statement. I have it in my OP nt

[djean111]

262. You keep repeating those words.

I Do Not Think They Mean What You Think They Mean......good night, and all that.

[BlueStreak]

272. You are hiding from the central point

Either answer the point or go away. Simple as that. If you just keep referring to the mission statement without supporting your argument, you come across like a troll. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not trolling and genuinely believe there is some conflict with the mission statement.

So answer this point please. You specifically underlined the sentence that reads "Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government"

The essence of Will's complaint was that there is yet another gaping flaw in the HC plan that Obama made us all swallow. If that makes it LESS likely that Democrats will be elected, then according to the mission statement, it is our DUTY to understand that and make plans accordingly. Obama has put the entire party in a terrible situation, and denying that doesn't help matters.

Now please tell me why you think criticism of the consequences of the President's HC plan should be off limits if the result is it REDUCES our changes of accomplishing the mission statement.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

274. You are not listening. I said that bashing a Democratic President is NOT part of the mission

statement here, and that if Mr. Pitts is not happy with the mission statement, I'm sure he's a powerhouse and can build a whole forum all for himself where he can bash the Democratic President all he likes.

[BlueStreak]

305. Are you complaining about the choice of words or the essential point?

Please be more clear. I would agree with you that the choice of words was not helpful.

But if you are suggesting that a factual discussion of what seems to be a major loophole the insurance crooks are now using, is contrary to this site's mission, I think you are wrong. Moreover, this is none of your damn business. If the site owners or mods feel there was a serious breach in conformity with the mission statement, they are certainly at liberty to act as they see fit.

[Warren Stupidity]

212. nobody cares. It is a food fight! Purge! Counter-purge!

[paleotn]

189. "Getting rid" of anyone?

.....what are you, a teathuglican or something? Or maybe you've just not been alive long enough to realize that Democrats and Liberals in general are a lot like herding cats. We've been that way since the days of Will Rogers, for God's sake. We don't do lock step, goddamn it! We're not automatons so you damn sure better get use to that. That's precisely what separates us from the neo-fascists on the right (wrong) wing. And lastly, you can take your interpretation of the mission statement and stuff it where the sun don't shine, sweetie! I, personally help fund this site. Apparently you do not.

...patiently awaiting this post being blocked....because quite frankly, I don't give a shit.

[IkeRepublican]

223. Good call

I read this thread's beginning notes and thought, "What's with this Gee-Dubya 'with us or against us' sh*t?'"

Sure, it's preferable to support our Democrat candidates, but in truth there are a few democrat candidates are simply not up to the job, rolling over and groveling in apology any time the teapublicans crank up their feign-outrage machine. And those individuals need to be criticized as such.

[Jamaal510]

214. That's what I've

been getting at all along. The site has "Democratic" in its name, and the mission statement does mention electing more Democrats, like you said. I don't see what is so difficult to understand, and why the TOS isn't being enforced more often.

I actually didn't find this place until the 2012 GOP primaries, as I was Googling some anti-GOP stuff one day when I was bored. When I first came here, this place seemed like a breath of fresh air from not only the pro-Ron Paul/libertarian comments that I was used to seeing in YouTube comments, but also from RWNJs in general. I absolutely fell in love with DU.

Ever since the election, however, I'm seeing an increasing amount of hyperbolic stuff like "vote for the lesser of two evils", "Obama used car salesman...warmonger...authoritarian...puppet of the 1%" etc. I have tried to somewhat keep my cool about it and not ruffle any feathers, but I have to vent about it some more, too. None of that stuff IMO belongs on a pro-Democratic party site. A real supporter of Democrats would know that the Democrats are not the lesser of two evils, but arguably are instead a necessary good for many people who may be disadvantaged and less well-off in the country. Obama is not a "used-car salesman". He is a horrible warmonger, he is one of the worst authoritarians I've ever seen, and he sucks as a puppet of the 1%. Billionaire puppet masters like the Koch Brothers have spent millions to thwart his agenda and to avoid paying higher wages and taxes. Real warmongers like John "McMuffin" McCain and Willard Romney have railed against him since Day 1, portraying him as weak for not invading countries willy-nilly. And real authoritarians like Putin have utmost contempt for him and the West. The average self-described Democrat should know this.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

221. Exactly! And anyone who hates Democrats, or our Democratic President or hates the mission statement

doesn't have to come here, stay here, or post here.

They can create their own little whatever elsewhere.

[Paulie]

224. Lobbying (an amoral activity which ensures that the rich and corporations get their favorite lackeys

elected)

Some of those lackeys have a "D" next to their names...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

236. Are you working to get lobbyists banned from the Congress floor and from writing legislation? nt

[Paulie]

254. No, I try not to let the lackeys win in the primaries

Because unless you keep them out you can't change the law...

You didn't actually comment on my post, just asked a question in return. Perhaps you can spare a moment and explain how you deal with your Faustian bargain I posted about?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

256. Wrong. There are many things you can do, and are not doing. nt

[Paulie]

258. Again you do not answer

Perhaps it's not on your "script"?

[Zorra]

225. Root out the anti-Democrat Third Way and toss 'em, then. Fine with me, most of them are MIC

trolls shilling for the 1% anyway.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

230. Did you read the Democratic Underground Mission Statement? It's copied in my OP nt

[Marr]

310. +1

[BlueStreak]

246. No me. I have a litmus test that any real Democrat should be able to pass.

How many of these points would Obama pass? I'll give him credit for #2 (pushing for minimum wage). He has actively worked against us on #3, #5, and #9, and hasn't done much on any of the others.

[winter is coming]

240. Like most mission statements, it's supposed to be an objective, not a cudgel.

But if you want to go waving it around like someone brandishing a crucifix at a vampire, knock yourself out. It's hilarious.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

244. A mission is there for a purpose, not for decorative purposes.

There are plenty of political forums out there, and they all have missions. People should find the forum with the mission that fits them best, don't you agree?

[winter is coming]

260. Perhaps DU fits them best. You don't get to make that decision for others. n/t

[Throd]

241. After we purge the unworthy, we true believers should get some kind of cool uniform.

And yes, I have read the mission statement a few times.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

245. Clearly not with any focused attention. nt

[Scootaloo]

265. Don't forget the secret handshake!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

271. You know, if you don't like the mission statement here, the Internet is VAST! Go looking for

something you find much more pleasing.

[Scootaloo]

282. I've not got a problem with it, Sarah

In fact if anything, you do. It outright states that DU welcomes liberals. It says nothing about loyalty oaths. It says nothing about purging the unfaithful. There us no DU version of Credere, obbedire, combattere or Führer befiehl, wir folgen dir.

Why?

Because that's not how democrats work. Never has been, and gods of delusion willing, never will be.

You're getting Democrats confused with Republicans, is your problem. I suspect it may be because you're far more familiar with the latter than the former?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

292. It clearly states what DU's goal is. And trashing the president is against that goal. nt

[Judi Lynn]

253. I can't imagine any progressive person doesn't yearn for the outstanding progressive DU'ers

who have been driven away by sustained hate campaigns against them by the conspicuous right-wingers here posing as Democrats.

There have been deeply, fantastically intelligent, caring, resourceful, joyous people posting here over the years who called the right-wingers here on their viciousness, their total absence of moral value, respect for the human race, their eagerness to do damage to leftists here, who simply got attacked so relentlessly, monstrously they eventually just faded away, leaving this system a whole lot emptier, a whole lot less lively, a lot less friendly with their departures.

It's truly horrendous seeing the ones who lived to assault them on a daily basis still making their rounds now, attacking NEW progressives they've not savaged before, anticipating new destruction they can wreak. I can't imagine that was the original direction any creators would have had in mind for this great idea they had.

It's easy to see what you were thinking when you posted the O.P. It's clear the wingers flew at you like bats outta hell, too, to give you the best pounding they had within them!

There ARE lots of people who DO know what you meant, who have wondered why the right-wing mock progressives here never even bother to pretend to respect the guidelines you mentioned which I took seriously when I joined.

attacking progressive posters, they are able to outshout the topics, and destroy the communication we need, and come here to find. That's their pay-off.

We will STILL get our information to each other, one way or another. Thank you, Sarah.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

266. Exactly, and thanks!

I can actually name a few Neo-Cons in here posing as Democrats. They're so dingy they then run back to their right wing websites and post the exactly same dumb comments they made in here and name the Democrats they alerted on, etc.

That's why I posted the Mission Statement of DU. Hopefully it will be enforced and the Neo-Cons will be butt-kicked right back to the pig farm they came from.

What I'm wondering is how many of them actually get paid by the GOP.

[BlueStreak]

289. Excuse me, but I don't think that blindly supporting one man is the same as being progressive

especially when this one man has been so hostile to so many progressive values. If you two are implying that Will Pitt has not been a fighter for progress, I don't think you will get much support for that position. It seems to me the criticism is coming from people far MORE progressive-minded than you, not from the right wing.

Just for the record, I am not an Obama hater. I campaigned for him twice and appreciate some of the things he has done. But he has mostly been a disappointment -- a story of missed opportunities and unnecessary capitulations. Regardless of how we feel about his Presidency, he is a lame duck now if we cannot accomplish an historic turnaround in the next 6 months. Even in the best of circumstances, all Obama can do now is maintain the status quo and maybe get a few more judicial appointments through. Discussing his agenda seems really pointless. Learning from his biggest mistakes is wise. Figuring out how we can salvage something from the ACA mess without letting the GOP completely pick it apart seems like a very worthy discussion and that is exactly what Will was doing, albeit using unnecessarily confrontational language.

[freshwest]

301. And thank you, Judi Lynn, for your analysis of what DU has lost. Many compassionate people are gone.

[Bobbie Jo]

321. Excellent post. nt

[Iliyah]

278. Yes the RW trolls are in full force here, no doubt about that

But alas, progressives/liberals do overcome and yes, one of our goals here at the DU is to promote and elect Democratic candidates, and I know we do pick Democratic candidates with democratic values. We also promote Independents with similar values as well.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

281. Yup, right wing rats are in here posing as DUers. But there are also the do-nothing whiners who

think it's amusing to repeat Republican Party soundbytes. They even attack the President using the same terminology Republicans do.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

283. Burn the heathens that dare question why. Party before logic and party before things that are right

Does is purge include those that support Blue Dog Democrats, DLC types, ANSWER people and the rest that aren't as liberal as my hero Bernie Sanders?

Are we going to become the Whig Party too? Political and ideological purity tests?

[awoke_in_2003]

285. I only vote for democrats

even if I have to hold my nose sometimes. So, if I say something critical of a democrat, am I no longer a democrat in your eyes?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

288. Do you trash and insult the president, to give one example? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

291. Oy

[awoke_in_2003]

304. I disagree with him at times...

but trash him? I don't think so, although some may say my disagreement with him is trashing. I still remember the first time I voted for him. Growing up I never though I would have the opportunity to vote for a viable African American candidate. Our country is just too fucked up. When I did cast my vote, even though it didn't means squat since I live in Texas, I got really emotional in the booth. My vote my not have mattered, but I felt it did. Maybe I am just an overly sentimental white guy, but I did have a big lump in my throat.

On edit: I am 45, and that was the first time I actually felt my vote meant something.

[Hissyspit]

293. PURGE!

Last edited Fri Mar 28, 2014, 12:09 AM - Edit history (1)

Purify the blood by the bloodletting!








Heh, Will Pitt IS for Democratic goals.

[BrentWil]

302. Democratic goals?

It's actually is a pretty big party. There are some pretty conservative democrats out there.

[ljm2002]

313. I wanna play!

Mission Statement

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

Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
Having fun!

After more than a decade online, Democratic Underground still hosts the most active liberal discussion board on the Internet. We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic Party. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards. There is no other website quite like it anywhere on the Internet.

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

I would like to direct your attention again to this part of the Mission Statement:

Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards

No, we don't need any purges.

[BlueStreak]

333. +1, or should I say ...

+1

Or better yet

Mission Statement

Democratic Underground is [font color="gray"]an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

Interacting with friendly, [/font]like[font color="gray"]-minded people;
Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and[/font]
Having [font color="gray"]fun!

After more than [/font]a[font color="gray"] decade online, Democratic Underground still hosts the most active liberal discussion board on the Internet. We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic [/font]Party[font color="gray"]. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards. There is no other website quite like it anywhere on the Internet.

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

When you can just pick and choose words out of context, you can say anything.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

316. Pathetic OP.

[Walk away]

323. You should do what I did with Will. Put him on "ignore".

He's only out for himself. He just wants long threads filled with arguments and lots of attention.
The more people who ignore him, the less interest he'll generate. Then he and his fellow haters can circle jerk posts about the evils of The Affordable Care Act and Obama the Devil Incarnate.

[DonCoquixote]

328. frankly, those who want purges

are the first that should be purged.

And yes, I am fully aware that many people from many sides have called for blood. I have seen some that are on the farther left call for it, and I damned well have seen the DLC right wing of the party call for it. Both want to destroy the idea of the "big tent." Both speak as if we ditched the other, we could finally be that party we used to be (back in what Tariq Ali would call "the time that thankfully, never was.) I could post a bunch of blue links, but that has and of itself become hated around here.

And yes, I am fully aware that there are paid operatives whose main job is to pretend to be liberal online and stir the shit. These are the folks that get tombstoned than brag about it on the right wing sites, making fun of us for the fact we gave them so much benefit of the doubt.

With that being said, the minute we start attacking each other, we fall right into the plan our enemies want. There is only so much harm an outside enemy can do. Let's be honest, if the GOP did not have the consensus making (which is to say, brain melting) forces of Television ads, false "news", and Churches, they would have fallen into the sea a long time ago. Even now they are at each other's throats, but they stop just long enough to slash at ours.

What we need to do is form consensus on what we are, and those that cannot do so can indeed be told they will lose our support. But that does not mean we do an active PURGE. That does not mean we lash out at each OTHER.

[JoeyT]

332. Hell yeah, purge the heretics!

There weren't many repercussions from the last purging, when a bunch of LGBT people that were pissed off about Rick Warren and Obama opposing marriage equality got wiped out. Most of the posters that kicked it off are still here, even if they like to pretend it totally never happened. It's an event that should never be allowed to fall down the memory hole, though, since it will make it harder for the same lot to foment another purge.

[neverforget]

336. Monty Python describes this best in The Holy Grail:

[one_voice]

338. I'm locking this...

it doesn't meet SOP for GD. Sorry.